Due Process Chart 1120


Work by yourself or with up to two others in your class. Pick a section of the chart and edit your name(s) in. If you can not find a topic that you would like to research, feel free to come up with your own topic that relates to due process, governmental powers, privacy rights, or is an offshoot from one of the topics already taken, or any other topic from chapter 16 in our book. First come, first served. Edit in the information for your section of this chart and be prepared to explain your answers in class.
Topic Your Names and images of your favorite animals
Facts/Images/What is this?

What can the government do? What are the rules on this? What is your opinion on this topic?
1-Random Drug Testing of Students. Tim Following models established in the workplace, some schools have initiated random drug testing and/or reasonable suspicion/cause testing. During random testing schools select, using a random process (like flipping a coin), one or more individuals from the student population to undergo drug testing. Currently, random drug testing can only be conducted among students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities. Reasonable suspicion/cause testing involves a school requiring a student to provide a urine specimen when there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the student may have used an illicit substance. Typically, this involves the direct observations made by school officials that a student has used or possesses illicit substances, exhibits physical symptoms of being under the influence, and has patterns of abnormal or erratic behavior. I believe students do not have the right to get drug tested unless appropriate administration has probable cause.
2-General Rules for police search & seizure in homes and cars Leyna and Mer Ber Police are allowed to search a home or car if they have a warerant, which can be obtained from a judge who determines that the police have probable cause, reasonable suspicion of possible criminal activity. If police search a house or car without a warrant, they are not permitted to use any evidence they found in court. Additionally, police officers are allowed to "stop and frisk" only if they have articulate reasons to support a claim of suspicious activity. However, if the frisk yields no results, the officer is not allowed to pursue further prosecution on the suspect at that time. We think this is a reasonable law; it provides ample protection for the suspect without completely undermining the power of the police.
3-School searches of student lockers/cars/backpacks Julian and Clare Bear Keeping drugs and weapons out of the school environment is an ongoing, endless battle for school administrators across the country. The primary solution to this problem is to search lockers, backpacks, and even cars of students who are the alleged violators of this anti-drug and weapon policy. Although these operations are performed in the favor of maintaining a safe learning environment for students, varying between different states, there are certain criteria for a legal search of a student locker, car, or backpack. Even though officials and officers must operate under these conditions, students still enjoy less privacy rights at school than they receive in any other public atmosphere.

For an Example, See ACLU's Search and Seizure of Student Lockers, Backpacks, Cars
Public schools must perform searches based on probable cause and reasonable suspicion.
Probable Cause: A reasonable ground to suspect that a person has committed a particular crime or that a place contains specific items connected with a crime. Under the Fourth Amendment, probable cause – which amounts to more than a bare suspicion but less than legal proof – must be shown before an arrest warrant or search warrant may be issued.
Reasonable Suspicion: A carefully considered presumption, based on specific facts and circumstances, that a person is probably involved in criminal activity. Before an officer can act on this level of suspicion, he must have enough knowledge to lead any reasonably cautious person to conclude that a crime has been (or is about to be) committed by the suspect.
Source: ACLU.org
In the case of In Re Adams (June 30, 1997), the Lake County Court of Appeals held that the second part of the Ohio law was unconstitutional. In making that decision, the court relied on the 1985 ruling of the United States Supreme Court in New Jersey v. T.L.O. that school locker searches must be "reasonable." The Lake County court interpreted that ruling to mean that searches based upon reasonable suspicion are, indeed, reasonable, but that random searches, based only upon the posting of a warning sign, are not.
So when is it appropriate for the school principal to search a student's locker? There must be a reasonable suspicion that the student has violated a criminal law or a school rule. The facts of In Re Adams supported the principal's search of the school locker, not because the school had posted a notice that lockers were subject to random searches, but because the student had been caught smoking cigarettes on school property; that fact gave the principal grounds to reasonably suspect that the student's locker contained evidence of a rule violation. Therefore, the search was held to be valid, and when marihuana was also found in the student's locker, it was admissible as evidence in juvenile court.
Although the Ohio Supreme Court has not passed judgment on this issue, police officers should assume that school locker searches will be subject to the following limitations:
  • A school principal may search a student's locker only if there is cause to reasonably suspect that the locker contains evidence that the student has violated a criminal law or a school rule;
  • A dog sniff does not constitute a "search" of a locker, but if the dog alerts to the locker, it will provide the reasonable suspicion required to search that locker; and
  • A random search of lockers is not permissible, even if the school posts a notice that lockers are subject to such searches.
I think that probable cause and reasonable suspicion are very reasonable in order to conduct searches of student lockers and backpacks. I believe that it is O.K., to some extent, to compromise a student's privacy in order to maintain safety for other students. Also, I think it is unreasonable for a school principle or officer to need to acquire a search warrant for any search of a locker or backpack.

