Lesson 1: Role of the Judicial Branch in the US

Transcription

1 Judicial Branch Powerpoint Questions 1. What is the role of federal courts? Lesson 1: Role of the Judicial Branch in the US 2. What is the purpose of the Supreme Court? 3. Define District Courts. 4. What is the purpose of Appeals Courts? 5. Define Majority Opinion and Dissenting Opinion. Checks and Balances Term Definition Checks and Balances Separation of Powers What are three powers or checks given to the Judicial Branch? Jurisdiction of the Courts: Federal vs. State As the framers wrote the Constitution, some feared that the federal courts might threaten the independence of the states and the people. To combat this fear the framers set up a federal court system that can only hear cases in special circumstances. We call this having limited jurisdiction. Since the federal courts can only hear certain kinds of cases, most of the day-to-day cases that courts deal with happen in state courts. On the other hand, state courts are courts of general jurisdiction. They hear all the cases not specifically selected for federal courts. Just as the federal courts interpret federal law, state courts interpret state laws. Each state gets to make and interpret its own laws. This helps the states retain power and makes sure that the national government does not

2 become too strong. FEDERAL COURTS: The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction because they may only decide certain types of cases. Basically, federal courts hear only two types of cases; those that raise a federal question, and those involving diversity of citizenship. These cases involve the U.S. Government, the U.S. Constitution or other federal laws. Examples include: A crime that is a violation of federal law, such as bank robbery, drug cases, guns, or kidnapping. Cases involving interstate commerce or interstate criminal activity. Civil cases based on federal laws, such as laws prohibiting employment discrimination, or laws A controversy between two states. Between a U.S. citizen and a citizen of another country. A controversy arising out of the U.S. Constitution or other federal laws, such as a violation of a protection guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. STATE COURTS: The state courts are courts of general jurisdiction. They hear all the cases not heard by federal courts. About 90% of all the cases heard in the American court system happen at the state level. Examples include: A crime that is a violation of state law. Most criminal activity falls in this category, such as robbery, assault, murder, and many drug-related crimes. A controversy arising out of the state constitution or other state laws A case in which the state is a party, such as state tax violations. Most real estate cases, malpractice, personal injury cases, and contract disputes. All family, divorce, custody, inheritance, and probate cases. 1. What are the two court systems? 2. Which court system hears more cases? 3. Federal courts only have jurisdiction over two types of cases. What are they? 4. List three example cases that would probably be heard in federal court. 5. Is each of your examples civil or criminal?

3 6. State courts have jurisdiction over anything not mentioned in #6-7 above. List two example cases that would probably be heard in state court. 7. Is each of your examples civil or criminal? Example Federal or State? Civil or Criminal? Mr. Green has a trial for driving while intoxicated, which is against Missouri state law. Miss Smith has a trial for robbing her neighbor s house, which is against a Missouri law. Mr. Garcia sues his doctor for injury from malpractice. Both Mr. Garcia and the doctor are from Missouri. Mr. Jones uses his cell phone and his car to distribute illegal drugs in Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, and Colorado. Mr. Ward is suing the hospital because he feels he s been fired from his job as a nurse due to his participation in a political protest, which is his 1st Amendment right. ABC Recording Company sues the local radio station for using some of their copyrighted songs in a commercial without paying or giving credit. Crash Course: Legal System Basics Video Questions Lesson 2: How the Court System Works

4 1. What are the three jobs of the courts? 2. What is common law? How does it influence later court decisions? 3. What is the role of an appeals court? 4. What is one difference between civil law and criminal law? Your Day in Court Notes Name of the Step Description Lesson 3: How the Supreme Court Works Crash Course: Supreme Court of the United States Video Questions 1. Describe how a case gets before the Supreme Court.

5 2. What are briefs? 3. Describe what happens during oral arguments? 4. What is a majority decision? Why are they important? 5. What is a dissenting opinion? Why are they important? 10 Cases Every Teen Should Know Case Name Description, Majority Opinion

6 Lesson 4: The Fourth Amendment Amendment IV: 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. The Fourth Amendment Jigsaw

