Indiana Bar State Con Law

Front 1

Indiana Const. Standard of Review

Back 1

1. TEXT of the provision
2. HISTORY of the provision's passage
3. GENERAL PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE of the const
4. AND CASE PRECEDENT

Front 2

Prohibition on Special Laws

Back 2

RULE: laws are to be general if they can be general.

Front 3

LOR for Special Laws

Back 3

extreme deference

Front 4

What is a Special Law?

Back 4

One that applies to particular persons or locations.

Front 5

Test for Special Law

Back 5

1. FORM (Subject Matter): is the subject matter amenable to a general law of uniform application?
2. FUNCTION (Application): if yes, is the law special in application?

Front 6

Form (Subject Matter) Analysis for Special Law test

Back 6

If yes, a general law would work, then go to FUNCTION (Application) question.

If no, a general law will not work, then the law is const unless expressly prohibited by the const list of 16 subjects (i.e., granting of individual divorces, designating punishments for particular individual, vacating certain roads and alleys)

Front 7

Special Laws population classification test

Back 7

(to avoid the Special Laws prohibition, Legis will reference population size rather than specific location)

Only valid if:
(1) Rational Basis
(2) Eventual Qualification

Front 8

Germaneness

Back 8

RULE: laws must be confined to a single subject.

Front 9

LOR for Germaneness

Back 9

extreme legislative deference

Front 10

Test for Germaneness

Back 10

(reasonableness) Is there a "rational unity" between the matters in the act such that they fall under 1 subject?

Front 11

Can judicial branch issue advisory opinions?

Back 11

RULE: IN S Ct has "tacit" const authority to issue advisory opinions.

Front 12

What limitations are there for issuance of advisory opinions?

Back 12

NOT: standing, ripeness, and mootness

BUT: SOP doctrine constrains authority to issue advisory opinions.

Front 13

Const recognition of SOP?

Back 13

IN Const explicitly mandates SOP and separation of functions.

Front 14

Judicial review of criminal sentences - generally

Back 14

IN S Ct is explicitly constitutionally authorized to REVIEW and REVISE all criminal sentences

Front 15

Judicial review of criminal sentences - death penalty

Back 15

De novo, nonwaivable review

IN S Ct review is automatic and independent of the trial ct. There is NO PRESUMPTION that the trial ct sentence of death is appropriate

Front 16

Judicial review of criminal sentences - term of year cases

Back 16

Presumption of Reasonableness

IN S Ct can only reverse if finds it is MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE

Front 17

Test for freedom of expression

Back 17

RULE: (Price v. State) The state cannot impose a "material burden" on a "core const right"

Front 18

What is a "core const right"?

Back 18

Political Speech

Front 19

What is Political Speech?

Back 19

(1) Popular comment on public concern
(2) AND directed toward a public actor

Front 20

When is political speech materially burdened?

Back 20

Political speech is materially burdened unless it causes a private nuisance.

Front 21

Cf. to fed freedom of expression standard

Back 21

MOCPP - Right to MOCk Public Persons

Material burden inquiry ignores state interests (fed test balances)

Overbreadth (fed ct looks at)

Content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions (fed ct looks at)

Political/Nonpolitical inquiry (IN creates a distinction btwn the 2 and more broadly protects political speech)

Public/Private Nuisance (IN draws a distinction)

Front 22

Freedom of Religion clauses

Back 22

I. The Natural Right to Worship According to the Dictates of Conscience

II. Freedom of Religious Opinions and Rights to Conscience

III. Freedom of Religion

IV. No Religious Test of Office for Trust or Profit

V. No Public Money for Benefit of Religious or Theological Institutions

VI. Witness Competent Regardless of Religious Opinions

VII. Administration of Oath or Affirmation Consistent with One's Conscience

Front 23

Cf to fed freedom of religion standard

Back 23

fed corollary provides LESS protection

Front 24

Equal Privileges and Immunities Rule

Back 24

The IN Const guarantees the Legis shall provide all citizens equal privileges and immunities.

Front 25

Equal Privileges and Immunities Test

Back 25

(1) That different treatment of ALL classes be subject only to RATIONAL BASIS

(2) That similarly situated persons within a class be EQUALLY TREATED

Front 26

Equal Privileges and Immunities LOR

Back 26

Substantial deference

Front 27

Cf. to fed EPC standard

Back 27

Fed provides GREATER protection.

Suspect classifications receive higher LOR.

Front 28

Due Process of Law rule

Back 28

IN explicitly guarantees "remedy of due course of law for injury to person, property, or reputation."

