Homework: Read/OL 14.3 for Monday

FrontPage: Have 3 worksheets on your desk.

THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

The Rights of the Accused Why is it important to give rights to

accused persons?

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 Warrants 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.

Vernonia vs. Acton Justice Scalia was writing for the majority in this case.  Four other judges in this 6-3

decision joined him.  Requiring a student to submit to a urine test is a search within the meaning of the Fourth

Amendment. An individual's right to privacy must be balanced against the school's interest in curbing

illegal during use among the student body. The state, as the schoolmaster of school-age children, may exercise greater supervision over school children than it can over adults.

Students do not leave their constitutional rights at the school door; therefore, any search or seizure must be considered reasonable.

School children have a lesser expectation of privacy than free adults in that they are required to have physical examination and vaccinations in order to attend school.

Student athletes have an even lesser expectation of privacy in light of the fact that they often undress in open locker rooms.

As to the balancing test, the privacy interests involved with urine testing are minimal compared to the school's interest in curbing the use of illegal drugs among the students.

 Student athletes have a greater potential to harm themselves and otherwise while using illegal drugs.

In the Vernonia School District, the results of the drug test would be kept confidential and not turned over to the authorities.

Question… What happens if officers conduct an

“unreasonable” search (w/out probable cause or a warrant) and find something illegal?

The “Exclusionary Rule” “Exclusionary rule” - Evidence seized in an illegal search cannot

be used in the case against an individual

Weeks vs. US (1914) Police suspected weeks of running a gambling ring out of his home.

Based on this suspicion, but without a warrant, they entered his home to conduct a search. No evidence of this activity was found, but during the search, police did uncover materials that violated a community obscenity law. This evidence was used to convict Weeks under that law.

Result/Impact: The Supreme Court ruled that evidence gained by an illegal search can be

excluded from a court case Created the “Exclusionary Rule”

Why does the Exclusionary rule exist? What criticisms could be made of it?

**Relaxing the Exclusionary Rule:

The Court has recognized several instances in which evidence found without probable cause or a search warrant can still be used in a court case…

Exceptions These exceptions include

If an officer was acting in “good faith” If evidence would have been found “inevitability” A few others

The 5th Amendment (abridged)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital…crime…unless on indictment by a

grand jury; nor shall any person be subject for the same

offence to be twice put in jeopardy…; nor…in any criminal case to be a witness

against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken…, without

just compensation.

Escobedo vs. IllinoisThe Chicago police brought in Danny Escobedo on suspicion that he had shot and killed his brother-in-law and proceeded to question him at length. Escobedo repeatedly asked to see his lawyer, but his requests were denied. After a long night at police HQ, he made some incriminating statements and

was eventually convicted with the help of these statements.

Result/Impact: The Supreme Court rules that if a suspect’s rights

are violated, any evidence gained as a result can be thrown out In effect, creates an “Exclusionary rule” for the

5th amendment

Doe vs. Arizona John Doe was arrested and questioned by police officers regarding the rape and kidnapping of an Arizona woman. Police immediately questioned him and eventually, Doe confessed to the rape.

Police officers used this confession at his trial and Doe was convicted.

Miranda vs. Arizona

Result/Impact: The Court rules that suspects MUST be

informed of their rights upon arrest or before questioning.

The 6th Amendment…the accused shall enjoy the right to a

speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury …,

and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;

to be confronted with the witnesses against him;

to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,

and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Gideon vs. WainwrightGideon was charged with breaking into a pool hall with

the intent to commit a crime. He requested a court appointed attorney, but the court denied the request. Without a lawyer Gideon was convicted and sentenced to a 5-year jail term. Gideon appealed his conviction.

Result/Impact: The Supreme Court rules that if a person cannot

afford an attorney, the court MUST appoint them one. This expanded on earlier rulings that in death

penalty cases or certain other specific situations, an attorney could be provided to a defendant

V