Legal Concepts from the Lecture on the Fourth Amendment and Animal Sacrifice Case

Church of Leukemee Babalui and the Santurian Faith

  • Located in Hialeah, Florida.

  • Part of the Santurian faith. Alternative pronunciations: Santurian.

  • Religious practices include devotion to spirits called orishes.

  • Practices involve animal sacrifice.

    • Notable types of animals involved: not puppies or kittens, but chickens and goats.

    • Strict procedures in place for administering the sacrifices.

Legal Context of Animal Sacrifice Ordinances

  • The city of Hialeah passed ordinances prohibiting animal sacrifice, which drew community discontent.

    • Neighbors expressed unhappiness regarding the church's practices.

  • The constitutionality of the ordinances was challenged under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

    • Supreme Court ruling: ordinances were unconstitutional.

    • The court found that the ordinances directly targeted the Santurian faith's practices rather than applying broadly.

    • Example of unequal application: comparison to Colonel Sanders, who could still slaughter chickens for KFC, highlighting discriminatory enforcement.

  • Discussion of possible additional litigation under animal cruelty laws.

    • Noted expansion of animal cruelty laws over the last ten to fifteen years.

Free Exercise Clause and Judicial Interpretation

  • Discussion of the evolution of judicial interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause.

    • Development of a compelling governmental interest test akin to strict scrutiny.

    • Notable change occurred in the Smith case, which led Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

    • Partial striking down of RFRA by the Supreme Court regarding Congress's authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

  • Reference to the Colorado baker case involving a gay couple's request for a wedding cake, illustrating ongoing tensions between religious beliefs and anti-discrimination laws.

Transition to Criminal Procedure and the Fourth Amendment

  • Shift to discussing criminal procedure, specifically focusing on the Fourth Amendment.

    • Disclaimer regarding not providing legal advice, stressing the general informational nature of the discussion.

Fourth Amendment Overview

  • Text of the Fourth Amendment:

    • "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

  • Key components of the Fourth Amendment:

    • Ensures a right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    • Requirement of a warrant based on probable cause, requiring justifications submitted to a judge.

    • Implication that searches are unreasonable without a warrant (this is nuanced in practice).

Exclusionary Rule

  • Definition of the exclusionary rule:

    • A judicially created rule that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in prosecution.

  • Landmark case: Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

    • Context: Dahl Re Mapp was the subject of a police search for an alleged suspect.

    • Police claimed to have a warrant which they could not produce.

    • Outcome: Evidence collected during the unlawful search (pornography) was excluded from prosecution.

    • Significance: Established that police must follow legal procedures, reinforcing protections against unlawful searches.

Warrantless Searches

  • Instances where warrantless searches are permissible:

    • Consent:

    • If an individual consents to a search, police do not need a warrant.

    • The police are not obligated to inform individuals that they can refuse the search.

    • The validity of consent can depend on circumstances (e.g., family members giving consent).

  • Expectations of Privacy:

    • The Fourth Amendment protections apply to places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

    • Example of a home, where rights are generally well-protected.

    • Contrast with garbage: no reasonable expectation of privacy once it is placed outside for collection.

    • Example: If garbage is in an enclosed garage, it has an expectation of privacy, but not when placed at the curb.

Conclusion and Next Steps

  • Indication that there will be further discussion regarding warrantless searches and the Fourth Amendment in upcoming sessions.

  • Encouragement to review corresponding articles for enhanced understanding of the topic.

Yes, several cases are described or referenced in the notes:

  1. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah: This case is central to the discussion of the Santurian faith. The Supreme Court ruled that Hialeah's ordinances prohibiting animal sacrifice were unconstitutional because they directly targeted the Santurian faith's practices rather than applying broadly.

  2. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): This is a landmark case for the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court ruled that evidence (pornography) collected during an unlawful police search, where officers claimed to have a warrant but could not produce one, was excluded from prosecution. This established that police must follow legal procedures.

  3. Smith case (Employment Division v. Smith): This case is mentioned in the context of the Free Exercise Clause, noting a significant change in judicial interpretation that led to Congress passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

  4. Colorado baker case (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission): This case is referenced to illustrate ongoing tensions between religious beliefs and anti-discrimination laws, specifically involving a gay couple's request for a wedding cake.