The Government must respect ALL legal rights of

all people.It must treat people fairly.

Ways Due Process is Applied

1. Procedures - methods used to conduct hearings AND to apply/enforce laws must be fair and reasonable

2. Consent - Laws passed by the government must be fair and reasonable

Both Federal and State government must follow the rules.

Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law

A “reasonable” (thoughtful, sane, intelligent) person might think something is wrong based on watching a situationThis is the starting point for a warrant…A police officer would need stronger evidence for a warrant

• MUST have some hard evidence to show that a person is part of a crime

• Evidence that would get a warrant:– Witness testimony– Fingerprints– Video tape of crime being committed– DNA found at the scene– Shoe prints found at the scene– Hair and clothing fibers found at the

scene

States What & Where

Signed by a Judge

• An arrest needs a warrant to be legal• HOWEVER, an arrest can happen without

a warrant if:– A SERIOUS CRIME (Felony) takes place and

there is no time to get a warrant because the crime is in progress. A judge will decide if there is probable cause to continue holding the person in jail

– If a MINOR INFRACTION (Misdemeanor) of criminal law takes place and is committed in front of the arresting officer

Fingerprinting: Allowed only if an arrest warrant is issued based on probable cause

Plain View: If evidence is out in the open it may be used against you, even if it is not listed on a warrant

State/government may NOT compel/require major surgery under general anesthesia to get evidence unless there is absolutely no other way to obtain the evidence needed in the case OR some harm may come to the person if the surgery is NOT performed.

Persons accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty by fair and lawful means

Life, Liberty and Property can’t be taken away without going through the Courts (Legal process)

1)You don’t have to defend yourself for a crime unless you are charged by a Grand Jury.

2) No Double Jeopardy - You can’t be tried in court for the same exact crime twice.

4) You don’t have to be a witness against yourself. You can’t be forced to take the witness stand. (“I plead the 5th”)

3) Eminent Domain - the Government can’t take away property unless the owner is compensated (paid).

Right to a “Speedy Trial” - My trial must be “speedy” - I can’t be left to rot in jail without going to trial.

Allowed to have a fair and impartial jury of people who are from the state and county where the crime happened.

1) Writ of Habeas Corpus - The accused person must be told of the crime and why he/she is being blamed.

(The accused must be told about the evidence against them.)

2) The right to face the witnesses against the accused - the witnesses can’t hide

3) The right to call witnesses of their own to help the accused

4) Right to a lawyer (attorney)

5 stations on Due Process

Answer questions in packet at every station using notes

Miranda v. Arizona NJ v. T.L.O.Best v. NJ (Tom E. Best)Terry StopsMapp v. Ohio

Self Incriminate- Giving testimony in a trial or other legal proceeding that could subject a person to criminal prosecution.

Facts of the Case: Ernesto Miranda was charged with kidnapping and rape. While in police custody and during questioning by the police he admitted to the crime and signed a statement that said he did it.

The police at the time did not have to tell criminals about their rights under the Constitution. Under this case the Supreme Court ruled on 3 other cases at the same that also questioned the rights of suspects "while in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in any significant way."

In all these cases, suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world. In none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation.

Decision: 5 votes for Miranda, 4 vote(s) against

Conclusion: The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation (police interviews/interrogations/questioning) of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self- incrimination.” The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations.

A defendant must be told of their rights against self-incrimination (aka “the right to remain silent”) and to consult with an attorney prior to police questioning.

Did the search of T.L.O.’s purse violate the 4th and 14th amendment?

14th Amendment: States must protect everyone equally - EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

-States cannot make laws that take away your Federal rights

-States may not take away life, liberty or property with out going through a legal process

The school can do this!!!

Probable Cause does not need to exist.

Reasonable Suspicion is applied here and does not violate a students constitutional right to the 4th amendment.

Did the Vice Principal have the right to search Tom’s car?

Decided by the NJ Supreme Court on February 3, 2010

Under the circumstances of this case, it was reasonable for the vice principal to believe that defendant may have additional contraband in all areas accessible to him on school property, including his locker and his car. Consequently, the vice principal's search of defendant's car was reasonably related in scope to the various locations on school property that defendant might have placed the contraband--on his person, his locker, and his car.

AND ALL OF THAT BASICALLY MEANS TO YOU: A school principal may search a student's car parked on school grounds whenever the principal reasonably suspects that evidence of criminal activity will be found in the vehicle. In light of the strong State interest in maintaining order, safety and discipline in the school environment, neither probable cause nor a warrant is required.

Police may stop & frisk a person if have the police have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is going on

EXAMPLE: stand on corner in dangerous neighborhood and run away when police in sight – running in high crime area

May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp. Officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to admit them without a search warrant. Two officers left, and one remained. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. Brandishing a piece of paper, they broke in the door. Mapp asked to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer, putting it in her dress. The officers struggled with Mapp and took the piece of paper away from her. They handcuffed her for being “belligerent.”

Was this search legal?

Can this evidence obtained be used against Mapp?

The Court decided that this evidence obtained was in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures."

This may not be used in federal and state law criminal prosecutions.

Precedent-Exclusionary Rule

Protecting the rights of individuals who may have broken the law (criminals)

ANDProtecting law abiding citizens from

people who break the law and endanger life, liberty or property