Heckler’s Veto
Prior Restraint
Fighting Words
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
•
Why is freedom of the press important to our Democracy?
•
Censorship-
•
Prior restraint–
Pentagon Papers -
•
Obscene Publications-
•
Advertising- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulates this area.
–
–
•
Cigarettes
Alcohol
Limits on Mass Media–
Movies-
–
Radio-
•
Freedom Of Information Act-
•
Sunshine Laws-
•
Shield Laws-
Freedom of Religion
• Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof.
• Establishment Clause
• Free Exercise Clause
Everson v. Board of Education
• New Jersey School Bus Case
Engel v. Vitale
• Outlawed reading of the Bible in public
schools
Sante Fe Independent School
District v. Doe
• Outlawed student led prayers at high
school Football games
Westside Community Schools v.
Mergens
• Allowed for after school religious groups
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover
Area School District
• Intelligent Design Case
Aid to Public Schools
• Must pass the lemon test
– Lemon v. Kurtzman
Merry Christmahanaquanzika
• Seasonal religious displays are allowed on
public property as long as other religions
or secular displays also accompany the
displays.
Freedom Of Assembly
• ASSEMBLY IN PUBLIC PLACES:
• ASSEMBLY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY:
– REGULATIONS ON ASSEMBLIES:
• CONFLICTS WITH OTHER RIGHTS: Freedom of Assembly may
not interfere with the functions of government, public interest,
or the basic rights of others.
• UNPOPULAR ASSEMBLIES:
– Heckler’s Veto: Hostile Onlookers can stop an otherwise peaceful
Assembly
Due Process Under the Bill Of
Rights
• Principle of Due Process
– Protects citizens from arbitrary or unjustified
acts by the government
• Two aspects of Due Process
– Substantive
– Procedural
Being safe in you home and
Person.
• 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
Warrants 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.
Illegal search and seizure
• How the police secure a warrant
– They appear before a judge or magistrate
– Police swear under oath they have probable
cause
– The judge issues a warrant that describes the
place to be searched and the specific persons
or items to be seized.
Probable Cause
• Reasonable belief a crime is being
committed or has been committed
Florida v. J.L.
• Anonymous tip
Minnesota v. Carter
• Plain View
Lidster v. Illinois
• Informational Roadblocks
Arrests
• When the police make an arrest, they do
NOT need a warrant to search the area in
which a suspect may gain access to a
weapon.
Warrant for Arrest
• Most arrests occur without one….Police
can arrest a person without a warrant
provided they have reason to believe a
person has committed or is about to
commit a crime.
Fleeing at the sight of police
• Illinois v. Wardlow
Terry v. Ohio
Sibron v. New York
Automobiles
• Police need no warrant to search a car,
plane, or boat they believe involved in
illegal activity. Movable crime scene.
Mapp v. Ohio
Search and Seizure Continued
• Can the police use evidence against the
accused if the evidence found did not
appear on the warrant?
– It Depends
•
•
•
•
Nix v. Williams
US v. Leon
Arizona v. Evans
Maryland v. Garrison
Nix v. Williams
• Williams was arrested for the murder of a ten-year-old girl who's
body he disposed of along a gravel road. State law enforcement
officials engaged in a massive search for the child's body. During the
search, after responding to an officer's appeal for assistance,
Williams made statements to the police (without an attorney present)
which helped lead the searchers to the child's body. The defendant's
Miranda rights were only read to him after his arrest.
• Question Presented
• Should evidence resulting in an arrest be excluded from trial
because it was improperly obtained?
• Conclusion
• No. The Court relied on the "inevitable discovery doctrine," as it held
that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the child's body as
evidence since it was clear that the volunteer search teams would
have discovered the body even absent Williams's statements.
