Civil Rights and
Freedoms
How due process protections
related to the 4th, 5th , 6th and 14th
Amendments effected the
outcomes of several landmark US
Supreme Court cases
Michael Quinones, NBCT
www.socialstudiesguy.com
APK: Activation of Prior Knowledge
___________________________________________________
Write at least 2-3 sentences describing a time when…
___________________________________________________
your rights/freedoms were taken away by a school, police or other
___________________________________________________
government agency
___________________________________________________
[Explain]
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
Question of the Day
___________________________________________________
How have U.S. Supreme Court rulings
___________________________________________________
balanced the rights and freedoms of the
___________________________________________________
individual with the need to maintain
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
order?
___________________________________________________
Understanding Words
-Read each of the sentences on the left and right.
-Decide what each underlined word means.
-Write the underlined word in a sentence of your own.
Even though the tongue was burned it
could discriminate between Pepsi and
Diet Pepsi.
With all of her prom date offers
Tamika, and the fact she is tall, decided
to discriminate against boys who were
short.
Bob was blamed for breaking Mom’s
fancy lamp but decided to incriminate
Steve also when he spoke to Dad.
Nobody admitted to eating the
chocolate pudding but the empty dish
with brown residue in Sal’s room was
very incriminating proof against him.
The hungry wolf seized the small
rabbit by the throat then fled into
the woods.
Janet had not made payments on
her car as she had agreed so the
bank seized the vehicle parked at
her house.
Mark sought the counsel of his
grandfather because he was
unsure what to do.
After Margaret’s arrest she
believed she had the right to legal
counsel to defend her.
Charting Constitutional Issues, Grounds and Bases
You have been given a copy of this sheet with descriptions of clauses in the U.S. Constitution that are part of the
plaintiff’s argument and/or part of the basis/grounds of the Supreme Court’s opinion in their rulings.
These clauses are cut out and printed on enlarged pieces of paper in the front of the room. As you learn about
these Landmark cases and the rulings of the Court come to the front of the room and place the Constitutional
clause you believe goes under the appropriate place [the Plaintiff’s Constitutional argument and/or the
Constitutional Issues before the Court].
Name of the Case
Plaintiff’s Constitutional Argument or reason
for appealing to High Court
Constitutional Grounds for Supreme
Court’s Opinion
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law….
Prohibiting the exercise of
Free speech….
6th Amendment
Right to a lawyer
4th Amendment
Search and Seizure
The Right of the people to be
secure in their persons….against
unreasonable searches and
seizures….no warrants shall
issue…[without] probable
cause…
8th Amendment
No…Cruel and unusual
punishment inflicted….
In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall…have the …right
to have the assistance of
counsel
1st Amendment
Establishment
Clause
Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of
religion…
5th Amendment
Self-Incrimination
No person shall be compelled in
in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself.
14th Amendment Equal
Protection Clause
No state shall deprive
citizens from Equal
Protection of the laws.
Gideon v Wainwright [1963]:
The Homeless Drifter Case
Facts of the Case:
In 1961 a homeless, drifter named
Clarence
Gideon was arrested on charges of petty
theft [he stole money from a cigarette
machine].
He was indigent [poor] to afford a
lawyer and wanted a free lawyer paid for
with tax money.
His request was denied so he defended
himself.
Most accounts say he was smart and
performed reasonably well in court for a
poorly educated person.
However, he was not a trained lawyer and
was convicted [found guilty] in Florida
state
court and sentenced to 5 years prison.
Issues before Supreme Court:
Was Gideon’s conviction in state
court valid because he did not
have a lawyer to defend him?
Did Gideon have the right to a
lawyer paid for by the
government?
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
Gideon’s right to legal counsel/lawyer were
violated.
Gideon’s right to Equal Protection under the
law were violated because all accused
persons [rich or poor] have a right to a
lawyer.
Gideon was given a new trial and found not
guilty.
From then on poor accused person have
been given public defenders [free lawyers].
Furman v Georgia [1972]:
The Tough on Burglars Case
Facts of the Case:
Issues before Supreme Court:
A person awoke in the middle of
the night to find William Furman
robbing his home.
Was the murder conviction and death
sentence fair because the “murder”
may not have been intentional?
Furman gave two different versions
of what happened next during police
questioning.
Was this an excessive punishment
and appropriate sentence for the type
of crime?
[A] He told the police he fired
his weapon “blindly while I ran
away.”
[B] In court he admitted to tripping
while fleeing and the gun went off
accidentally.
He was found guilty of murder
because was committing another crime
at the same time [theft].
He was sentenced to die by execution.
