Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Copy of The Bill of Rights

No description
by

Beth Box

on 10 December 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Copy of The Bill of Rights

The Bill Of Rights
Freedom of speech, religion, expression, the press, petition, and assembly
The First Amendment
The right to keep and bear arms
The Second Amendment
Freedom from housing soldiers in your home
The Third Amendment
Freedom from illegal searches and seizures
The Fourth Amendment
Freedom from self-incrimination and double jeopardy
The Fifth Amendment
The right to a speedy trial by jury and the right to have an attorney
The Sixth Amendment
The right to a civil trial
The Seventh Amendment
Freedom from cruel and unusual fines and punishment
The Eighth Amendment
Rights reserved for the people
The Ninth Amendment
Historical Examples
Rights reserved for the states
The Tenth Amendment
Historical Examples
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Defining Court Cases
Defining Court Cases
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
In a case prohibiting birth control, the ninth amendment came into question when it was decided whether the right to safe contraceptive practices was an unspoken right granted to the people.
The purpose of the ninth amendment is to ensure that the first amendment and unspoken rights such as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are granted to the people.
This amendment was crucial in getting the support of the Anti-Federalists to ratify the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were worried that personal rights weren't protected. This amendment is the protection of those rights.
The tenth amendment states that any powers not specifically delegated to the national government are state powers.
Many states today have legalized medical marajuana, and the federal government can not prosceute users in states where it is legal because it is a states right.
This amendment keeps the national government from becoming too powerful, this is one of the conditions taken from the Articles of Confederation.
written or spoken
religious meetings, writings, speeches
any religion
news that is written, televised, on the internet, etc.
protest and meet
asking the government for change
Schenck v. United States
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Rosenburg v. Board of Education of the City of New York
Counts v. Cedarville School District
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton
Wooley v. Maynard
R.A.V. v. St. Paul
Concerned Women for America, Inc. v. Lafayette County
The Third Amendment has never been challenged. No quartering has been attempted in this country since the American Revolution when we were still a part of England.
During WWI Charles Schenck passed out pamphlets that encouraged men to rebel against the draft. He said being drafted was like becoming a slave. He was arrested for passing these pamphlets out. He said his First Amendment rights were violated. The Supreme Court voted 9-0 against Schenck because they said his words could encourage military rebellion.
Established "clear and present danger" test
Clarence Brandenburg,was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. He invited a news reporter to film a KKK rally where racially offensive language was used. Brandenburg also suggested on camera that the KKK have a protest in Washington D.C. He was arrested for encouraging violence.
The Supreme Court voted in favor of Brandenburg and said that he never actually encouraged anyone to do anything illegal, so even if his words were offensive they were protected.
Established the Brandenburg Test
The name of the petitioner is withheld in this case because he was a minor at the time of conviction. He and his friends built a cross and burnt it on the lawn of a neighbor. The petitioner was arrested for breaking a local law that specifically outlawed any traditionally racist displays (e.g. swastikas, burning crosses, graffiti, etc.) but appealed the case because he said his First Amendment rights were violated.