US v. Leon
•
•
•
•
•
The exclusionary rule requires that evidence illegally seized must be excluded from
criminal trials. Leon was the target of police surveillance based on an anonymous
informant's tip. The police applied to a judge for a search warrant of Leon's home
based on the evidence from their surveillance. A judge issued the warrant and the
police recovered large quantities of illegal drugs. Leon was indicted for violating
federal drug laws. A judge concluded that the affidavit for the search warrant was
insufficient; it did not establish the probable cause necessary to issue the warrant.
Thus, the evidence obtained under the warrant could not be introduced at Leon's trial.
Question Presented
Is there a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule?
Conclusion
Yes, there is such an exception. The justices held that evidence seized on the basis
of a mistakenly issued search warrant could be introduced at trial. The exclusionary
rule, argued the majority, is not a right but a remedy justified by its ability to deter
illegal police conduct. In Leon, the costs of the exclusionary rule outweighed the
benefits. The exclusionary rule is costly to society: Guilty defendants go unpunished
and people lose respect for the law. The benefits of the exclusionary rule are
uncertain: The rule cannot deter police in a case like Leon, where they act in good
faith on a warrant issued by a judge.
Arizona v. Evans
•
•
•
•
The police stopped Evans for driving the wrong way down a one-way street. After running his
driver's license through their computer, the police found that there was a warrant out for his arrest.
Arresting Evans, the police searched his car and found marijuana.
A search "incident to arrest" is generally understood to be constitutional. However, it turned out
that the misdemeanor warrant that appeared on the police officer's computer was a mistake. The
warrant had been withdrawn. At his trial, Evans argued that the computer mistake meant the
search of his car was illegal. Because his car was illegally searched, he stated, the exclusionary
rule should apply to the marijuana the police found.
The Supreme Court of Arizona basically agreed with Evans that the search and resulting drug
charges were unconstitutional. They ruled that because the exclusionary rule is meant to deter
police employees from making mistakes in the process of searching for and seizing evidence,
computer records were not exempt from the rule.
In 1994, the Supreme Court of the United States decided to hear the case upon appeal from the
Arizona police.
•
•
Questions to Consider:
What is the purpose of the exclusionary rule?
•
Should it apply in this case? Why or why not?
•
Predict the outcome of the case.
Arizona v. Evans---Outcome
•
•
•
They decided that the exclusionary rule was created to
stop police misconduct. In this case, the Court said no
misconduct had occurred.
The Court also decided that, because there is no
evidence that record keeping employees were inclined
to ignore the Fourth Amendment, the computer error
was probably a result of pure human error rather than
an attempt to undermine the rights of individuals.
Without evidence that extending the exclusionary rule
to mistakes made by record keeping employees would
change police behavior, there was no reason to
believe that finding for Evans in this case would make
a police officer more accurate. After all, they
determined, the officer was just doing his job.
Maryland v. Garrison
• Officers had a warrant to search for drugs
on the 3rd floor of a building. Not realizing
there were two apartments, they searched
the wrong one and found drugs.. Can
those drugs be used as evidence against
the occupants of the apartment since it
was an honest mistake.
Limiting the scope of the
Exclusionary rule
• Inevitable Discovery
• “Good Faith” Exception
• “Honest” Mistakes
What if illegally obtained evidence leads to
the collection of other evidence through the
use of a warrant?
•
– Fruit of the poisonous tree
evidence gathered with the aid of information
obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology
is that if the source of the evidence (the "tree")
is tainted, then anything gained from it (the
"fruit") would be likewise.
Searches By Officials Without A
Warrant
•
•
•
•
Airports and borders
Customs agents and mail
EPA Fly-overs
Teacher and Administrator searches
School Drug Testing
• Can members of sports teams be subject
to random school drug testing?
• What about chess club, band, and quiz
bowl members?
• Complete “One Test Too Many”
Vernonia School Dist. V. Acton
Facts of the Case
• An official investigation led to the discovery that high
school athletes in the Vernonia School District
participated in illicit drug use. School officials were
concerned that drug use increases the risk of sportsrelated injury. Consequently, the Vernonia School District
of Oregon adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy
which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its
student athletes. James Acton, a student, was denied
participation in his school's football program when he
and his parents refused to consent to the testing.
