Q&A Hero

Q: The case of Terri Schiavo, a woman in a persistent vegetative state, riveted the nation during the first half of 2005. The case centered on the decision of Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband, to remove her feeding tube and her parents' fight to keep her alive. One side of the argument suggests that Terri possessed a fundamental right to die, while the other suggests she had a fundamental right to be given food and water. Both arguments find support in the concept of substantive due process. The former points to the concept that there is a fundamental right to privacy under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, while the latter argues that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that citizens will not be denied life without due process of law. Assume that a case similar to the Schiavo case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court and that you are a justice. How will you rule if both parties argue that their side is supported by the concept of substantive due process? Does one side hold more legal weight than the other? Why or why not? If you find that substantive due process is not implicated in this case, how will you rule? Why?

Q: __________includes anything that is illegal for people to own or have in their possession.

Q: Trace the history of substantive due process from its origins, through the Lochner era, and to the present day. What made the Court alter its view of the degree to which substantive due process protected the rights of individuals and businesses to be free from government encroachment?

Q: Courts typically justify the consent exception by two separate tests: the __________test and the ______test.

Q: General searches are ____________.

Q: Using examples from the cases you have read, as well as from the Constitution, explain the differences between procedural due process and substantive due process. Which type of due process do you think the framers meant to include in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? Why?

Q: A person's refusal to give consent to search can be used to establish probable cause. a. True b. False

Q: Seizures of items from a suspect's body, such as hair samples, are typically allowed without a warrant incident to arrest if painless reasonable procedures are used. a. True b. False

Q: How did the Court justify moving away from justifications based on substantive due process in West Coast Hotel?

Q: How did the Court distinguish Lochner from Holden? Do you find the analysis logical and convincing? Why or why not?

Q: Since they are not incarcerated, probationers and parolees enjoy the same Fourth Amendment rights as law- abiding citizens. a. True b. False

Q: Explain why Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897) may have been the turning point for the use of substantive due process to protect people's liberty against government encroachment.

Q: Why were the Slaughterhouse Cases noteworthy when the Court decided them?

Q: "Open fields" is a federal concept only; some states hold that "No Trespassing" signs establish a right of privacy requiring a warrant. a. True b. False

Q: What are three reasons it is important to understand the doctrine of substantive due process?

Q: If a warrant states that one specific item is sought, the search may still continue after it is found. a. True b. False

Q: A person's reasonable expectation of privacy determines when Fourth Amendment protections apply. a. True b. False

Q: In Munn v. Illinois (1877) the Supreme Court upheld state regulation of the grain elevator industry against a challenge that the law violated the due process of law guarantees. In its ruling the Court said that due process does not bar the government from regulating certain kinds of businesses. What name or descriptive title did the Court give to the category of businesses that could be regulated?

Q: The maxim that it is unreasonable for officers to search for "an elephant in a matchbox" means the size of the item(s) sought determines where officers may reasonably search. a. True b. False

Q: When both occupants are present and one consents to a search and one objects, the consent "overrides" the refusal and officers can legally search.a. Trueb. False

Q: In Muller v. Oregon (1908) the Supreme Court considered the appeal of a laundry owner who had been charged with violating a state law regulating the maximum number of hours employees could work. He challenged the law on the ground that it violated his substantive due process rights. The Court unanimously upheld the law, which was surprising given the Court's tendency at that time to strike down such legislation. What accounts for the Court's reaching a decision in this case that seems so out of line with prevailing precedent (e.g., Lochner v. New York, 1905)?

Q: In Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923) the Supreme Court struck down a congressional statute that regulated wages of women and children in the District of Columbia. What specific provision, according to the Court, was violated by this statute?

Q: For a search to have occurred, government agents must make physical entry into someone's property. a. True b. False

Q: To what does the term "Brandeis Brief" refer?

Q: Explain what is meant by the term "substantive due process."

Q: Officers are required to inform people that they have the right to refuse consent to search. a. True b. False

Q: Exigent circumstances include all of the following, except: a. driving while intoxicated. b. a person fleeing upon seeing an officer approach. c. rendering emergency aid. d. danger of destruction of evidence.

Q: In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the concept of substantive due process was has been applied to _______.A. the right to privacyB. the right to religious freedomC. the right to educationD. the right to freedom of speech

Q: In substantive due process cases, the "Four Horsemen" (Justices McReynolds, Butler, Sutherland, and Van Devanter) _______.A. provided a solid bloc of votes for upholding state regulation of business because such regulation did not involve the federal government intruding on the rights of the statesB. did not form a unified bloc as like they did in the Commerce Clause casesC. provided a solid bloc of votes against state regulation of business in much the same way that they stood unified against federal regulation of business in key Commerce Clause cases

Q: The Fourth Amendment applies: a. only to police investigating criminal activity. b. only to state and federal law enforcement agencies. c. to the actions of both public officials and private citizens. d. to all government workers.