The Supreme Court struck down the local law saying that it only forbade "fighting words" that were racist while still allowing people to make similar threats about someone's political affiliation or gender. Because the law only forbade speech that the local government found offensive it was ruled unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court defines "fighting words" as any words meant to cause anger and a "breach of the peace."
George Maynard and his wife were Jehovah's Witnesses. They lived in New Hampshire where every license plate reads "Live Free Or Die." The Maynards believed that this motto was against their religious beliefs so they covered it up on the license plates of their family automobiles. They were fined for illegal display of a license plate. They took the case to the Supreme Court and the Court agreed that a state cannot force people to display a motto they do not agree with.
The school board of the Cedarville, Arkansas school district voted to restrict students' access to the Harry Potter books, saying that the books promoted disobediance and disrespect for authority and dealt with witchcraft. Students had to have a signed permission slip before they could borrow any of the Harry Potter books from school libraries. The District Court overturned the Board's decision and ordered the books returned to unrestricted circulation, on the grounds that the restrictions violated students' First Amendment right to read and receive information.
The Court did say that it is the job of schools to protect children from questionable material, but it was still bound by the Bill of Rights and could not abridge students' First Amendment right to read a book on the basis of an unspecified fear or because the Board disagreed with the ideas contained in the book.
In 1965, John Tinker (15 years old), John's younger sister Mary Beth (13 years old), and their friend Christopher Eckhardt (16 years old) decided to wear black armbands to their schools in protest of the Vietnam War. The principals of the Des Moines schools adopted a policy banning the wearing of armbands to school. Students could return to school when they agreed to comply with the policy. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt chose to violate this policy, and the next day John Tinker also did so. All were suspended from school, but the Tinkers said this violated their First Amendment right to freedom of expression.
The Supreme Court agreed and said that the Tinkers did not disrupt the educational process with their armbands and so the rule had to be removed.
Established the "Tinker Test." Does the student's act of expression disrupt the educational process?
A high school principal named Mr. Reynolds was reviewing material for an upcoming issue of the student newspaper. The news paper would be distributed in the school and to the local community. He said that two of the stories in the paper were not allowed to be printed. One was about teen pregnancy and had interviews with three students who were pregnant. The other was about divorce and had interviews with students whose parents were divorced. Although the stories used false names, Mr. Reynolds was convinced that the students could easily be identified by the information that had been given. The students who had written the story sued the school district for violation of their First Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district saying that if a publication is being printed with school resources that publication must follow the rules of the school. The Supreme Court said that unlike the Tinker case, the stories in the newspaper were violating people's right to privacy and so were not protected under the First Amendment.
Daniel Connaughton, a candidate for an Ohio judgeship had some members of his office investigated for illegal activities. One of the witnesses testifying in the case was interviewed by a local newspaper and said that he knew about some "dirty tricks" Connaughton was guilty of. Connaughton sued the newspaper and won. The Supreme Court determined that the newspaper did not pursue the truth as much as they should have.
A reporter is guilty of libel if it can be proven that they acted with "actual malice." This case defined "actual malice."
1. Is your source reliable?
2. Did you only use one source?
3. Is there any evidence supporting the other side?
4. Did you ignore what the accused had to say?
5. Did you publish facts that you knew were questionable?
6. Were you prejudiced?
A local library had built a large auditorium saying that the room could be used for public meetings. A church group called the Concerned Women for America attempted to book the room, but they were denied access because the library said they did not allow "meetings for...religious purposes." The ladies sued the county and won. The Court ruled that their First Amendment right to freedom of assembly and the free exercise of their religion had been violated.
A Jewish man named Lewis Rosenburg sued the city of New York's school system for assigning the book "Oliver Twist" and the play "The Merchant of Venice" to their students. Both of these plays portray Jewish people in a very negative way and rely heavily on negative Jewish stereotypes. Rosenburg said that by having their students read these books New York was encouraging racial prejudice. The Court ruled against Rosenburg saying that in assigning these books that have always been viewed as classic literature, New York schools meant no harm. It would be a violation of the students' First Amendment right to receive information to remove two books just because they offended someone.
Think about it...
Sgt. Gary Stein of the United States Marine Corps posted a facebook status saying "---- Obama, I will not follow unlawful orders from him."
Sgt. Stein was dishonorably discharged from the Marine Corps for his post. According to Stein his First Amendment rights were violated. According to the Marine Corps, Stein was speaking in a way that was disloyal and threatened his fellow troops' safety.
Legal Precedent
US v. Wilcox - A US paratrooper was threatened with discharge when he made racist statements and said "This government is not worth supporting in any of its components." The Supreme Court ruled that Wilcox was within his First Amendment rights and should not have been threatened with dismissal.
Marine Corps Rules
Service members are required to defend the Constitution of the United States against all foreign (from another country) and domestic (from the United States) threats.