One drawback is that the condition of probably cause may be abused, resulting in unnecessary violation of a student's privacy.
4-Schools searching student cell phones Dombecca
Rebinique
Schools are now searching cellphones to uncover bullying through texts and photos. This goes aginst Amendment 4, which states, "The right of the people to besecurein their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches andseizures, 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." However schools are claiming that through "reasonable suspicion," they can search students' cellphones.

The case began in January 2009 when a teacher confiscated the cell phone of N.N., a 17-year-old senior, for using the phone after homeroom began, a violation of school policy. Later that morning, the principal informed N.N. that he had found "explicit" photos stored on her cell phone, which he turned over to law enforcement. He then gave her a three day out-of-school suspension, which she served.

The photographs, which were not visible on the screen and required multiple steps to locate, were taken on the device's built-in camera and were never circulated to other students in the school. N.N. appeared fully covered in most of the photographs, although several showed her naked breasts and one indistinct image showed her standing upright while fully naked. The photographs were intended to be seen only by N.N.'s long-time boyfriend and herself.

The ACLU-PA hoped to use this case to help alert school officials across Pennsylvania to students' privacy rights in their cell phones. Very little case law exists discussing student-cell-phone searches. While the settlement forecloses a court ruling, the case has led the ACLU-PA to contact the Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA), which this week agreed to work with the ACLU towards crafting guidelines for teachers and school officials to help them better handle situations involving student cell phones and other electronic devices without unlawfully invading student privacy. Walczak noted that the goal was to prevent future violations of students' constitutional rights.
There has been no official rule made on cellphone searches -- not even for adults. Most schools use the same policy: If it's out or used during class, it will be confiscated. It shouldn't be searched, but most schools will if they have a reason too. Most students keep a lock on their phone for this reason.
5-Schools strip searching students Schuyler "sky sky" In the past, there have been several court cases where schools strip searched students, for unjust reasons. Some of these cases have even made it to the Supreme Court, like the Savana Redding case, which occurred when Savana was 13-years-old, because the school thought she might be in possession of Extra Strength Ibuprofen tablets. Public schools cannot legally ask a student to remove their clothing for strip searches, in any situation. If a school has reason to believe a student is in possession of illegal substances, or weapons, they would have to call the local police and notify them of the situation.
6-Random DWI traffic stops Curious George and Kate Facts:
  • A sobriety checkpoint, also known as a DUI roadblock, is a roadblock set up by Law enforcement officers to stop a driver of being a suspect of driving under the influence. This is to stop every vehicle or subset of vehicles (every 3rd or 9th vehicle that passes, etc.)
  • Regarding the DUI portion of the 4th amendment, 11 states have argued that checkpoints violate their own constitutional rights.
  • Mothers Agains Drunk Driving (MADD)-A group of pro sobriety checkpoints
DWI/DUI Sobriety Road Block Checkpoints
The Michigan Supreme Court found that in a 6-3 decision sobriety checkpints are in fact legal. Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving. This would be known to be the DUI exception of the 4th amendment.

Are Sobriety Checkpoints legal and constitutional?

A: Yes. The US Supreme Court upheld that it was indeed constitutionally right, in the case of Michigan v. Sitz. However, the law specifically states that officers may only stop drivers if they have violated the law. In the same year that the Michigan v. Sitz case was decided the National Highway Traffic Saftey Administration (NHTSA) recommended these roadblocks, but in order for these roadblocks to be legal officers must follow the guidlines regarding location, operation and publicity, and the extent to which an officer has the descretion to act.

In these checkpoints officers would perhaps use a breathalizer. In order to test a driver the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the driver is under the influence. The officer may arrest the driver and carge him/her for Operation of a vehicle under the influence (O.V.I).

As a citizen, as long as you don't violate breaking any laws you have the right to not have to proceed in thses checkpoints. Doing so would not be considered illegal.
Emmalie's Opinon:
I think that random DUI/DWI checkpoints should be completley legal. It is important that we keep our roads and highways safe, and if we take advantage of these checkpoints someone's life could be saved. However, I think that it is un-necessary that they have to take the drastic measures and stop every three people, for example, even if they are driving completley normal and don't look suspicious of being under the influence at all. Also, for example, if you have a family member in the hospital and you are trying to make it there as quickly as you can, I think it is a little unreasonable to have to be stopped for a random BUI test. But overall I think that it is a good thing this was ruled legal, for we need to keep our roads as safe as possible.

Kate's opinion: In my opinion I think that they aren't needed. If someone was in a hurry to get to the hospital they can be pulled over for tests even with no probable cause. This wastes time and energy when the police officer could be dealing with someone who is breaking the law, or has probable cause to be pulled over.
7-Use of illegally obtained evidence in a court of law Brodie, Ali Gator, Emerald Mapp v Ohio
The Exclusionary Rule
Herring v. USA
The exclusionary rule is the legal principle that evidence gathered in violation of a citizen's constitutional rights is not admissible in a court of law. In Mapp v Ohio, the Supreme Court decided that evidence collected illegally was not allowed to be used for a conviction.

