supreme court cases

0.0(0)
studied byStudied by 0 people
0.0(0)
linked notesView linked note
full-widthCall Kai
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
GameKnowt Play
Card Sorting

1/14

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced
Call with Kai

No study sessions yet.

15 Terms

1
New cards

mapp v. ohio (1961)

  • information:

    • police went into dollree mapp’s with a fake warrant

      • she was presumed to be affiliated with a bomber —> was arrested

  • amendment:

    • mapp felt it was a violation of her 4th amendment rights

      • the exclusionary rule

  • lower court:

    • voted against mapp

  • supreme court:

    • voted 6-3 for mapp (was a violation)

      • applies to everyone

      *all evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court —> exclusionary rule

2
New cards

gideon v. wainwright (1963)

  • information:

    • gideon arrested for breaking and entering (was poor)

      • he could not get an attorney

  • amendment:

    • he read in jail that he was supposed to get a lawyer but he didn’t, felt like a violation of his 6th amendment rights

      • right to an attorney

  • lower court:

    • voted against gideon

  • supreme court:

    • ruled unanimous for gideon (was a violation)

      *all defendants receive public defenders if they cannot afford an attorney if they request for one

      “necessities, not luxuries”

3
New cards

miranda v. arizona (1966)

  • information:

    • ernesto miranda committed rape

      • testified against himself (he didn’t know his rights)

  • amendment:

    • he didn’t know his rights and was a victim of self-incrimination, which he felt was a violation of his 5th amendment rights

      • due process —> self-incrimination

  • lower court:

    • voted against miranda (said that he should’ve known his rights)

  • supreme court:

    • ruled 5-4 for miranda (was a violation)

      *people must be told their rights at the time of arrest

      • miranda rights: application of the 5th amendment

4
New cards

lemon v. kurtzman (1971)

  • information:

    • lemon was mad about his taxpayer funds are going to religious schools

      • (especially of those he did not support)

  • amendment:

    • sued because of the 1st amendment

      • establishment clause

  • lower court:

    • voted against lemon (money is being used for non-religious purposes)

  • supreme court:

    • ruled 8-1 for lemon (was a violation)

      *tax money and government cannot fund private schools

      • lemon test

5
New cards

gregg v. georgia (1976)

  • information:

    • troy leon gregg murdered a couple hitchhiking

      • did not plan to murder but to rob (found guilty)

  • amendment:

    • gregg believe the death penalty was a violation of his 8th amendment rights

      • excessive punishment

  • lower court:

    • voted against gregg (for the state)

  • supreme court:

    • ruled 7-2 for the state (was NOT a violation)

      *death penalty can be used as a punishment (if the court follows due process)

      • overturned furman v. georgia that abolished the death penalty for 4 years

6
New cards

in re gault (1967)

  • information:

    • gault (15) was taken into custody for a prank call

      • parents were not notified

  • amendment:

    • parents sued because they felt like the 5th amendment was violated

      • due process (how far it extended)

  • supreme court:

    • ruled 8-1 for gault (was a violation)

      *due process rights and procedures must be followed on all levels of government, especially for minors

      • this also applies in schools

7
New cards

tinker v. des moines (1969)

  • information:

    • mary beth tinker and christopher eckhardt were suspended for wearing armbands

      • vietnam era: children wore black bands for peace

        • john tinker was suspend the next day

  • amendment:

    • parents sued as they felt it was a violation for the 1st amendment

      • freedom of speech

  • lower court:

    • voted for the school

  • supreme court:

    • ruled 7-2 for students

      • schools needed to prove it was a distraction (was a violation)

        *schools can only limit if it is distracting to students and causes a disruption to learning

8
New cards

new jersey v. tlo (1985)

  • information:

    • tlo was caught smoking and her bag was searched without her consent

      • told that they cannot search her bag

  • amendment:

    • felt like a violation of her 4th amendment rights

      • exclusionary rule

  • lower court:

    • voted for tlo (warrant was needed)

  • supreme court:

    • ruled 6-3 for new jersey (was NOT a violation)

      • the search was reasonable

      *the exclusionary rule is not applied in schools —> students can be searched with just reasonable SUSPICION

9
New cards

bethel v. fraser (1986)

  • information:

    • matt fraser was suspended for two days for reading a lewd speech (stuco speech for his bff jeff)

      • caused disruptions (students were laughing)

  • amendment:

    • he sued because he felt like it was a violation of the 1st amendment

      • freedom of speech

  • lower court:

    • voted for the school

  • supreme court:

    • ruled 7-2 for the school (was NOT a violation)

      *schools can limit speech if it is lewd or vulgar

10
New cards

hazelwood boe v. kuhlmeier (1988)

  • information:

    • kuhlmeier wrote on birth, pregnancy, and divorce in the school newspaper (had lots of stigma against it at the time)

      • the principal, however, removed the articles

  • amendment:

    • sued the districts because she felt like of was a violation of the 1st amendment

      • freedom of speech and press

  • lower court:

    • voted for kuhlmeier (impacts the community as well)

  • supreme court:

    • ruled 5-3 for the school (was NOT a violation)

      • was a part of the school curriculum

      *if students’ voice does not align with the school’s, it does not have to be allowed and can be restricted

11
New cards

thompson v. oklahoma (1988)

  • information:

    • william thompson convicted of 1st degree murder of charles keene (got sentenced the death penalty)

  • amendment:

    • felt like a violation of the 8th amendment (should not have to be sentenced at 15)

      • cruel and unjust punishment

  • lower court:

    • voted for the state

  • supreme court:

    • ruled 5-3 for thompson (was a violation)

      • revoked his death sentence

      *those of 15 or younger cannot get the death penalty (too young)

12
New cards

board of education v. earls (2002)

  • information:

    • school initiated a drug testing policy (urine samples)

      • occurs if you are a part of after school and extracurricular activities

  • amendment:

    • felt like a violation of the 4th amendment

      • unreasonable search and seizures

  • lower court:

    • voted for earls (the school needed cause for doing so)

  • supreme court:

    • ruled 5-4 for the school (was NOT a violation)

      *schools can continue to conduct suspicionless drug testing for those involved in any extracurriculars

13
New cards

morse v. frederick (2005)

  • information:

    • frederick posted a sign that said “bong hits 4 jesus”

      • was suspended for 10 days

  • amendment:

    • sued the principal as he felt she violated the 1st amendment

      • freedom of speech

  • lower court:

    • voted for frederick

  • supreme court:

    • ruled 5-4 for the school (was NOT a violation)

      • students cannot go against school values

      *schools have the power to interfere in students’ speech of influencing drug use and anything that goes against school values

14
New cards

roper v. simmons (2005)

  • information:

    • simmons (17 —> already 18) commited murder of shirley crook by throwing her off a bridge

      • was caught and sentenced the death penalty

  • amendment:

    • felt like getting death was a violation o the 8th amendment

      • cruel and unusual punishment

  • lower court:

    • voted against simmons

  • supreme court:

    • ruled 5-4 for simmons (was a violation)

      *those who were minors at the time of the crime cannot be given the death penalty

15
New cards

district of columbia v. heller (2008)

  • information:

    • heller wanted a gun for protection at home but cannot due to a ban on handguns

      • he is a police officer

  • amendment:

    • he felt like it was a violation of the 2nd amendment

  • lower court:

    • voted for heller (should have rights)

  • supreme court:

    • ruled 5-4 for heller (was a violation)

      • district court violated his rights

      *the 2nd amendment applies to all individuals

      • states cannot ban the use of handguns, but can make strict laws and regulations like new jersey