Due Process Chart 235


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-Drug Testing of Students. Carlie, Jessica

http://tallwaterjeans.com/wp-content/uploads/giraffe.jpg

http://www.coralreefphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Jumping-Baby-Dolphin.jpg
A specific intrusion into personal privacy stemming from drug prohibition is the mandatory testing of individuals for the presence of drugs, whether as a condition of employment, participation in extracurricular competitions or as a requirement for the receipt of personal assistance, even in the absence of any reason to believe those individuals have committed a crime. President Reagan signed an executive order requiring some federal employees to participate in drug testing. This was taken to the Supreme Court inNational Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab and the court supported the drug testing. Nationally, schools require that their students participate in mandatory drug testing when participating in competitive extracurricular groups. Schools are currently allowed to initiate random drug testing programs in their schools for only those students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities like sports teams. Reasonable suspicion/cause testing is also allowed when there is enough evidence to suggest that a student is using an illegal drug. In 2002, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 in Pottawatomie County v. Earls to allow random drug testing for all middle and high school competitive extracurricular participants. This decision broadened schools drug testing- before the Supreme Court decision, school drug testing was only allowed for athletes. Individual states still have the power to somewhat control student drug testing, and some do. We think government officials should be tested especially those working in the security forces, military, and other high profile jobs. Athletes in the Olympics and other national and international competitions should be tested. It makes sense for High Schoolers to be tested when they want to participate in athletic teams but testing middle school students is too far. Unless there is tangible evidence to suggest that a student is under the influence of a drug, schools should not have the authority to administer random drug tests of their students, regardless of age.
2-General Rules for police search & seizure in homes and cars Hailey

Panda :)


Puppy :)
"Search and seizure" is a procedure in which the police or other authorities search a person's property or home if they suspect that he or she has committed a crime, so that they can obtain evidence.

Some countries, including the United States, grant citizens the right to privacy and allow them to be free of "unreasonable searches or seizures."

It is tricky, though, to determine to what extent the American citizens have that right of privacy and at what point the government officials have obstructed too many rights in an attempt to catch a criminal.

For example, in a recent case in October 2012, Florida vs. Jardines, the Supreme Court had to decide whether or not it is constitutional for the police to gather evidence of illegal drug dealing through the performance of a drug-sniffing dog on the front porch of a privite house.

In this case, Florida's Supreme Court deemed this act of the police unconstitutional, since the dog on the front porch was considered an actual search and that that search needed a probable cause in order for it to be inacted. This ruling is quite different from preceding case rulings (such as United States vs. Place and Indianapolis vs. Edmond), though, since this act was much more intrusive.
The Fourth Ammendment of the U.S Constitution provides that: "The right of the people to be secure... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." Generally, a valid warrant is required for a valid search. However, there are a few exceptions to this rule.

First, the owner of the home, car, or other type of property may consent to the search and it must be voluntary, but there is no clear test to determine if the consent is voluntary or not. Police officers are not required to inform a suspect that he has the right to refuse.

Also, courts have established an "exigent circumstances" exception to the warrant requirement. "Exigent circumstances" simply means that officers must act quickly. This is because, in these circumstances, the police have reasonable belief that evidence is at immediate risk of being removed or destroyed, there is an immediate threat or danger, or someone is in desperate need of assistance there. But, there still is a probable clause requirement.

When it comes to motor vehicles, though, there is a lowered expectation of privacy. Nevertheless, a distinct line has been drawn at the door of a person's house, so once a police officer intrudes inside, their action taken under the Fourth Ammendment and a search warrant is required.
I think that is difficult to pinpoint the extent at which the police are going too far in order to catch a criminal. I strongly believe in human rights and that citizens should not be violated, especially when it is not necessary. On the other hand, when a police officer, requests to search a person's house, he can easily refuse, thus making him even more suspicious. I do think it is wrong to keep information of a suspect's rights from him and to search his house without the person's knowledge, except of course, if someone's life was in danger.

In regards to the Florida vs. Jardines case, I agree with the Florida Supreme court that the police were going a little too far. What they did was invasive and sneaky, and they did not have a probable cause to search that house.

Also, I think a person's car should carry the same expectation of privacy as a person's house. Both are that person's property, so I do not think it is valid to say that one is more protected under the Fourth Ammendment.
3-School searches of student lockers/cars/backpacks Cody This is an issue about whether or not it is ok for authorities to search a students backpack locker or car due tosuspicionof said student being inpossessionof illegal substances ordangerousitems.

A main issue with this is the fact that many people consider their backpacks and cars personal property and the authorities should have no right to search or seize items contained within without awarrant. Lockers are a different matter as they are property of the school yet many feel that because students may have personal items within a locker that it is still an invasion of privacy and therefore a violation of the 4th amendment.
It is legal for schools to conduct search and seizure of a students backpack or locker if they have probable cause to believe the student is hiding illegal substances ordangerousitems. Since it is the duty of a school to provide a sturdy education in a safe and secureenvironmentthey are allowed to conduct searches of backpacks and lockers within the confines of the school.