Service members may not criticize the commander in chief.

Military personnel in uniform cannot sponsor a political club; participate in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or against a political party, candidate or cause; or speak at any event promoting a political movement.

Commissioned officers may not use contemptuous words against senior officials.
Who is right?
orderly, trained
army of regular people
protection of the people and the Constitution
own and carry firearms
messed with
Presser v. Illinois
United States v. Miller
District of Columbia v. Heller
McDonald v. Chicago
In 1886, Herman Presser was part of a citizen militia group. He was arrested for belonging to an unauthorized military group. The state of Illinois said that in order to form a special militia you had to have a license from the governor.
Presser said that his arrest violated his Second Amendment right to belong to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from passing laws concerning the formation of militias and the ownership of firearms. If individual states want to adopt certain policies concerning these issues that is fine.
However, the Supreme Court also pointed out that it would be a violation of the Second Amendment for states to disarm their people to the point where there would be no militia for the government to rely on in case of emergency.
The final decision of the Supreme Court was that Presser's Second Amendment rights had not been violated, and that the state of Illinois had the right to regulate state and private militias.
In 1934 the National Firearms Act (NFA) was passed. The NFA required certain types of firearms (including but not limited to fully automatic firearms and short-barreled rifles and shotguns) to be registered with the Miscellaneous Tax Unit (this later became the ATF). The NFA also required people to pay a $200 tax when they registered a gun like this and pay the tax again if they ever sold the gun.

Miller was arrested for failure to register a short barreled shotgun with the Miscellaneous Tax Unit. He claimed that the NFA was a violation of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court determined that the NFA did not violate the Second Amendment because the Amendment protects only the ownership of of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia. The Supreme Court said that the shotgun in question was not known to be a militia weapon and therefore was not protected by the Second Amendment.
Chicago resident Otis McDonald, a 76 year old man, had lived in the Morgan Park neighborhood since buying a house there in 1971. McDonald said his neighborhood had been taken over by gangs and drug dealers. His lawn was regularly littered with garbage and his home and garage had been broken into five times, with the most recent robbery committed by a man McDonald recognized from his own neighborhood. McDonald legally owned shotguns, but he wanted to purchase a handgun for personal home defense. In 1982 Chicago banned private ownership of all handguns, so McDonald could not legally buy a handgun. He felt that this violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court determined that McDonald's Second Amendment rights had been violated and that under the Fourteenth Amendment (which we will discuss later) state and local governments cannot remove the individual rights promised by the Bill of Rights.
District of Columbia law bans the ownership of unlicensed handguns. The District of Columbia also denies all applications for handgun licenses to private citizens. The police chief of the District of Columbia can issue 1-year licenses in special cases. All firearms owned by D.C. residents must be unloaded and dissembled or have a trigger lock. Mr. Heller, is a policeman in D.C. He applied for a special license to keep a handgun in his home for self-defense. He was denied the license so he sued the District of Columbia for violating his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment does indeed protect an individual's right to keep a firearm at home for self-defense. This person does not have to have any connection to a militia to retain this right. They ruled that D.C's ban on handguns was a clear violation of the people's Second Amendment rights.
Think About It...
Is this a collective or individual right?
only for militia purposes
for each person
On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp. Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp said they couldn't come in without a search warrant. Two officers left, and one remained. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. Brandishing a piece of paper, they broke in the door. Mapp asked to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer, putting it in her dress. The officers struggled with Mapp and took the piece of paper away from her. They arrested her for her behavior.
Originally this case went before the Supreme Court for a violation of the First Amendment. However, the Court said that the bigger issue was the violation of the Fourth Amendment. Even though there was evidence in her home that she had broken the law, the Court said none of the evidence could be used because it had been gathered illegally.
Mapp v. Ohio
Katz v. United States
Charles Katz used a public pay phone booth to send illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston. The FBI was recording his conversations through an electronic eavesdropping device on the outside of the phone booth. Katz was arrested based on these recordings. Katz said the recordings were a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court said that Katz's rights were violated because when you shut the door to a phone booth you are implying that you want privacy. The FBI had no right to eavesdrop and so all the recorded evidence was thrown out.
United States v. Robinson
A D.C. police officer stopped a car based on reliable information that the driver's license had been revoked. The driver, Robinson, was arrested. The officer proceeded to search Robinson, and felt a package whose contents the officer could not immediately identify. Upon removing the package—a crumpled cigarette packet—and opening it, the officer discovered drugs.
Robinson tried to say that the search of his pockets was illegal. The Supreme Court determined that the search was legal because Robinson had already been placed under arrest. This case established that once you are under arrest your person and your vehicle can be searched legally.
In 1978, the Bloomingdale, Illinois Police Department received an anonymous letter. The letter stated, "This letter is to inform you that you have a couple in your town who strictly make their living on selling drugs. They are Sue and Lance Gates..." The letter then described exactly how the Gates picked up the drugs and how they dropped them off. There was evidence to suggest that the couple was indeed selling drugs so a search warrant was issued based on the detective's report.