Vernonia Decision
• Question Presented
• Does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the
reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment?
• Conclusion
• No. The reasonableness of a search is judged by "balancing the
intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the
promotion of legitimate governmental interests." In the case of high
school athletes who are under State supervision during school
hours, they are subject to greater control than over free adults (in
loco parentis) . The privacy interests compromised by urine
samples are negligible since the conditions of collection are similar
to public restrooms, and the results are viewed only by limited
authorities. Furthermore, the governmental concern over the safety
of minors under their supervision overrides the minimal, if any,
intrusion in student-athletes' privacy.
New Jersey v. TLO
• New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) upheld the
search of lockers and other personal
space while on school property, indicating
that students are not afforded the same
rights as adults in other settings and
stating that while acting in loco parentis,
school officials are still representatives of
the state.
Electronic Surveillance Requires a
Warrant
• Katz v. The United States
– Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling
information over the phone to clients in other states, Federal
agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a
public phone booth used by Katz. Based on recordings of his
end of the conversations, Katz was convicted under an eightcount indictment for the illegal transmission of wagering
information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami. On appeal,
Katz challenged his conviction arguing that the recordings could
not be used as evidence against him. The Court of Appeals
rejected this point, noting the absence of a physical intrusion into
the phone booth itself. The Court granted certiorari.
Katz Decision
• Question Presented
• Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant
in order to wiretap a public pay phone?
• Conclusion
• Yes. The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment
protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the
area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into
play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," wrote
Justice Potter Stewart for the Court. A concurring opinion by John
Marshall Harlan introduced the idea of a 'reasonable' expectation of
Fourth Amendment protection.
Gideon v. Wainright
• Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with
a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked
funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to
prepare his defense. When he requested the
court to appoint an attorney for him, the court
refused, stating that it was only obligated to
appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital
cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he
was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced
him to five years in a state prison.
Gideon Question
• Did the state court's failure to appoint
counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair
trial and due process of law as protected
by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Gideon Decision
• In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that
Gideon had a right to be represented by a courtappointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled
its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case
the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's
guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right,
essential to a fair trial, which should be made
applicable to the states through the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Escobedo v. Illinois
• Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken
to a police station for questioning. Over
several hours, the police refused his
repeated requests to see his lawyer.
Escobedo's lawyer sought unsuccessfully
to consult with his client. Escobedo
subsequently confessed to murder.
Escobedo Question
• Was Escobedo denied the right to counsel
during questioning as guaranteed by the
Sixth Amendment?
Escobedo Decision
• Yes. Justice Goldberg, in his majority opinion, spoke for
the first time of "an absolute right to remain silent."
Escobedo had not been adequately informed of his
consitutitonal right to remain silent rather than to be
forced to incriminate himself. The case has lost authority
as precedent as the arguments in police interrogation
and confession cases have shifted from the Sixth
Amendment to the Fifth Amendment, emphasizing
whether the appropriate warnings have been given and
given correctly, and whether the right to remain silent
has been waived.
Miranda v. Arizona
• In 1963, Ernesto Miranda (born in Mesa,
Arizona in 1941, and living in Phoenix,
Arizona with only an elementary school
education) was arrested for robbery,
kidnapping and rape. He was interrogated by
police and confessed. At trial, prosecutors
offered only his confession as evidence.
Miranda was convicted of rape and
kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years
on both charges. Miranda's lawyer, Alvin
Moore, appealed to the Arizona Supreme
Court but the charges were upheld.
Miranda Question
• Does the police practice of interrogating
individuals without notifying them of their
right to counsel and their protection
against self-incrimination violate the Fifth
Amendment?
Miranda Conclusion
• The Court held that prosecutors could not use
statements stemming from custodial
interrogation of defendants unless they
demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards
"effective to secure the privilege against selfincrimination”. The Court specifically outlined
the necessary aspects of police warnings to
suspects, including warnings of the right to
remain silent and the right to have counsel
present during interrogations.