Herring V USA, 2009In 2004, Bennie Herring was arrested under an expired arrest warrant. The warrant had been withdrawn five months earlier, but due to a glitch in the computer system, had not been deleted. The officer who arrested Herring believed the arrest warrant to still be valid. A gun and methamphetamine were found in Herring's truck. Herring was sentenced to 27 months in prison.The court decided 5 to 4 that exceptions could be made in using illegally obtained evidence. It held that a criminal defendant's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when police mistakes that lead to unlawful searches are merely the result of isolated negligence and "not systematic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements."
Dom is the best.
8-Airport Security Super Mario Airport security refers to the techniques and methods used in protecting passengers, staff and aircraftwhich use the airportsfrom accidental/malicious harm, crime and other threats. List of unacceptable items and prohibited items to bring on a plane
  • Firearms
  • Knives
  • Scissors (with blades more than 6cm). Blades that are shorter than 6cm are always acceptable.
  • Ammunition - all ammunition must be unloaded from the gun and is not allowed to be fired.
  • Hammers
  • Crow bars
  • Fireworks and fire extinguishers
  • Gunpowders and smoke flares
  • Controlled drugs, and contraband drugs
  • Vehicle airbags
  • Liquid bleach
  • Torch lighters
  • Aerosols which might be more flammable (unless it is urgent)
  • Hand grenades
Security devices include metal detectors, watch dogs, and guards that do random checks. Many airports now use advanced forms of identification such as a security identification area. Identification cards that identify a person as an airline or airport employee, or authorized personnel are the most common measures.After the 9/11 incident, airport security was tightened,restrictions have been placed on taking objects aboard planes that could be used as weapons or to make a bomb. These are the objects that are not allowed to be carried on board a flight:Objects marked with a * are only allowed in hold baggage

Personal items

Corkscrews*Knives (with a blade over 6 inches)*Scissors (with a blade over 6 inches)*Safety matches (Safety matches are allowed in hand baggage, but not the baggage hold)Non-safety matchesFireworks, flares and other pyrotechnics

Electronics

Most electronic devices are allowed on board, but are not allowed to be used during taxiing, take-off, approach and landing.

Sporting equipment

Bats, racquets or sport sticks*Snooker, pool or billiard cues*Golf clubs*Darts*Walking/hiking poles*Ice skates*Fishing poles*Catapults*Firearms(including replicas)Harpoon gun*Crossbows*Martial arts equipment*

Work tools

Tools with a blade over 6cm*Drills, drill bits*Stanley knife*Saws*Screwdrivers*Pliers*Hammers*Wrenches or spanners*Nail guns*Crowbars*Blow torches*

Medication

Most medication is allowed on board, but make sure that everything is less than 100ml. Oxygen cylinders are allowed in hand baggage, but not In the baggage hold.

Chemicals

Oxidisers and organic peroxidesAcids and alkalisCorrosive or bleaching chemicalsVehicle batteries and fuel equipmentDefensive spraysRadioactive materialsPoisons and toxic substancesInfectious substancesMaterials that could spontaeneously igniteFire extinguishers

Ammunition

FirearmsBlasting capsDetonators and fusesHand grenadesReplicas of explosive devicesMines, grenadesFireworksGunpowderDynamiteSmoke canistersPlastic explosivesFlaresCigarette lightershttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204556804574261940842372518.htmlArticle on whether or not TSA(Transportation Security Administration) is going too far in their searches of passengers.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki0tNPu_h2k

Video on TSA patdowns and body scans.

Although some of these methods and restrictions are an inconveniece to ordinary passengers; they are necessary precautions to take. However the patdowns and full body scans are a bit excessive; and are intrusive to people's privacy. The patdown of a 3 year old is ridiculous.
9-Police Brutality G-Race Police brutality is defined as the use of excessive force, both physical and verbal, by a police officer. Scenarios of police brutality are characterized by the innocence of the civilian victim and the savage cruelty of the police attackers.

Pepper Spray on Occupy Protesters
Victims of police brutality often take legal action and seek financial reparations for the incident. However, it is very rare for a victim of police brutality to win any legal battles, while victims in these scenarios often win the support of the public.

No Indictment in Murder of Kenneth Chamberlain

NYC's Stop-And-Frisk,
Protests Against It and
NYCLU's Campaign Against It
Scenarios of police brutality are absolutely disgusting and illustrate the cruelty of and abuse of power by the police force as an extension of the government. Victims of police brutality cases should be treated with much more respect and support.
10-Other topic regarding due process and government powers. Must be approved by teacher.




More pages