Accounting
Anthropology
Archaeology
Art History
Banking
Biology & Life Science
Business
Business Communication
Business Development
Business Ethics
Business Law
Chemistry
Communication
Computer Science
Counseling
Criminal Law
Curriculum & Instruction
Design
Earth Science
Economic
Education
Engineering
Finance
History & Theory
Humanities
Human Resource
International Business
Investments & Securities
Journalism
Law
Management
Marketing
Medicine
Medicine & Health Science
Nursing
Philosophy
Physic
Psychology
Real Estate
Science
Social Science
Sociology
Special Education
Speech
Visual Arts
Law
Q:
In West Sussex, Alabama, district judge Robert Favre runs a very formal courtroom where justice is handed out quietly but swiftly. The formality of Favre's courtroom is demonstrated by the fact that he runs all proceedings with an iron fist. Additionally, the judge begins every court session day with a prayer that asks God to allow him to act judiciously and fairly when dealing with defendants. These prayers, while nondenominational, are read by different members of the clergy each week. The pool of clergy includes several Presbyterian ministers and a few Catholic priests, but it is mostly comprised of Southern Baptist ministers from the surrounding counties. These ministers are not paid, but on days that they read the Court's prayer they are provided with breakfast at a local coffee shop across from the courthouse.To help him serve justice, and to "show his place under God," Judge Favre carved a replica of the stone tablets upon which the Ten Commandments were inscribed. He took it upon himself to hang these tablets behind his bench for all to see. When asked why he put them in his courtroom, the judge said simply, "We must all realize that no matter what our laws may be, we all live under God's law and must follow it without question." While protesters said he should remove the tablets, Favre refused to do so.On January 5, 1999, Roger Vinatonka was brought into Judge Favre's courtroom to defend an accusation that he had robbed five gas stations in the past month. As this was the first case of the day, Judge Favre asked Southern Baptist minister Mordecai Brown to read the invocation. After he finished, Vinatonka's attorney objected that the reading of the prayer was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Additionally, he objected to the Ten Commandments in the courtroom, as these also violated the wall of separation between church and state. His argument was that it was a violation of his client's rights to be subjected to such prayers when he was not Christian, and his beliefs did not include praying to God or following the Ten Commandments. He also argued that for justice to be conducted fairly in this courtroom the prayers must be stopped and the Ten Commandments taken down. Favre overruled the objection and noted that even though Vinatonka was not a Christian, these were ideals by which all "red-blooded" Americans should live. Because Vinatonka waived his right to a jury trial the judge decided the case and found the defendant guilty. After telling him, "Thou shall not steal," he sentenced Vinatonka to three years in a state prison. On appeal Vinatonka's attorney argued that the trial was unfair and biased because it was conducted under the auspices of Christian tenets that Vinatonka did not recognize, which was a direct violation of the Establishment Clause. The appeals court in Alabama affirmed the conviction and said there was no First Amendment problem. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court.As a justice on the Court, how would you rule given the line of Establishment Clause cases decided by the Court? Should the judge be allowed to continue the prayers? Why or why not? Is there a way that the prayers could be altered so that they would not violate the Establishment Clause? How would you deal with the issue of the Ten Commandments? Should they be taken down, or can they stay as a symbol of respect for God? Finally, should Vinatonka be granted a new trial? Why or why not?Be sure to cite cases from class to support your answers. There is no right answer, but all your answers must be logical and supported with case law.
Q:
Scholars argue that the Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Establishment Clause are often at odds with each other and that, at a minimum, there is tension between them. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?Be sure to cite examples and cases you have read to justify your answer.
Q:
The Supreme Court effectively set an expiration date on the right to counsel invocation by announcing a new "14 day break in custody" rule in:
a. Edwards v. Arizona
b. Arizona v. Roberson
c. United States v. Dunn
d. Maryland v. Shatzer
Q:
The USA PATRIOT Act improves counter-terrorism efforts by all of the following, except:
a. allowing investigators to use tools already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking.
b. facilitating information sharing and cooperation among government agencies.
c. increasing penalties for those who support or commit organized crime.
d. Updating the law to reflect new technologies and new threats.
Q:
The Court has consistently held that the free exercise of religion is a fundamental right. However, as with the Establishment Clause, the Court has not given a definitive answer as to what should be protected religious practices, and what should not be protected. In Cantwell the Court grounded its decision in a standard of government neutrality, but this standard did not remain good law for long. Instead, the Court changed its standard to one that restricts the state's ability to interfere with the right to free exercise of religion. Explain this standard, as well as how the Court applied it for several decades. From there, discuss the downfall of this standard, and what replaced it during the Rehnquist era. In short, discuss the evolution of the different standards used by the Court, from Cantwell through Smith. Finally, make an argument for where you believe Free Exercise doctrine is headed in light of the most recent cases we have read in this area, and considering the makeup of the current Court.