Fifth Amendment
• Protect the rights of the accused
Grand Jury Investigation
•
A group of people are called together
to look at evidence and decide
whether it is sufficient to justify a
criminal trial. the right to such a
grand jury hearing is granted to all
cases involving a serious federal
crime, particularly a capital crime- one
for which THE DEATH penalty may be
given.
Grand Jury Continued
– The grand jury meets in secret to examine evidence
collected by the prosecuting attorney.
– The prosecutor also presents an INDICTMENT
(formal statement charging the accused person
with certain crimes)
– if the members of the grand jury agree that the
prosecutor’s evidence is strong enough, they return
a true bill of indictment.
Double Jeopardy
•
Exceptions:
» state and federal COURTS (many crimes are
against both state and federal laws.
» civil and criminal courts (damages and criminal
charges)
» hung jury- the jury cannot agree on a verdict.
» organized crime act-federal prosecutors may
appeal cases in which they feel the jury has
given a penalty that is too light. this act was
intended to secure stiffer penalties for
organized crime.
Self Incrimination
• Limits
– Only may refuse to provide testimony that
incriminates you.
– Courts have the final word on its use
– May be offered immunity for testimony
• Physical Evidence
Eminent Domain
• New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent
domain authority to seize private property to sell to
private developers. The city said developing the land
would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Kelo
Susette and others whose property was seized sued
New London in state court. The property owners argued
the city violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause,
which guaranteed the government will not take private
property for public use without just compensation.
Specifically the property owners argued taking private
property to sell to private developers was not public use.
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled for New London.
Kelo Question Presented
• Does a city violate the Fifth Amendment's
takings clause if the city takes private
property and sells it for private
development, with the hopes the
development will help the city's bad
economy?
Kelo Conclusion
• No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul
Stevens, the majority held that the city's taking of private
property to sell for private development qualified as a
"public use" within the meaning of the takings clause.
The city was not taking the land simply to benefit a
certain group of private individuals, but was following an
economic development plan. Such justifications for land
takings, the majority argued, should be given deference.
The takings here qualified as "public use" despite the
fact that the land was not going to be used by the public.
The Fifth Amendment did not require "literal" public use,
the majority said, but the "broader and more natural
interpretation of public use as 'public purpose.'"
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT
•
•
Guarantees:
ENSURES A FAIR & SPEEDY TRIAL-trial is important for several reasons.
For the innocent it means
•
–
–
–
•
less difficulties
less financial losses
less public disgrace associated with criminal charges
Less chance of witnesses
–
–
–
a prompt
moving away
forgetting testimony
dying
– What is a “speedy trial”the supreme court
has never defined this. instead, they look
at each decision on a case by case basis
considering:
•
•
•
•
Length of delay
Reason for delay
Did the accused demand a speedy trial
Was harm done
Television Coverage at Trials
– News coverage at trials—
• SHEPPARD V. MAXWELL 1966- SHEPARD’S
TRIAL WAS THE FOCUS A NUMEROUS
DAMAGING NEWS REPORTS THAT HIS
JURERS READ. HIS CONVITION WAS
OVERTURNED.
• TODAY- OVER HALF OF THE STATES ALLOW
TELEVISION COVERAGE OF TRIALS.
The 6th Amendment Guarantees an
Impartial Jury of your peers.