Front 29

Cf. fed DPC standard

Back 29

consistent analysis

Front 30

Unreasonable Search and Seizure test

Back 30

IN asks whether the search or seizure was reasonable.

Front 31

Cf. fed Unreasonable Search and Seizure standard

Back 31

Different analysis but achieves same result.

Fed test:
(1) Actual expectation of privacy
(2) AND whether such expectation was reasonable.

Front 32

Right to Confrontation

Back 32

IN Const explicitly guarantees the right "to meet witnesses face to face"

Front 33

Cf. fed Right to Confrontation

Back 33

fed 6th Amend CC provides LESS protection

Front 34

Prohibition against arrest or confinement with unnecessary rigor

Back 34

traditionally limited to cases of EXTREME PHYSICAL FORCE by state officials

(ex: coerced confessions)

Front 35

Cf. fed Prohibition against arrest or confinement with unnecessary rigor

Back 35

NO FED COROLLARY

Front 36

Cruel or Unusual Punishment - test

Back 36

(1) PROPORTIONALITY: all crim sentences must be proportional to the crime

AND

(2) IMPOSITION: no cruel and unusual punishment may be imposed.

Front 37

Cruel or Unusual Punishment - proportionality analysis

Back 37

(1) natural and gravity of the CURRENT offense

AND

(2) natural and gravity of PRIOR offenses

Front 38

Cf fed Cruel or Unusual Punishment

Back 38

8th Amend limits proportionality review to:

(1) life sentences without parole
(2) death sentences

Front 39

Penal Code founded on reformation

Back 39

RULE: "The penal code shall be founded on principles of reformation and not of vindictive justice."

Limited application: applies to the penal system AS A WHOLE, not to individual treatment

Front 40

Cf fed Penal Code founded on reformation

Back 40

NO FED COROLLARY

Front 41

Institutions for juvenile offenders

Back 41

RULE: IN const explicitly mandates separate juvenile detention facilities; HOWEVER, such protection does NOT guarantee juvenile detention for ALL juvenile offenders.

Front 42

Cf fed Institutions for juvenile offenders

Back 42

NO fed corollary

Front 43

Taking of Property - rule

Back 43

The taking of property requires just compensation.

Front 44

Taking of Property requires

Back 44

(1) Payment before the taking
(2) Extrinsic benefits be paid

Front 45

Taking of Property - assessment

Back 45

Assessed value of the property

PLUS damage done to remaining property bc of the taking

MINUS any benefits accrued to remaining property bc of the taking

Front 46

Cf fed Taking of Property

Back 46

5th Amend corollary, but a different compensation analysis

Front 47

Right to Compensation for Services - rule

Back 47

IN's "demand" of "particular services" requires just compensation.

Front 48

Right to Compensation for Services - analysis

Back 48

(1) Particular Service: has the state HISTORICALLY PAID for this service?

(2) Demanded Service: was the state's request for service such that a reasonable person would feel physically or legally "forced to comply"? (i.e., jury duty, military service)

(3) Compensation: is calculated based upon "extrinsic benefits analysis"

Front 49

No Debtors' Prison

Back 49

(1) Reasonable amount of property is exempt from seizure and sale
(2) AND, except in the case of fraud, debtors cannot be imprisoned for debt.

Front 50

No Debtors' Prison - obligations v. debts

Back 50

RULE: OBLIGATIONS are NOT constitutionally protected.

TEST: An obligation is found in nature not in K.

APPLICATION: child support is an obligation; alimony or atty fees to ex-spouse are debts

Front 51

No Debtors' Prison - General Exemptions Suspect

Back 51

RULE: a property exemption w/o a specific cap constitutionally suspect.

TEST: lack of specific cap must be reasonably necessary

(ex: legis exempts life insurance policies from bankruptcy proceedings. w/o cap, the legis is constitutionally suspect)

Front 52

Education

Back 52

RULE: The GA must provide a public school system which demonstrates:

(1) A general and uniform system (state funding must preserve equity in per-student spending)

(2) Tuition w/o charge (tuition may be more than the cost of instruction; i.e., textbooks - yes, "student services fee" - no)

(3) AND equally open to all

Front 53

How does the const prevent state indebtedness?

Back 53

(1) Prescribes state financing measures, including means of taxation and prohibitions on private stock holding.

(2) Governs banking and govt investment

(3) Limits the debt incurred by political subdivisions

Front 54

Property Tax system

Back 54

Based on PROPERTY WEALTH. Need not be based on FMV.

Require:
(1) Uniform assessments
(2) Uniform rates
(3) AND Equal valuations