The case was lumped together with two
other similar cases where people received
a death sentence for rape.
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
Death sentences were too arbitrary
[meaning it applied to too many
cases].
The Court’s opinion was that it was
too cruel and unusual of punishment.
The Court also ruled that his life was
being deprived without due process of
law
The Court was split 5-4 in this case
Gregg v Georgia [1976]:
“It’s Not Cruel Case”
Facts of the Case:
Issues before Supreme Court:
Troy Leon Gregg was found guilty of
murdering a hitchhiker in a Georgia
state court.
Was the decision in the Furman case still
valid?
He had a long and violent criminal
record.
He was eventually sentenced to death.
He along with 4 other men from different
states convicted of similar crimes
appealed their cases to the Supreme
Court based on the Furman precedent.
Were these cases different than the
Furman case?
Was the punishment here cruel and
usual?
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
The opinion of the Court was that
state legislatures, after the Furman
decision, had changed the requirements
for death sentences [offenders had to
have long records of violence].
The sentences were not excessive
because they were for repeat offenders.
Regents of the University of California v Bakke:
“The Med School Quota Case”
Facts of the Case:
Allan Bakke believed he had been
discriminated against, because he was
white, after he applied to medical
school and was rejected.
The medical school in California he
applied to had different programs to get
in.
Issues before Supreme Court:
Were racial quotas a fair method of
preventing racism in college entrance?
Were racial quotas preventing everyone
from equal treatment?
One for “disadvantaged” and one for
“regular” students.
After being rejected twice and learning
non-white students with lower scores
than he were admitted he sued.
California State Courts later ordered Bakke
admitted because the medical school
illegally created quotas [slots specially set
aside] for non-whites which was considered
discrimination.
The Regents of the University of California
appealed the decision to the High Court.
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
Race could only be one factor used to
consider whether to allow a student
into a school.
If it was the sole or major reason it
was in violation of equal protection
under the law.
New Jersey v T.L.O.
“The Teen Drug Case”
Facts of the Case:
Issues before Supreme Court:
Two teenage girls were caught smoking
in a girls’ school bathroom.
Given the circumstances was the
search reasonable?
One girl who denied smoking, Tracy Lois
Odom had her purse searched by a vice
principal.
Did the vice principal have a good
Reason to search T.L.O.’s purse?
Marijuana, a pipe, money and plastic bags
were found in the purse [along with a list of
“customers”].
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
The girl was suspended, arrested and
charged with possession with intent to sell.
admitting to smoking and the other denying
She was sentenced to one year probation
which she appealed.
being violated he had probable cause to
The case went back and forth in the courts
and New Jersey appealed the U.S. Court of
Appeals’ decision.
The Court ruled the search reasonable
because of doubt created by one student
it. To maintain order and prevent rules from
search the bag with drugs in plain view.
According to the Court the search was
valid and the drugs were legal to use as
evidence. This ruling established that school
officials only needed reasonable suspicion
To search students.
Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District:
“The Peace Sign Armband Case”
Facts of the Case:
Issues before Supreme Court:
Two Des Moines, Iowa high school
students wanted to protest [“speak
out” against] the Vietnam War.
Was the behavior of the Tinkers
disruptive to the school?
They chose to wear black arm
bands to freely express their
disapproval for dead American
soldiers.
Were the armbands an acceptable
and protected from of free
expression?
Is expression a form of “speech?”
Their school told them to remove
the armbands because it was
disruptive.
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
They refused and were suspended.
the behavior was not disruptive.
The case was eventually appealed to
the High Court.
The opinion of the Court was that
Non-verbal, peaceful expression in
school is a protected form of speech.
Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier:
“The Limited Written School Speech Case”
Facts of the Case:
Issues before Supreme Court:
Students working on articles for a project
at Hazelwood H.S. in Missouri wanted to
publish some articles about “private”
subjects.
Did the writers have a right to publish
private information in a semi-public way
in school?
Some of the subjects were teen
pregnancies and divorced parents.
The writers believed that since the names
were changed to fake names it was okay.
The principal did not allow the articles to
be published because the identities were
not hidden enough [it was too obvious].
The writers sued and were eventually
granted Certiorari.
Did the principal have a right to stop
what he thought was disruptive
behavior?
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
The opinion of the Court was that
because the writing was not in a
completely public paper the school was
allowed to restrict free expression in the
student newspaper.
Engel v Vitale:
“The Public School Prayer Case”
Facts of the Case:
Issues before Supreme Court:
Many families in New Hyde Park, New York
objected to a school prayer that opened
school each day.
Even though the prayer was not specific to
any one religion it mentioned “Almighty
God.”