•
CHOOSING AN IMPARTIAL JURY
–
–
–
JURORS ARE USUALLY CHOSEN FROM A LIST
OF Taxpayers
LAWS IN SOME STATES DISQUALIFY CERTAIN
GROUPS OF VOTERS
laws in some states disqualify certain groups of
voters
•
•
•
•
•
lawyers
military personnel
mentally ill people
people unable to read or write
people unable to speak English
Exemptions (people who CAN be
excused from serving)
•
•
•
•
•
elderly
doctors
dentists
teachers
persons who jobs could be jeopardized by
spending time on jury duty
The 6th Amendment guarantees:
• The Right to know the charges against you
• THE ACCUSED MUST RECEIVE
• Prisoner’s right to demand a writ of Habeas Corpus
• The Right to confront (hear and see)
witnesses testifying against you
• The Right to call defense witnesses
• The Right to legal advice
– The Gideon case
• PUBLIC DEFENDERS-
– FELONIES– Misdemeanors– The Escobedo trial
– The Miranda decision
Rights of the accused on trial
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No unreasonable search and seizure
Arrest on warrant or probable cause
Informed right to counsel and right to remain silent
No excessive Bail
No coerced confession
Grand Jury
Informed charge or indictment
Do NOT have to take the stand
Speedy trial
Confront Witnesses
Right to Counsel
Impartial Jury
Verdict of jury
No double jeopardy
Right to appeal
No cruel or unusual punishment
Rights of the Accused
• Robin Banks is accused of a
premeditated homicide. Describe the
process of investigating and attempting
to bring Robin to justice while
respecting the rights that Robin is
entitled to.
The 8th Amendment Guarantees the protection from
cruel and unusual punishment and excessive bail
• Limits on bail
– Excessive bail- has never been clearly defined.
In general, the amount depends on a few things.
• BAIL REFORM ACT OF 1966– Requires federal officials to release persons who
cannot raise bail unless there is reason to believe
they will not appear in court or if they are accused of
a capital crime.
– This law also provides that the time a person spends
in prison waiting for their trial shall be subtracted
from any sentence given later.
DEATH PENALTY
• The death penalty has been an issue of
controversy where many claim it is in
violation of the 8th Amendment.
Methods Of Execution
• Methods of execution vary between states:
– Hanging
– Firing Squad
– Electric Chair
– Gas Chamber
– Lethal Injection
Hanging
•
•
Hanging is still used in Delaware and Washington,
although both have lethal injection as an alternative
method of execution. The last hanging to take place
was January 25, 1996 in Delaware.
For execution by this method, the inmate may be
weighed the day before the execution, and a
rehearsal is done using a sandbag of the same
weight as the prisoner. This is to determine the
length of 'drop' necessary to ensure a quick death.
If the rope is too long, the inmate could be
decapitated, and if it is too short, the strangulation
could take as long as 45 minutes. The rope, which
should be 3/4-inch to 1 1/4-inch in diameter, must
be boiled and stretched to eliminate spring or
coiling. The knot should be lubricated with wax or
soap "to ensure a smooth sliding action,"
according to the 1969 U.S. Army manual.
Firing Squad
• Firing squad still remains a method of execution in Utah and Idaho,
although each allow lethal injection as an alternative method and
only Utah allows the inmate to choose this method. The most recent
execution by this method was that of John Albert Taylor. By his own
choosing, Taylor was executed by firing squad in Utah on January
26, 1996.
• For execution by this method, the inmate is typically bound to a chair
with leather straps across his waist and head, in front of an ovalshaped canvas wall. The chair is surrounded by sandbags to absorb
the inmate's blood. A black hood is pulled over the inmate's head. A
doctor locates the inmate's heart with a stethoscope and pins a
circular white cloth target over it. Standing in an enclosure 20 feet
away, five shooters are armed with .30 caliber rifles loaded with
single rounds. One of the shooters is given blank rounds. Each of
the shooters aims his rifle through a slot in the canvas and fires at
the inmate. (Weisberg, 1991)
• The prisoner dies as a result of blood loss caused by rupture of the
heart or a large blood vessel, or tearing of the lungs. The person
shot loses consciousness when shock causes a fall in the supply of
blood to the brain. If the shooters miss the heart, by accident or
intention, the prisoner bleeds to death slowly.
Electric Chair
•
•
•
Today, electrocution is used as the sole method of
execution only in Nebraska.