Q:
The U.S. Supreme Court established the right to counsel during police interrogation for all criminal suspects in:
a. Escobedo v. Illinois
b. Miranda v. Arizona.
c. Dickerson v. United States
d. Fikes v. Alabama
Q:
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) provides the Supreme Court with one of its most famous "three-pronged tests." Since this case, however, the Court has not used the Lemon test consistently, and the justices have not reached consensus on a definitive standard by which to adjudicate religious Establishment Clause cases. First, explain the three prongs of the Lemon test and note from which cases each originated. Then, using cases from class, explain how the Court uses this test to judge Establishment Clause cases. Next, either defend this test as an appropriate standard, or argue that another test would be better (one that you have thought of, or one that another justice supports). Be sure to cite those cases that support your argument and the rationale within them that is relevant. Finally, explain why other tests are not as good as the one you support, and why the cases that support these other tests should not be considered relevant.
Q:
How has the Supreme Court's definition of religion evolved throughout the Court's history of deciding First Amendment cases? Be sure to cite specific cases to explain how the evolution has taken place. Which definition do you think is most appropriate? Why?
Q:
When considering the characteristics of the accused, all of the following would apply, except:
a. if the accused is of low intelligence.
b. if the accused is mentally ill.
c. if the accused is intoxicated.
d. if the accused is remorseful.
Q:
No Miranda warning is required if there is no seizure of the person as long as the police do not:a. convey the message that compliance is required. b. secretly intend to arrest the person at a later time. c. ask the person any incriminating questions.d. let the person voluntarily come to the police station.
Q:
Why is the Court more tolerant of lack of separation between church and state in colleges than in elementary and secondary schools?
Q:
Given several examples of how the Lemon test has been applied to both to uphold and to strike government involvement with religion (use case examples).
Q:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that confessions obtained through brutality and torture by law enforcement officials are violations of constitutionally protected due process rights in:
a. Brown v. Mississippi
b. Fikes v. Alabama
c. Katz v. United States
d. Dickerson v. United States
Q:
The exclusionary rule prohibits the use of confessions obtained in violation of a person's constitutional rights and those that are otherwise coerced for all of the following reasons, except:
a. they are inherently unreliable.
b. to do otherwise would be a violation of due process.
c. of a need to hold government accountable by holding such confessions inadmissible.
d. the concern for public safety is not a Fifth Amendment issue.
Q:
Which of the following is not guaranteed or prohibited by the Fifth Amendment?
a. right against self-incrimination
b. trial by jury
c. double jeopardy
d. just compensation
Q:
What special circumstances led the Court to rule in favor of the Massachusetts law in Prince v. Massachusetts? How was this case used in subsequent cases?
Q:
What rationale did the Court use to support its ruling in Gobitis?
Q:
One of the exceptions to a search warrant is known as exigent circumstances. If police officers have established probable cause that evidence is likely to be in a certain place and do not have time to get a search warrant, they may conduct a warrantless search. This can include a reasonable belief that evidence will be removed or destroyed if the officers wait for a warrant. Some courts are dubious of this exception since police officers can frequently create the risk of destruction of evidence by their own behavior. Do you think there is a potential abuse of this exception by the police? If so, how? If not, why not?
Q:
What are the parts of the three-pronged test created by the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman? Provide examples of each.
Q:
Police officers can legally tell and impound vehicles for many reasons, including vehicles involved in accidents, parked in a tow-away zone, or abandoned on the highway. When the police impound a vehicle for legitimate reason, they may lawfully conduct an inventory search. Assume a police officer lacks probable cause but has a "gut feeling" that a known malcontent from the community has marijuana in the trunk of his car. The police officer follows the malcontent until she fails to stop completely at a stop sign. The police officer pulls over at the malcontent and, after asking for license and registration, finds out (as she already suspected) that the malcontent has a suspended license. The police officer arrests the malcontent and puts her in the backseat of her police car. She then calls the local tow company to impound the vehicle for the owner's safety. The police officer is then happy to hear that during a normal inventory inspection of the vehicle, marijuana is found and she promptly informs the district attorney's office. If the police officer has done nothing that violates the law or the Fourth Amendment, can you articulate an argument that challenges what the police officer did?
Q:
How did the Smith test differ from the Sherbert test?
Q:
When a full body search is lawful, police might still be found to have gone too far. This area of law is still being shaped. What limits do you think should be placed on these searches? Do you think your standard adequately reflects the need for effective law enforcement to be balanced with individual rights? Explain.
Q:
Explain the difference between the Valid Secular Policy Test and the Compelling interest test.
Q:
The area within a person's reach or immediate control is known as __________.
Q:
Explain the belief/action dichotomy and how the Court used it to decide Cantwell v. Connecticut.
