SUPREME COURT-CONTINUED

Sgt Fluffy said...

Pledge of allegiance, In God We Trust...hmmm Hugo Black, FDR Appointee. Ex Klan (AL) Everson v Board of Education. Wall of Separation established that distorted the original intent of the 1st amendment to the Constitution. Bye bye Pledge(only to those schools afraid of offending others), still legal. In God we Trust on our currency. Atheists have attacked it, never made it to the Supreme CT as far as i can remember. ACLU removing any references to God. No prayer in Schools , Michael Newdow and his attack on Under God in the Pledge....all the mythical Wall. Again Hugo Black...ex Klansman..FDR Appointee.

Miranda Rights. Strengthend over the years to protect the accused from overzealous law enforcement. Both sides have ruled in favor of the accused to help strengthen it, not weaken. Illegal search and seizures though is more likely what you are talking about. Activists making new Law...not just Conservatives.

Right to bear arms. As far as I can remember, the Supreme Court really hasn't touched on it. A few cases maybe i really couldnt find any. State and local and the Feds have limited our rights. Look at DC, no guns allowed...high Crime. Brady Bill, signed under Clinton as part of the 1994 Crime Bill. Misquided attempt to control crime. WACO, Koresh wasn't bothering anyone as far as I know. LA's waiting period, Heck look at what Bobby Bright did when asked about the crime in montgomery and how to protect the citizens from said crime. "buy a Gun" He caught hell for that from the left side of the aisle and he is a Democrat. I have more respect for the man now.

As for spying, I suppose you mean the Patriot Act, signed by "both" sides to help protect the US from terrorists after 9/11. What do you want? less Surveilance in order to protect our rights? Look what FDR did in WWII. Japanese American detention camps...was hat going too far to protect us? Why not round up all the Arab Americans? yeah, that would go over big now wouldnt it? Law enforcement does need some freedom in extrordinary circumstances to protect us. If the patriot Act has stepped on so many peoples rights, were are the complaints?

Oh my friend there have been complaints, none that have hit the front pages except for a couple of Arab professors who have been American Citizens for a while now, being put under survelance because they are Arab. And I'm not talking about those two that were arrested under suspicion of spying and aiding terrorist. But the Patriot Act has had the same effects that WW II had on the Nisei Japanese Americans. These were 2nd generation born in the US Japanese but American citizens who were put in interment camps because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

But, going back to the original arguement, Earl Warren was a liberal and during his term as Chief Justice, the Bill of Rights, or at least a couple of them began being applied in the lower criminal courts.

Mapp v. Ohio

Citation: 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Concepts: Warrantless Search/Right to Privacy v. State “Police Powers”

Facts

In May 1957, Cleveland police officers received a tip that Miss Mapp was in possession of a large number of betting slips, and that a bomber was hiding in her home. When the police arrived at her house, Mapp refused to admit them without a search warrant. A few hours later, the police knocked again, then forcibly opened the door. A struggle ensued and Mapp was put in handcuffs, taken upstairs, and kept there while police searched her apartment. During the search, obscene materials were discovered in a trunk in her basement. Mapp was arrested for possession and control of obscene materials.

Issue

Whether Miss MappÂ’s Fourth Amendment right to be secure from search and seizure was violated during the search of her home.

Opinion

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that MappÂ’s Fourth Amendment right to be secure from search and seizure was violated. The Court held that both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments protected persons from unwarranted federal and state intrusion of their private property.


Gideon v. Wainwright

Citation: 372 U.S. 335 (1963) Concepts: Right to Counsel v. Rights of the Accused v. State Rights

Facts

Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested in 1961, and charged with breaking and entering a pool hall with intent to commit petty larceny (a felony). He did not have enough money for a lawyer and asked that one be appointed to defend him. The judge denied the request, saying that under Florida state law, counsel can be appointed only in a capital offense. Gideon was sentenced to five years in prison. He then filed a writ of certiorari (petition of appeal) to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking for a case review. The Court granted GideonÂ’s request and appointed Abe Fortas to represent him.

Issue

Whether the state of Florida violated GideonÂ’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, by not providing him with the assistance of counsel for his criminal defense.

Opinion

The Court ruled unanimously in GideonÂ’s favor, and held that the Fourteenth Amendment included state as well as federal defendants. The Court said that all states must provide an attorney in all felony and capital cases for people who cannot afford one themselves. Through the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the right to counsel applies to the states. [Gideon was retried in Florida and found not guilty.]


Escobedo v. Illinois

Citation: 378 U.S. 478 (1964) Concepts: Right to an Attorney/Self- lncrimination/ Rights of the Accused v. State Rights

Facts

Escobedo was arrested in 1960, in connection with the murder of his brother-in-law. After his arrest, he requested to see his lawyer but was not allowed to do so. After persistent questioning by the police, Escobedo made a statement which was used against him at his trial and he was convicted of murder. He appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction. Escobedo then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Issue

Whether the state of Illinois violated EscobedoÂ’s Fourteenth Amendment protections, his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and his Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel by denying his request to speak to a lawyer before questioning.

Opinion

The Court found that the denial by the police of EscobedoÂ’s right to counsel and their failure to inform him of his right to remain silent were clearly unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Court held that incriminating statements made by defendants are inadmissible as evidence unless the accused is informed of his rights before making the statements.

Miranda v. Arizona

Citation: 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Concepts: Self-lncrimination/Rights of the Accused v. State “Police Powers”

Facts

Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping. His conviction was based in part on incriminating statements he made to the police while they interrogated him. At no time during the questioning did the police inform Miranda that he did not have to talk to them or that he had the right to a lawyer when being questioned by police.

Issue

Whether the state of Arizona violated the constitutional rights of Miranda under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments when they interrogated him without advising him of his constitutional right to remain silent.

Opinion

The Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the police were in error. The Court held that the police must inform suspects that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them, and that they have the right to counsel before the police may begin to question those held in custody.

[Miranda established the “Miranda Warning” which police now use prior to interrogation of persons arrested.]

These rulings were under a liberal Chief Justice, since Convervitives have taken over the Bench, those same rights have been chipped away at. Cops no longer need to present a warrent before entering a house, they can just yell "WARRENT" before breaking down the door. Although it is used during drug raids where speed prevents evidence from being flushed, once you allow it, it can be applied in other situations.

As I stated before, the Supreme Court no longer requires that a person understand their Miranda rights as long as they were read to them.

And there have been cases where Marathon interigations have been conducted before the accused is given a lawyer. I'm all for law enforcement, but you never know when you could be on the other side of that table, could be mistaken identity, but once you are, you would want your rights to be recognized.