7 Directions: Read your assigned section as a group. Be prepared to share out at least two main ideas from your section with your class. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT 1. Imagine you re driving a car, and a police officer spots you and pulls you over for speeding. He orders you out of the car. Maybe he wants to place you under arrest. Or maybe he wants to search your car for evidence of a crime. Can the officer do that? The Fourth Amendment is the part of the Constitution that gives the answer. According to the Fourth Amendment, the people have a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. This right limits the power of the police to seize and search people, their property, and their homes. The Fourth Amendment has been debated frequently during the last several years, as police and intelligence agencies in the United States have engaged in a number of controversial activities. The federal government has collected Americans telephone and Internet connections as part of the War on Terror. Many municipal police forces have engaged in aggressive use of stop and frisk. There have been a number of highly-publicized police-citizen encounters in which the police ended up shooting a civilian. There is also concern about the use of aerial surveillance, whether by piloted aircraft or drones. 2. Today the Fourth Amendment places restraints on the government any time it detains (seizes) or searches a person or property. The Fourth Amendment also provides that 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. Each search or seizure should be cleared in advance by a judge, and that to get a warrant the government must show probable cause a certain level of suspicion of criminal activity to justify the search or seizure. To the extent that a warrant is required in theory before police can search, there are so many exceptions that in practice warrants rarely are obtained. Police can search automobiles without warrants, they can detain people on the street without them, and they can always search or seize in an emergency without going to a judge. 3. The way that the Fourth Amendment most commonly is put into practice is in criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court decided in the mid-twentieth century that if the police seize evidence as part of an illegal search, the evidence cannot be admitted into court. This is called the exclusionary rule. It is controversial because in most cases evidence is being tossed out even though it shows the person is guilty and, as a result of the police conduct, they might avoid conviction. 4. One of the difficult questions today is what constitutes a search? If the police standing in Times Square in New York watched a person planting a bomb in plain daylight, we would not think they needed a warrant or any cause. But what about installing closed circuit TV cameras on poles, or flying drones over backyards, or gathering evidence that you have given to a third party such as an Internet provider or a banker? Another hard question is when a search is acceptable when the government has no suspicion that a person has done something wrong. Lest the answer seem to be never, think of airport security. Surely it is okay for the

8 government to screen people getting on airplanes, yet the idea is as much to deter people from bringing weapons as it is to catch them there is no cause, probable or otherwise, to think anyone has done anything wrong. This is the same sort of issue with bulk data collection, and possibly with gathering biometric information. What should be clear by now is that advancing technology and the many threats that face society add up to a brew in which the Fourth Amendment will continue to play a central role. Directions: Record the main ideas from each section in the table below. Section Number Main Ideas (Two bullet points) Search Warrants and the Exclusionary Rule How Have the Protections of the Fourth Amendment Been Interpreted, Applied, and Enforced? The Founders knew that some of the most at risk people in our society are those suspected of crimes. The Fourth Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect the rights of accused persons -and all citizens -from abuse by government. Due process protections are present in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution. The principle of due process means that, in going about the business of enforcing laws, the government must follow rules and procedures that respect all citizens rights. The Fourth Amendment s warrant requirement provides for one of the most important individual protections: freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. If the police want to search someone, they must first get a warrant by convincing a court that there is probable cause to believe that an individual has committed a crime. If the court agrees, they will give the police the permission to act. When is a Warrant Required? Warrant requirements are not always clear-cut. In general, a search of someone s home requires a warrant, stating the person

9 and place to be searched and the items to be searched for. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that many types of searches can be considered reasonable even if conducted without a warrant. If a police officer is in a place where he is allowed to be and sees an illegal item in plain sight, the item may be seized without a warrant. Police may also conduct a warrantless search if they believe there is an immediate danger to his life or the life and property of others. In these circumstances, a search is considered reasonable, so long as there is no intent by the officer to either arrest or seize evidence. Cars, the Supreme Court has ruled, can be searched without a warrant, provided the officer legally stopped the vehicle in the first place and has reasonable suspicion that a crime may have been committed. Finally, no warrant is required if an individual voluntary allows a search request. What is the Exclusionary Rule? All searches are subject to the Exclusionary Rule, which holds that evidence collected through unconstitutional ways may not be used against defendants at trial. The Exclusionary Rule can be controversial. The text of the Fourth Amendment does not require it, and critics argue there are others ways to prevent police from conducting illegal searches that do not threaten public safety by setting guilty people free. Other critics claim the rule does not actually stop officers from conducting illegal searches because they face no personal punishment. Supporters tend to agree with the Court that allowing the government to punish people using evidence it obtained in violation of the law would be unjust and violate the principle of due process. Like the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, however, the Exclusionary Rule is not absolute. If the police can prove the evidence would surely have been found through legal means, it may be presented in court. This is called inevitable discovery. 1. How does the Fourth Amendment s warrant requirement protect you? 2. When is a search warrant required? 3. What is the Exclusionary Rule? Summarize in your own words. Crash Course: Search and Seizure Video Table Search Warrant Probable Cause Requirements of a warrant: specific Exclusionary Rule

10 Student privacy protections in school Lesson 5 & 6: State v. Tate Introduction Directions: Read/Watch the provided resources in order to find and record information about the following topics. Summarized facts of the original case Who is Bobby Tate? How was he located? What crime was he convicted of? Did the police use a search warrant?

11 Stingray Tate s Appeal State v Tate Oral Argument Notes Lesson 7: State v. Tate and the Fourth Amendment Tate s Arguments, Attorney Byron Lichstein State of Wisconsin s Argument (Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Kassel

12 State v Tate Case Notes Issue: this is the question the Court is being asked to answer. Whether law enforcement officers performed an illegal search when they tracked his cell phone using cell site information and a Stingray Phone Tracker 1.The tracking was a search under the United States and Wisconsin Constitutions and 2.The Judge who authorized the search lacked the authority/power to issue an order/warrant authorizing the police to track Tate s phone Facts: state those facts that are relevant (essential) to understanding the case) Law: May be any or all of the following case law statutory law constitutional law Analysis: How does the Court reach its conclusion

13 Holding: the Court s decision, who wins Lesson 8: State v. Tate Philosophical Chairs Preparation Claim Evidence

14