Trace criminal justice practices to the U.S. Constitution

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects several fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. It is one of the core components of the Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791. The First Amendment's protections have been interpreted and expanded through various landmark Supreme Court cases over the years to balance individual rights with societal interests.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

1. • Schenck v. United States (1919) Established the "clear and present danger" test, determining that speech can be restricted if it poses a significant threat to national security.

   • Gitlow v. New York (1925) The First Amendment applies to the states and does not prevent the government from punishing political speech that directly advocates its violent overthrow.

   • Near v. Minnesota (1931) Prior restraints on speech are generally unconstitutional, such as when they forbid the publication of malicious, scandalous, and defamatory content.

   • Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) Refined the "clear and present danger" standard to the "imminent lawless action" test, protecting speech unless it incites immediate illegal activity.

   • Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) Affirmed students' right to free speech in schools as long as it does not disrupt educational activities.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

1. • Engel v. Vitale (1962) Prohibited state-sponsored prayer in public schools, reinforcing the separation of church and state.

   • Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 3-prong test for Establishment Clause violations (supplemented by tests in Lee v. Weisman (1992) and Van Orden v. Perry (2005)).

1. the statute must have a secular legislative purpose

2. its principal or primary effect must neither promote nor inhibit religion; and 

3. it must not foster “excessive government entanglement with religion

1. • Employment Division v. Smith (1990) Held that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause, even if they incidentally burden religious practices.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

1. • Near v. Minnesota (1931) Recognized that prior restraint (government censorship before publication) is generally unconstitutional, solidifying press freedom.

   • New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) Upheld the press's right to publish the Pentagon Papers, asserting that prior restraint requires a heavy burden of proof from the government to show national security risks.

FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY

1. • DeJonge v. Oregon (1937) Held states may not violate the right of peaceable assembly

   • NAACP v. Alabama (1958) Protected the NAACP's right to assemble and associate freely, ruling that the state could not force the organization to disclose its membership lists.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the governmen and establishes warrant requirements. In cases involving the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court has worked to strike a balance between individual privacy and the needs of law enforcement, evolving with societal changes and technological advancements.

• Weeks v. United States (1914) Court created the federal Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule

• Carroll v. United States (1925) Established the automobile exception to the warrant requirement

• Olmstead v. United States (1928) Court held wiretapping was not a Fourth Amendment search or seizure because there was no trespass or physical examination of one's person, papers, houses, or effects

• Wolf v. Colorado (1949) Court declined to impose Exclusionary Rule on the states

• Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Court applied Exclusionary Rule to the states

• Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) Court inferred a right to privacy from several amendments in the Bill of Rights

• Katz v. United States (1967) Fourth Amendment protects privacy, not places

• Chimel v. California (1969) Defined the scope of a search incident to arrest

• Terry v. Ohio (1968) Police with reasonable and articulable suspicion may stop and frisk

• Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) Clarified standards for consent searches

• Scott v. United States (1978) Police must minimize wiretaps to focus on criminal activity

• Illinois v. Gates (1983) Adopted the "totality of the circumstances" approach for probable cause, including the use of anonymous informants

• Kyllo v. United States (2001) Protected against warrantless thermal imaging of a home

• Riley v. California (2014) Required warrants for cell phone searches incident to arrest

TRIAL: SPEEDY

• Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) The right to speedy trial applies to the states

• Betterman v. Montana (2016) The right to speedy trial does not apply once a defendant has been found guilty at trial or has pleaded guilty to criminal charges.

TRIAL: JURY

• Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, incorporated to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense.

CONFRONTATION

• Crawford v. Washington (2004) The Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear in court in that matter, unless:

  1. the witness was unavailable to testify; and

  2. the defense had a prior opportunity for cross-examination (e.g., in a preliminary hearing).

• Davis v. Washington (2006) 911 call declared non-testimonial, thus admissible

• Bullcoming v. New Mexico (2011) An out-of-court testimonial statement may not be admitted against the defendant at trial unless the out-of-court declarant is unavailable, and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to confront that declarant.

• Michigan v. Bryant (2011) Identification and description of a shooter and shooting location were not testimonial statements for Confrontation Clause purposes as their primary purpose was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.

• Samia v. United States (2023) The Confrontation Clause need not exclude a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession when modified to avoid identifying the non-confessing co-defendant, plus a jury instruction to consider the confession only regarding the confessing co-defendant.

RIGHT TO COUNSEL

• Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) The right to counsel applies during the “critical stage” between arrest and indictment

• Massiah v. United States (1964) Interrogating a represented defendant in the absence of counsel after criminal proceedings have begun violates the right to counsel

• Edwards v. Arizona (1981) Once a request for counsel has been made, no further interrogation may occur until counsel has been made available, unless the subject initiates further conversations with the police

• Brewer v. Williams (1977) Interrogation defined to include officer actions reasonably designed to elicit incriminating information (the “Christian burial speech” in this case)

CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE

• Broadly defines "citizen" as a person born in the US or naturalized

• Reaction to Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856), which had held former slaves and their descendants could not be US citizens

PRIVILEGES & IMMUNITIES CLAUSE

• All US citizens get all privileges and immunities of US citizenship (rarely litigated)

DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

• All persons are entitled to procedural fairness from the government:

  • receive notice of criminal conduct

  • are provided with a reasonably clear statement of what is prohibited

  • are not unfairly deprived of life, liberty, or property

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

• All persons in a US jurisdiction get equal protection of its laws

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) "separate but equal" standard 

• Three levels of scrutiny:

  1. Rational Basis

  2. Intermediate Scrutiny

  3. Strict Scrutiny