In the event that an automobile must be searched by authorities as long as they have probable cause or suspicion awarrantis not needed for search and seizure for substances or items held within.
I agree that schools should have the right tosearchlockers and backpacks because the lockers are owned by the school and keepingharmfuland illegal things in your backpackwithinthe confines of a school is a bad idea from any perspective. when it comes to a car or any other type of personal motor vehicle I believe that because it is typically privately owned police should have to do more to be able to legally search it unless the person inpossessionof the vehicle is not the legal owner. I feel that way because there are some instances where motor vehicles are more than just modes of transportation I know of many people that live in their car which would make search and seizure an invasion of home privacy but because it is not technically protected by the fourth amendment police could and would search it any way.
4-Schools searching student cell phones Michelle G.
Due Process Chart 235 - Politics Studio
Due Process Chart 235 - Politics Studio
This is the issue about whether or not it is right for schools to search student cell phones, and if they violate legal rights when doing so, or if they have a higher power as a school.

Of course, the school and students have very different views on this issue.

Most schools would say that they are completely right in wanting to/and searching student cell phones to be able to provide a secure and safe place for students, and also crack down on harassment and bullying.

Students, however, have a much differing opinion. They do not want their cell phones searched because it is a violation of their privacy, and lets the school know about everything that they are doing or have done, some of it possibly illegal, therefore getting them in trouble if the phone is searched.
Because the cell phones of students provide a window into almost every aspect of their lives when searched they violate laws which protect student privacy rights.

However, most schools do not give clear policies to their educators surrounding cell phone searches, policies that would balance a student's privacy with the schools need of safety and order.

Without a reasonable suggestion that the student was doing more with the phone than just having it out in violation with school cell phone policy, there is no legal reason why the school should be allowed to search the phone.

To avoid violating constitutional rights, and possibly law suits, schools should not search student's cell phones, as it is a complete invasion of privacy.
My view is not surprising at all, as I am a student. I feel that your cell phone is a very private thing, even married couples don't share what's on their phones sometimes, so I would feel extremely violated if someone searched my phone.

I do not think that it is right or okay for the school to search your phone, unless they have absolute proof that you have done something illegal, and not just disobeyed the 'school cell phone policy'.

You have everything on your phone, especially now in this day and age, where most people have smart phones, so they are your life, with all of your personal information.

In this country we have a freedom to privacy, and schools should not be able to violate that privacy because that is unconstitutional.
5-Schools strip searching students



6-Random DWI traffic stops Bradey There is a debate on whether random breath testing of drivers should be allowed in the U.S.. The random DWI stops are thought to bring down the number of drunk drivers. If a driver failed a breath test, he or she would most likely be punished.

Random DWI stops are legal in many European countries, and in Australia. In the United States, Mother's Againist Drunk Drivers argue that "People drive drunk because they can get away with it."

Those against random DWI stops argue that random traffic stopping would interfere with freedom and that unreasonable searches are uncontitutional.
Random DWI traffic stops fall underThe Fourth Amendment because it prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures limiting liberty of movement. Based on the fourth amendment, it seems as though random DWI traffic stops would be unconstitutional, however, in 1990, the Supreme Court concluded that redusing drunk driving outweighed the constitunal violation. Ten states still do not allow random DWI test such as Washington, Texes, Rode Island, etc because they believe it uncontitutional.
    I do not believe random DWI traffic stops should be legal because it does very much impose on freedom of movement. I believe that the police should be allowed to breath test drivers if there is the slightest suspicion of a drunk driver caused by something such as reckless driving, however, police should not be allowed to randomly stop traffic. I have always thought that bars should have breath tests and if you fail the test, one is not allowed to leave the bar by driving themselves. One should have to walk, or take a cab etc.
    7-Use of heat sensors in searching houses Georgia, Iler
    Police/ the government, must first obtain a search warrant before using a heat-sensing device to look inside a person's home. In the ruling in Kyllo v. US the court rejected drug searches and imposed limits on said searches. This allows the home to be a protected area
    Danny Kyllo, who was arrested for growing marijuana after federal agents used a thermal imaging device to pick up infrared radiation from within his home,argued that the seized plants could not be used as evidence against him because police did not have a search warrant before surveilling his home with the thermal imaging device.
    I agree with the ruling. To allow the government to look into our homes with heat sensors also allows for more advanced technologies to be used and for a greater breach of our privacy. Our homes should be kept private at all time unless a warrant is provided or there is Extreme probable cause to search, not only if a man is driving by on the street with a camera.
    8-Airport Security Sohee Airport security refers to the techniques and methods used in protecting passengers, staff and aircraftwhich use the airports from accidental/ malicious harm, crime and other threats. 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. Airport security is very necessary since the attacks of September 11th.It is the responsibility of the airport to make sure that all passengers are safe and that no harm can come to the pilot or staff. We don't want a repeat of the September 11th situation so the airlines are simply taking precautions to avoid this.
    9-Police interrogation/Brutality Alden Devoe
    Due Process Chart 235 - Politics Studio
    There are many reported and unreported cases of police officials abusing their position.

    http://www.policebrutality.info/2013/03/guy-gets-arrested-for-refusing-to-open-up-the-door.html

    http://www.examiner.com/video/bridgeport-conn-police-beat-suspect
    The only government that can deal with this situation is the local because federal government does not allow "pattern and practice" lawsuits. Police officers who have been caught were either only fired orsentenced to desk duty. I think that this isridiculesnot just how much it happens, but also how little the punishment is for the policemen.
    10-Other topic regarding due process and government powers. Must be approved by teacher.




    More pages