Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
26 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Rochin v. California
|
Police officer's raided Rochin's home on suspicion of narcotics dealing, he swallowed two capsules. Police instructed the doctor to pump his stomach and they were recovered and deemed morphine. It was the only evidence against him at trial, he was convicted of possession.
|
|
|
Major arguement and ruling against Rochin v. California
|
Did pumping Rochin's stomach violate his due process rights?
"the police cannot extract by force what is in his mind but can extract what is in his stomach?" Conviction reversed; the capsules obtained by pumping his stomach are not admissable in trial. |
|
|
Schmerber v. California
|
Schmerber was arrested for DUI, he sustained injuries and was brought to the hospital. The police directed the doctor to draw blood and thre results were admitted in the trial, and therfore convicted of DUI.
|
|
|
Major arguement and ruling against Schmerber v. California
|
Did the warrantless taking of a blood sample violate Schmerber's rights?
Conviction affirmed; the blood-alcohol test done on post-arrest blood sample drawn by medical personnel is admissable. |
|
|
Tennessee v. Garner
|
Officer Hymon shot and killed Garner, a fleeing unarmed prowler after yelling "police, halt".
Hymon was acting under a Tennessee law that states, "if after noticeof the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flees or forcibly resists, the officer may use all nevessary means to effect the arrest." |
|
|
Major arguement and ruling of Tennesse v. Garner
|
Can officers use deadly force to stop unarmed fleeing felons?
While we agree that burglary is a serious crime, we cannot agree that it is so dangerous as automatically to justify the use of deadly force. It is classified as a property, not violent crime. Statute is unconstitutional insofar as it gave Hymon authority to shoot an unarmed fleeing felon. |
|
|
Haynes v. Washington
|
Haynes was held for 5 to 7 days without being given an attorney after numerous requests. He was told he could not have an attorney until he confessed to the crime.
He has been identified in a lineup and gave an oral confession which was transcribed and he signed. |
|
|
Major arguement and ruling of Haynes v. Washington
|
Did holding Haynes incommunicado as an interrogation tactic violate due process?
Conviction reversed; coerced confession is inadmissable at trial. |
|
|
Winston v. Lee
|
Lee was shot in an attempted robbery. The victim and Lee were brought to the same hospital where the victim ID'd Lee. Police sought a court order to force Lee to undergo surgery to remove the bullet lodged under his left collarbone. X-rays later showed that the bullet was about one inch deep in muscular tissue and that general anesthesia would be required to remove it.
|
|
|
Major arguement and ruling of Winston v. Lee
|
Can the governement force surgical removal of evidence from the suspect's body?
Prosecution cannot require Lee to undergo surgery to remove the bullet. |
|
|
Graham v. Connor
|
Graham was having a diabetic reaction. A police officer watched him enter a convenience store very quickly. The officer grew suspicious and followed the two men in a car. He pulled them over while he was able to look into the case. In short, Graham was arrested, beaten and hurt badly, and it was deemed he had done nothing wrong. The police drove him home and released him.
|
|
|
Major ruling and argument of Graham v. Connor
|
What level of force can officers use when making investigatory stops?
Case is sent back to the lower court for an evaluation of the facts under the 4th amendment standard. |
|
|
County of Sacremento v. Lewis
|
Police chased Lewis and the driver of a motorcycle. They both reached speeds of 100 mph, and following the bike at less than 100 feet, the boke tipped and the officer slid into Lewis and he was pronounced DOA.
|
|
|
Major ruling and argument of County of Sacramento v. Lewis
|
When does the operation of a police vehicle during a pursuit violate due process?
Case Dismissed. Operation of a police vehicle durng a pursuit violates due process only if the officer intends to injure the suspect or deprive him/her of constitutional rights. |
|
|
Amendment I
|
protects the people's right to practice religion, to speak freely, to assemble (meet), to address the government and of the press to publish.
|
|
|
Amendment II
|
protects the right to own guns. There is debate whether this is a right that protects the state, or a right that protects individuals.
|
|
|
Amendment V
|
protects people from being held for committing a crime unless they are properly indicted, that they may not be tried twice for the same crime, that you need not be forced to testify against yourself, and from property being taken without just compensation. It also contains due process guarantees.
|
|
|
Amendment IV
|
The right of the poeple to be secured 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.
|
|
|
Amendment VI
|
guarantees a speedy trial, an impartial jury, that the accused can confront witnesses against them, and that the accused must be allowed to have a lawyer.
|
|
|
Amendment VIII
|
guarantees that punishments will be fair, and not cruel, and that extraordinarily large fines will not be set.
|
|
|
Amendment XIV
|
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
|
|
|
Section 3
|
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS. The liberty of the press shall forever remain inviolate, and all persons may freely speak, write and publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right.
|
|
|
Section 5
|
NO EXCESSIVE BAIL OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.
|
|
|
Section 6
|
RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which county or district shall have been previously ascertained by law. In all prosecutions of crimes defined by law as felonies, the accused has the right to a jury of 12 members. In all other criminal prosecutions, the legislature may provide for the number of jurors, provided that a jury have at least six members. The accused shall enjoy the right 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 in his defense. [Amended, November 8, 1988]
|
|
|
Section 7
|
DUE PROCESS; PROSECUTIONS; DOUBLE JEOPARDY; SELF-INCRIMINATION; BAIL; HABEAS CORPUS. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law, and no person shall be put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense, nor be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. All persons before conviction shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless the public safety requires it in case of rebellion or invasion.
|
|
|
Section 10
|
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES PROHIBITED. 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 person or things to be seized.
|