Though students were not required to recite
the prayer everyone heard it over the
intercom.
Was the prayer a violation of the
principle of separation of church and state?
Can a government school legally expose
children to a religious prayer?
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
The opinion of the Court was that since
the school was funded by the government
Almighty God, we acknowledge our
dependence upon Thee, and we beg
Thy blessings upon us, our parents,
our teachers and our country.
Amen.
religious prayers violated the separation
of church and state.
Miranda v Arizona:
“The Right to Remain Silent Case”
Facts of the Case:
Issues before Supreme Court:
In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was
arrested and charged with
kidnapping and rape.
Was the evidence obtained by police
valid?
During his initial interrogation he
denied involvement but later
under the stress of police
questioning he finally
confessed.
At his interrogation Miranda had
no lawyer present.
Miranda was found guilty and was
convicted of the charges in the
state court of Arizona. His
conviction was appealed and made
it all the way to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Did the police make Miranda aware of his
right to not incriminate himself?
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
The opinion of the Court was that
suspects [people arrested and accused
of crimes] must be informed of their
right against self-incrimination by the
police while they are being arrested.
Results of the Ruling:
All states now read the version of
the following statement to accused
suspects:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you
say can and will be used against you in a court of
law. You have the right to have an attorney present
during questioning. If you cannot afford an
attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you
understand these rights?
Mapp v Ohio:
“The Porno Pics Case”
Facts of the Case:
The home of well known woman who dated
a bookmaker [illegal bet taker] Dollree
Mapp’s home was searched by police
because of a bomb threat.
Police did not have a warrant [written
permission].
The search uncovered pornography
[pictures and magazines] which at the
time was illegal. Mapp was arrested.
Based on the evidence found at the
residence she was convicted in Ohio
state court and sent to prison.
Her conviction was appealed and made it all
the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Issues before Supreme Court:
Was the search of Mapp’s house legal?
Can police seize items that are not in plain
view
and “hold them against you?”
Must you have a specific search warrant?
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
The opinion of the Court was that the
search of Mapp’s house was illegal because
There was no warrant and the items found
were not in plain view.
The items found were not even the type the
police were looking for even they had
warrant.
The evidence found against Mapp could be
excluded.
Therefore the search was a violation of
Mapp’s 4th Amendment protection against
unreasonable search and seizure.
Bethel School District No. 403 v Fraser:
“The Limited Free School Speech Case”
Facts of the Case:
Issues before Supreme Court:
A high school senior gave a speech nominating
a friend for Class President that was filled
With suggestive language:
Was the school allowed to punish students
for speech considered disruptive?
"I know a man who is firm - he's firm in his pants, he's
firm in his shirt, his character is firm - but most
[of] all, his belief in you the students of Bethel, is
firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point
and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue
and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in
spurts - he drives hard, pushing and pushing until
finally - he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to
the very end - even the climax, for each and every
one of you. So please vote for Jeff Kuhlman, as
he'll never come between us and the best our
school can be."
He was suspended from school for 2 days.
His suspension was reversed by the U.S. Court
of Appeals.
The Bethel School District appealed to the
High Court to reinstate the suspension.
Was Fraser within his “rights” to say what
he wanted to say?
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
The opinion of the Court was that the
Unrestricted Freedom of speech did not
protect Fraser because his words were
disruptive unlike the behavior of the
Tinkers.
The school was correct in their decision
to suspend and it was reinstated.
Texas v Johnson:
“The Burnt Flag Case”
Facts of the Case:
Issues before Supreme Court:
As a way to protest against President
Ronald Reagan and his policies Gregory
Johnson burned an American flag at the
Republican Convention in Dallas, Texas.
Were Johnson’s actions a protected
form of expression even though it
was very unpatriotic and insulting?
He was eventually sentenced to 1 year in jail
and a $2,000 fine by the state of Texas.
48 out of 50 states at that time had laws
banning abuse to the U.S. flag.
Can states make laws protecting
certain symbols?
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
The opinion of the Court was that
His conviction was overturned and upheld by
all courts on appeal.
The State of Texas appealed to the High
Court.
although this expression was very offensive
to democracy and its symbol the symbolic
action was an acceptable form of protected
speech.
Image Sources







http://www.rashkind.com/Gideon/Gideon_poolroom.jpg
http://mysafetynow.com/library/House_burglar_2.gif
http://z.about.com/d/civilliberty/1/0/I/1/-/-/electricchair500.jpg
www.landmarkcases.org/bakke/drawing.html
http://www.landmarkcases.org/bakke/images/clown_cartoon.gif
http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/tlo.gif
http://www.stus.com