Q:
Using the three criteria for the plain view doctrine, provide one scenario involving illegal drugs in the trunk of a car that properly utilizes this doctrine and one with similar facts that fails to meet the test.
Q:
Items felt during a lawful stop and frisk may be retrieved if the officer reasonably believes the items are ___________and can instantly recognize them as such.
Q:
Discuss three legal victories Jehovah's witnesses have won at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Q:
What did Alexis de Tocqueville observe about religion in America, and how does this relate to religion in the nation today?
Q:
Courts generally justify the consent exception to the search warrant using the voluntariness and __________tests.
Q:
If the police reasonably believe at the time of their entry that a third party possessed the authority to consent to the search, any evidence secured during the search is ____________at trial.
Q:
In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris the Court upheld _______.A. The Cleveland school voucher programB. The Cleveland open school programC. The Cleveland free lunch programD. None of the above
Q:
The test for ruling in religious establishment cases created by Chief Justice Burger is the _______.A. Coercion TestB. Non-preferential treatment testC. Lemon TestD. Endorsement Approach
Q:
If a third-party has common authority over the premises of items to be searched, this person can provide government officials with valid ________________.
Q:
County of Allegheny v. ACLU indicated that the Court _______.A. Would analyze context when determining whether religious symbols can be displayed on public propertyB. Would not analyze context when determining whether religious symbols can be displayed on public propertyC. Would never allow religious displays on public propertyD. Would only allow religious displays on public property
Q:
Consent to search can only be given by the person who has the right to object to the unreasonableness of the search, because this person has legal _____________.
Q:
With the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress _______.A. Made it more difficult for government agencies to impose restrictions on religious practicesB. Made it easier for government agencies to impose restrictions on religious practices
Q:
Exceptions to the warrant requirement includea. plain feel. b. plain view. c. open fields.d. All of the above.
Q:
Anything that is illegal for people to own or have in their possession is known asa. contraband. b. inadmissible. c. de jure.d. illicit.
Q:
The major change in the Court's Establishment Clause cases ushered in by Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York involved _______.A. The Court's focus on the legitimate secular purpose of a lawB. The Court's focus on the primary effect of the law on religionC. The Court's focus on the excessive entanglement of a law with religion
Q:
In Bailey v. United States, the Court ruled
a. every search warrant entitles police officers to arrest the occupants of the premises searched.
b. seizing someone out of the immediate vicinity of the location of the search warrant is unconstitutional.
c. officer safety entitles police to conduct a pat down frisk of any occupant in a premises being searched.
d. every search with a warrant must produce results.
Q:
In religious establishment cases the compelling interest test makes it _______.A. More difficult for government agencies to impose restrictions on religious practicesB. Easier for government agencies to impose restrictions on religious practices
Q:
School-sponsored prayer before football games was ruled unconstitutional in _______.A. Edwards v AguillardB. School District of Abington Township v. SchemppC. Lee v. WeismanD. Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
Q:
A search with a warrant includes
a. limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises during the search.
b. the requirement to conduct the search within one hour.
c. the authority to arrest anyone who refuses consent.
d. the duty to ensure that the premises are left in the same condition they were found.
Q:
Hudson v. Michigan held that a violation of the warrant knock-and-announce rule,a. shifts the burden of proof to the district attorney at trial. b. invokes the exclusionary rule.c. requires the defense to stipulate to the evidence at trial. d. does not automatically invoke the exclusionary rule.
Q:
In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court ruled that _______.A. Amish children must attend school after the eighth gradeB. Amish children cannot be compelled to attend school after the eighth gradeC. Amish children must attend school after the twelfth gradeD. Amish children cannot be compelled to attend school after the twelfth grade
Q:
In Reynolds v. United. States the Court outlawed _______.A. The "I am" religionB. PolygamyC. The freedom of religionD. The establishment of religion
Q:
Within the city of Westphalia only one development of one hundred homes is left without city water and sewers. In an effort to better the city, the mayor and council pass an ordinance that all homes must be on city water and sewer systems within three years. According to Westphalia's laws, the city will pay for the construction, pipes, and connections on public property. However, residents who are hooked up to the city water system must pay for connection and installation once the pipes reach their property. The residents in the final development do not want city water, as they live above an underground aquifer that provides excellent well water. They also do not want to pay the estimated $5,000 to $7,500 that it will cost per home to make the connections. To stop the new law, the residents file suit in federal court claiming that forcing them to dig up their yards and add unwanted pipes and water to their properties constitutes a taking within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. If you were a justice on the Supreme Court in 2005, how would you decide this case?
Q:
Police officers can compel a suspect who may have drugs in his home to wait outside the home while they get a warrant.
a. True
b. False
Q:
Explain the expansion and contraction of the Court's Takings Clause jurisprudence from Causby through Kelo. What are the major changes that took place in the Court's focus and reasoning during the second half of the twentieth century?