For execution by the electric chair, the person is
usually shaved and strapped to a chair with belts that
cross his chest, groin, legs, and arms. A metal skullcapshaped electrode is attached to the scalp and forehead
over a sponge moistened with saline. The sponge must
not be too wet or the saline short-circuits the electric
current, and not too dry, as it would then have a very
high resistance. An additional electrode is moistened
with conductive jelly (Electro-Creme) and attached to a
portion of the prisoner's leg that has been shaved to
reduce resistance to electricity. The prisoner is then
blindfolded. (Hillman, 1992 and Weisberg, 1991)
After the execution team has withdrawn to the
observation room, the warden signals the executioner,
who pulls a handle to connect the power supply. A jolt
of between 500 and 2000 volts, which lasts for about 30
seconds, is given. The current surges and is then
turned off, at which time the body is seen to relax. The
doctors wait a few seconds for the body to cool down
and then check to see if the inmate's heart is still
beating. If it is, another jolt is applied. This process
continues until the prisoner is dead. The prisoner's
hands often grip the chair and there may be violent
movement of the limbs which can result in dislocation
or fractures. The tissues swell. Defecation occurs.
Steam or smoke rises and there is a smell of burning.
Gas Chamber
•
•
•
Today, five states authorize lethal gas as a method of execution, but all
have lethal injection as an alternative method. A federal court in
California found this method to be cruel and unusual punishment. The
last use of a gas chamber was on March 3, 1999, when Walter
LaGrand, a German national, was executed in Arizona.
For execution by this method, the condemned person is strapped to a
chair in an airtight chamber. Below the chair rests a pail of sulfuric
acid. A long stethoscope is typically affixed to the inmate so that a
doctor outside the chamber can pronounce death. Once everyone has
left the chamber, the room is sealed. The warden then gives a signal to
the executioner who flicks a lever that releases crystals of sodium
cyanide into the pail. This causes a chemical reaction that releases
hydrogen cyanide gas. (Weisberg, 1991)
The prisoner is instructed to breathe deeply to speed up the process.
Most prisoners, however, try to hold their breath, and some struggle.
The inmate does not lose consciousness immediately. According to
former San Quenton, California, Penitentiary warden, Clifton Duffy, "At
first there is evidence of extreme horror, pain, and strangling. The
eyes pop. The skin turns purple and the victim begins to drool"
(Weisberg, 1991).
Lethal Injection
• Today, 37 of the 38 states that have the death penalty use this
method.
• When this method is used, the condemned person is usually bound
to a gurney and a member of the execution team positions several
heart monitors on his skin. Two needles (one is a back-up) are then
inserted into usable veins, usually in the inmates arms. Long tubes
connect the needle through a hole in a cement block wall to several
intravenous drips. The first is a harmless saline solution that is
started immediately. Then, at the warden's signal, a curtain is raised
exposing the inmate to the witnesses in an adjoining room. Then,
the inmate is injected with sodium thiopental - an anesthetic, which
puts the inmate to sleep. Next flows pavulon or pancuronium
bromide, which paralyzes the entire muscle system and stops the
inmate's breathing. Finally, the flow of potassium chloride stops the
heart. Death results from anesthetic overdose and respiratory and
cardiac arrest while the condemned person is unconscious.
The 9th Amendment
• Right to privacy
– ZONES OF PRIVACY• PERSONAL INFORMATION• PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS-
Roe vs. Wade
• Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her
pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions
except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting
certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first
time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not
locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice
Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired
from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional
argument in the second round. Her new opponent -Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from
Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall.
Roe Question Presented
• Does the Constitution embrace a woman's
right to terminate her pregnancy by
abortion?
Roe Conclusion
• The Court held that a woman's right to an
abortion fell within the right to privacy
(recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut)
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The decision gave a woman total
autonomy over the pregnancy during the
first trimester and defined different levels
of state interest for the second and third
trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46
states were affected by the Court's ruling.
14th Amendment
• Does the Bill Of Rights only apply to the
Federal Government?
14th Amendment Extension of the
Bill Of Rights
• Through a series of Supreme Court cases,
the Court established that the Due
Process clause in the 14th Amendment
applies to the states as well as the
national government.