Q: In West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) a hotel company challenged a state law setting mandatory minimum wage levels. The company seemingly stood on firm ground, because in Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923) the Supreme Court set a precedent that such laws violate constitutional due process guarantees. In West Coast Hotel the Supreme Court _______.A. struck down the law, applying the Adkins precedentB. upheld the law, overruling the Adkins precedentC. upheld the law, ignoring Adkins and instead applying the precedent set in Nebbia v. New York (1934; milk regulation case)D. struck down the law, applying the precedents of both Adkins v. Children's Hospital and Lochner v. New York (1905; state regulation of maximum working hours case)

Q: The precedent for warrantless searches of vehicles came from: a. Carroll v. United States. b. Chambers v. Maroney. c. Robbins v. California. d. South Dakota v. Opperman.

Q: Limited searches conducted in accordance with constitutional guidelines serve society's needs while: a. protecting the individual. b. preserving the admissibility of any discovered evidence. c. preventing improper conduct by overzealous law enforcement agents. d. serving to protect against a successful appeal of a conviction.

Q: In Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. (1955) the Supreme Court heard a substantive due process challenge to an Oklahoma law that said that an opticians could grind lenses and fit eyeglasses only when presented with a prescription from an ophthalmologist or an optometrist. The law was challenged as unreasonable, unwise, and wasteful. The Supreme Court _______.A. upheld the law, saying that questions about the wisdom or need for a particular law should be answered by the legislature and not the courts;. T thus, challenges to such laws should be made through the electoral process and not through lawsuitsB. struck down the law, explaining that although the relevance of substantive due process had declined, it still barred states from enacting regulatory laws without sufficient evidence demonstrating the need for such regulationC. struck down the law, saying that the state had failed to show that it had a compelling state interest in passing such legislationD. upheld the law, concluding that the state had satisfied its obligations under the compelling state interest test

Q: The precedent case for searches incidental to a lawful arrest is: a. Minnesota v. Dickerson. b. Terry v. Ohio. c. New Jersey v. T.L.O. d. Chimel v. California.

Q: In the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873; cases challenging Louisiana's creation of a monopoly slaughterhouse company), the Supreme Court _______.A. ruled that the creation of the company violated the Contract Clause with respect to earlier state contracts issued to independent butchersB. ruled that the creation of the company did not violate the Contract Clause in spite of previously made state contracts with independent butchersC. adopted a substantive due process interpretation of the Fourteenth AmendmentD. rejected a substantive due process interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment

Q: The Supreme Court has said that a Fourth Amendment _________is a governmental infringement of a legitimate expectation of privacy. a. search b. seizure c. arrest d. investigative stop

Q: After 1937 most Supreme Court observers believed that the doctrine of economic substantive due process was dead, and for many years this conclusion was accurate. In more recent years, however, economic substantive due process has experienced renewed importance, as exemplified by the Court's application of the doctrine to _______.A. Contract Clause casesB. Racial discrimination casesC. Excessive jury awardsD. Labor law

Q: In which of the following situations are school officials justified in searching without a warrant or probable cause if they have reasonable suspicion to believe contraband exists? a. University dorm rooms b. Students and student lockers at public and private schools c. Students and student lockers at public schools d. Adult students

Q: Which of the following have lower courts not yet recognized as analogous to plain view? a. plain feel b. plain smell c. plain hearing d. plain taste

Q: In 2005 the issue of steroid use s issue in Major League Baseball came to a head with the suspension of first baseman Rafael Palmeiro. Congress finally took action and forced baseball to come up with a new policy for drug testing, as well as a stringent policy for suspensions. The first part of the law mandated drug testing for every major and minor league player at the beginning of each season, during the all-star break, and prior to any participation in post-season play. The law also called for a 50 fifty-game suspension for the first positive test, suspension for a full season on the second positive test, and a lifetime ban upon a third violation. While the Baseball Players Association and Major League Baseball agreed to the policy, the requirements were forced on the sport by Congress, which said that it would pass a law mandating these requirements if the two sides did not agree on the basic outline. Several players have sued Major League Baseball, claiming that the contracts they signed under the prior agreementwhich called for punishments for drug use of ten-game suspension, thirty-game suspension, and lifetime bans, respectivelywere impaired by this new contract. They argued that Congress cannot force (by coercion) parties to a private contract to change the terms of that contract. The lower courts disagreed and ruled in favor of Major League Baseball. The case is now before the Supreme Court. If you were a justice on the Supreme Court, how would you rule in this case?

Q: When a person is handcuffed after being arrested, officers may search: a. only their person. b. the area that has been under the immediate control of the suspect prior to being arrested. c. only where the suspect could reach while handcuffed. d. all areas where the suspect could have hidden evidence.