Q:
Searches should be limited in scope, but general searches are constitutional and legal.
a. True
b. False
Q:
The Fourth Amendment analysis of when a search comes under Constitutional scrutiny has employed the trespass and privacy doctrines.
a. True
b. False
Q:
Explain how the Rehnquist Court resurrected the Takings Clause from Nolan through Kelo. How does Stevens' majority used by Scalia, Kennedy, and Rehnquist square with the analysis used by earlier Courts?
Q:
According to Midkiff, what must governments prove in order to take property?
Q:
A reasonable expectation of privacy is an implied right that often falls within the penumbra of other specified rights.
a. True
b. False
Q:
After 1967, Courts held that constitutional protections were implicated only when the government physically intruded into persons, houses, papers or effects.
a. True
b. False
Q:
After Penn Central, 1987 was a turning point for the Court's view of the takings clause. Provide two examples of how this change manifested itself.
Q:
Is Kelo consistent with Berman and Midkiff? If so, why? If not, why not? Who has the more convincing argument on this issue, Stevens or O"Connor? Why?
Q:
Discuss what might constitute exigent circumstances. Give specific examples.
Q:
What constitutes a taking, according to United .States. v. Causby?
Q:
Explain the justifications for the automobile exception to the requirement for a warrant.
Q:
How did the standard for public use change between Lucas and Kelo?
Q:
Discuss the relationship between electronic surveillance and one's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Q:
List three fundamental constitutional rules for searches and discuss their importance.
Q:
What does the Court mean by "public use"?
Q:
Discuss at least five exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
Q:
After a person has ______________property, he or she has no reasonable expectation of privacy relative to that property.
Q:
What term refers to the government's power to take private property for a public purpose?
Q:
In what way did the Rehnquist Court indicate it would not fully expand the right to sue for an improper taking?A. It allowed cities to stop renovations of historic landmarks.B. It allowed cities to place moratoriums on building to determine environmental impacts.C. It allowed cities to run cable through all public housing.D. It allowed cities to change flight patterns without compensation.
Q:
According to Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago (1897), _______.A. Compensation for a taking is essential to the due process of lawB. Compensation for a taking is not essential to the due process of lawC. States may determine when a just compensation is essentialD. The federal government may determine when just compensation is essential
Q:
The property around a home or dwelling directly associated with use of that property is called the___________.
Q:
Driving while intoxicated and hot pursuit situations are examples of _________________.
Q:
Which of the following statements about the applicability of the Takings Clause is true?A. The requirements of the Takings Clause originally applied only to the federal government, but in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) the Supreme Court ruled that the clause also applies to the states.B. Today the Takings Clause applies only to the actions of state and local governments and not to the actions of the federal government.C. The requirements of the Takings Clause originally applied only to state and local governments, but in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago (1897) the Supreme Court ruled that the clause also applies to the federal government.D. Today the Takings Clause applies only to the actions of the federal government and not to the actions of state and local governments.E. None of the above.
Q:
The ______________doctrine allows officers who feel something that they immediately identify as contraband, it can be lawfully seized based on probable cause.
Q:
According to Berman v. Parker (1954; case involving urban renewal programs in Washington, D.C.) and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984; Hawaii land reform case), a key factor in determining whether the public use requirement has been violated is whether the government program provides for the ownership of property taken from one private individual eventually to be transferred to another private individual.A. TrueB. FalseC. True with respect to Berman v. Parker, but false with respect to Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff.D. True with respect to Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, but false with respect to Berman v. Parker.
Q:
Vehicles may often be searched without a warrant because of their __________.
Q:
When officers arrest someone in a home, they are allowed to make a ____________for their safety.
Q:
In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987; case involving a family's request for a permit to replace the existing home on their beachfront property with a new home) the Court concluded that the fact that the new home would obstruct the view of the ocean from the roadway was not a sufficient reason for the state to condition the building permit on _______.A. the Nollans limiting the height of their new homeB. the Nollans limiting the width of their new homeC. the Nollans building a public viewing area between the roadway and their homeD. the Nollans allowing the creation of a public pathway in front of their home
Q:
In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992; case involving a state's denial of a permit to construct houses on island lots) the Court held that _______.A. the state's denial of a building permit was not a taking because it was a reasonable regulation for the preservation of the coastal environmentB. the state's denial of a building permit with the intent of eventually placing a state park on the land was a taking that required compensationC. the state's denial of a building permit with the intent of eventually placing a state park on the land would not constitute a taking until the time the state actually began construction of the parkD. the state's denial of a building permit was a taking because it deprived Lucas of the beneficial economic uses of his landE. the state's denial of a building permit was a reasonable application of existing zoning standards
Q:
The area within a person's reach or immediate control is called the person's ___________.