Q: How did the Court's conceptualization of the Contract Clause change when John Marshall left the Court and Roger Taney took it over? Was this it a major change, or was the analysis forwarded by Taney simply a more nuanced view of the role of the Contract Clause?

Q: All searches must be: a. with a warrant. b. with consent. c. limited in scope. d. general in nature.

Q: How did the Taney Court differ from the Marshall Court in its interpretation of the Contract Clause? How did its interpretation stay the same?

Q: When conducting inventory searches of a vehicle, it is important to have: a. probable cause to trigger the automobile exception. b. a standard operating procedure. c. a warrant because the vehicle is no longer mobile. d. a systematic method for conducting the search..

Q: How did Marshall's view of the contract clause parallel his views of federal authority in other areas of the law?

Q: To obtain an electronic surveillance warrant, or wiretap order, probable cause that a person is engaging in particular communications must be established by the court and _____________must have already been tried. a. random interception of communicationsb. normal investigative proceduresc. an attempt to obtain oneparty's consentd. a trap and trace device

Q: Why did the framers draft the contract clause on states rather than on the federal government?

Q: Relationships where third-party consent to search is allowed include all except: a. parent/child. b. employer/employee. c. landlord/tenant. d. host/guest.

Q: In Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934) the Supreme Court upheld the Minnesota Mortgage Moratorium Act against a challenge that the law was a violation of the Contract Clause. What were the basic provisions of the act? What reasons did the Court give for upholding the act?

Q: Which of the following is not one of the fundamental constitutional rules that apply to Fourth Amendment cases? a. There must be governmental action. b. General searches are unlawful. c. The person making the challenge must have a reasonable expectation of privacy. d. There must be law enforcement action.

Q: For the framers the right to contract was _______.A. closely tied to the federal governmentB. closely tied to state governmentsC. closely tied to the right of private propertyD. none of the aboveE. all of the above

Q: Prior to the twentieth Century the Contract Clause _______.A. was mostly ignored by the U.S. Supreme CourtB. was not litigated very oftenC. made up a large portion of the Supreme Court's docketD. was ultimately stricken from the Constitution

Q: Which of the following is not one of the criteria that must be met for plain view? a. The original intrusion is legal only because it is pursuant to a valid warrant. b. The items are plainly observed while in the permissible scope of the original intrusion. c. The original intrusion is legal because the officers are present legally. d. The items are immediately recognizable as evidence or contraband.

Q: Stone v. Mississippi _______.A. made it clear that the Court was no longer sympathetic to Contract Clause claims to stop government regulationsB. made it clear that the Court would continue to be sympathetic to Contract Clause claims to stop government regulations

Q: Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837) was _______.A. the last of the Marshall Court opinions strongly supporting the enforcement of the Contract ClauseB. the first of the Taney Court opinions elevating the importance of the public good in considering Contract Clause cases

Q: When government agents are lawfully executing a warrant they: a. must obtain another warrant if they find additional illegal items. b. can seize any contraband, even if not specified in the warrant. c. can continue searching the premises after what was specified in the warrant is found. d. can take anything they want for any reason.

Q: Which of the following would not constitute a lawful warrantless search? a. dumpster-diving b. looking at curtilage from the air c. using a thermal imaging device to find a "grow" room d. covert involuntary DNA sampling

Q: Daniel Webster was one of the most influential legal minds of the nineteenth century. He had a particularly important role in influencing the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Contract Clause. Which of the following best describes Webster's Contract Clause beliefs and activities?A. Webster supported an interpretation of the Contract Clause that balanced the importance of contracts with the public good, as can be seen in his arguments on behalf of the Warren Bridge Company.B. As an attorney Webster supported vigorous enforcement of the Contract Clause, but after being appointed to the Supreme Court he altered his views and tended to support the interests of the public good over the need to protect contracts.C. As an attorney Webster supported vigorous enforcement of the Contract Clause, and after his appointment to the Supreme Court he continued to vote in favor of the Contract Clause in spite of the fact that a majority of his colleagues had Jacksonian views of the primacy of the public good.D. Webster strongly supported a vigorous enforcement of the Contract Clause, representing such clients as the old trustees of Dartmouth College and the Charles River Bridge Company.

Q: Electronic surveillance: a. is governed by the Fourth Amendment. b. never requires a warrant. c. produces no intrusion on one's reasonable expectations of privacy. d. requires a warrant only when entry on premises is necessary to conduct the surveillance.

Q: Routine searches at our national borders require: a. reasonable suspicion. b. consent. c. probable cause. d. no justification.

Q: In Fletcher v. Peck (1810; Yazoo land case) the Supreme Court _______.A. allowed the state of Georgia to rescind its previously executed land sale contract because the original contract was based on fraud and briberyB. held that challenges to state-issued contracts cannot be heard by the federal courts because of Eleventh Amendment prohibitions against suing states in federal courtC. struck down Georgia's attempt to rescind its previously executed land sale contract in spite of the fact that the original contract was based on fraud and briberyD. allowed the state of Georgia to rescind a previously made contract, and the public reaction to this ruling prompted the ratification of the Contract Clause

Q: The Contract Clause _______.A. applies to the actions of state governmentsB. applies to the actions of the federal governmentC. initially applied to the actions of the federal government, but today applies to both the federal government and the statesD. initially applied to the actions of state governments, but today applies to both the state governments and the federal government

Q: United States v. Warshak affirmed: a. mobility produces exigent circumstances. b. no expectation of privacy exists in peer-to-peer sharing services. c. diminished expectation of privacy in a vehicle. d. there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mails.

Q: A bitter rivalry exists between residents of Minnesota and Wisconsin over their favorite National Football League teamsthe Vikings and the Packers. Because Minneapolis is so close to the Wisconsin border, many Packers fans try to flood the Metrodome (a publicly owned sports stadium rented out to the Vikings) each season for the game between the rival teams. To prevent the stadium from being filled with a majority of Packers fans for this game, the Vikings instituted a new ticket policy. All fans who wish to purchase tickets for the Packers/Vikings game must also purchase tickets for at least two Vikings preseason games. The tickets are sold as a "package deal," according to the Vikings, and the sole purpose of the policy is to guarantee that the stadium is filled for preseason games that are often not high-demand games. Many Packers fans see the policy as, at best, an impediment to seeing their favorite team play, and, at worst, a punishment.Respondent Brett Driver argues that the additional purchase requirement is, in essence, a tax allowed by the state, given that the stadium is state owned. The tax, as he sees it, is not meant to raise revenue but rather to regulate activity. Further, he argues that the tax violates the Interstate Commerce Clause because the NFL is an interstate industry and therefore only Congress can regulate it by setting up such taxes. Driver has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the "ticket tax" and again allow fans to purchase tickets for all games without having to purchase tickets for games they do not want to see.Suppose you were a justice in this case. Would you rule in favor of Driver (in part or in full) or the Vikings (in part or in full)? Why?Be sure to (1) justify your response with reference to relevant Supreme Court precedent and (2) consider, incorporate, or, at least, acknowledge arguments that may not support your response.

Q: The Supreme Court reduced law enforcement's authority to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to arrest in:a. Arizona v. Gantb. Carroll v. United Statesc. United States v. Simmonsd. New York v. Belton

Q: The state power to tax is inextricably intertwined with the federal government's power to control interstate commerce. Using examples from cases you read in this chapter, explain how the U.S. Supreme Court has reconciled Congress's commerce power with states' power to tax goods and services within their borders. What is the current state of this relationship?

Q: Officers can conduct a limited protective search incident to in-house arrest ____________that anyone dangerous is hiding in the home. a. without any suspicion b. with reasonable suspicion c. with probable cause d. with specific, articulable facts

Q: A search can be incident to arrest only if it is substantially ___________with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest. a. extemporaneous b. noncontemporary c. contemporaneous d. asynchronous

Q: Compare Madison's and Hamilton's positions on using the power to tax for the general welfare.

Q: Why did the Court protect the federal government from state taxes in McCulloch v. Maryland?

Q: For which of the following does Title III require a warrant? a. Electronic surveillance (wiretap) b. Recording phone conversations with consent of one of the two parties to the conversation. c. Using a pen register to obtain the numbers dialed from a telephone. d. Randomly intercepting cordless and cellular phone conversations.

Q: Searches of vehicles incident to the arrest of an occupant area allowed only if the officer has a reasonable belief that the arrestee can gain access to the vehicle or __________will be found in the vehicle. a. contraband b. weapons c. evidence of the crime of arrest d. evidence of any crime

Q: How did the Sixteenth Amendment change the power of Congress to tax?

Q: Which of the following would be considered a violation of a subject's reasonable expectation of privacy, requiring a warrant?a. Police put a "beeper" on a vehicle to monitor its location.b. Undercover officer converses with suspects and uses information in court.c. Taking photographs of curtilage from an aircraft.d. Placing listening device in public telephone booth to monitor conversations.

Q: Explain why the Southern states supported the requirement that taxes be apportioned on the basis of population. What did the three-fifths compromise have to do with this debate?

Q: What four requirements must be met by a federal spending statute for it to be valid, according to the decision in South Dakota v. Dole (1987)?

Q: Which of the following would not be a legitimate factor contributing to the decision to frisk? a. suspect who flees b. suspicion a suspect possesses dangerous drugs c. being in known high-crime area d. suspect's hand is concealed in pocket

Q: General searches are: a. routinely done by police. b. never constitutional. c. permitted if authorized by a warrant. d. permitted in cases where the suspect is found to be armed.