The Gates said their Fourth Amendment rights had been violated because the search warrant had been issued largely because of the anonymous letter.

This case established the "totality of the circumstances" standard. It was decided that the anonymous letter when backed up by other evidence was enough to get the search warrant.
Illinois v. Gates
Franks v. Delaware
A girl named Cynthia Bailey was attacked and gave a description of her attacker to the police. The man she described, Jerome Franks, had been arrested that very same day for attacking another girl, Brenda. While in a holding cell Franks made the comment that he was surprised he was arrested for attacking Brenda because he knew her very well. He added that when he was arrested he thought the cops said "Bailey."
The police used this statement to investigate Franks for the attack on Cynthia Bailey. In order to get a search warrant they used Franks statement, but they also added that they had interviewed Franks's boss to see if Bailey's description of his clothing matched what he normally wore. While searching his home they found a large amount of evidence that proved he attacked both women.
However, Franks's boss had never been interviewed. Because of this the Supreme Court said the search warrant was illegal and so all evidence discovered by it had to be thrown out. Any search warrant in which the police knowingly place false information is automatically illegal.
United States v. Cotterman
On April 6, 2007 Howard and Maureen Cotterman were driving back to the United States from Mexico. When they passed through customs their name triggered an alert. They were suspected to be involved with internet crimes. After the alert, the Cotterman's were sent to a holding area.
While inspecting their car the customs officers found two laptops and three cameras. They searched the computers and found a lot of password protected files. The Cottermans were released but their computers were held for further investigation. When the officers were finally able to break through the passwords they found a large amount of illegal material.

The Cottermans argued that their Fourth Amendment rights had been violated because they had done nothing wrong upon entry into the country and therefore there was no probable cause to search their computers. It was determined by the Court that the alert was probable cause and that the Cottermans Fourth Amendment rights had not been violated.
Chimel v. California
Mr. Chimel was arrested inside his home for a burglary he committed. When he was placed under arrest the police asked him if they could search the home. Mr. Chimel said no, but the police searched the home anyway. They searched every room of the house and even emptied out drawers in the bedrooms.
Mr. Chimel said this violated his Fourth Amendment rights because there was no reason the police needed to check the whole house. The Supreme Court agreed and established a rule that says if a person is arrested in their home the police only have the right to search the room you are in and the area around that room without a search warrant.
Carroll v. United States
During the 1920s the production and sale of alcohol was against the law in the US. Mr. Carroll was a known dealer in alcohol. An undercover police officer attempted to buy alcohol from Mr. Carroll, but the deal never went through. At a later date, the same officer in uniform pulled Mr. Carroll over and searched his car. Alcohol was found and Mr. Carroll was arrested. Mr. Carroll said that the search was illegal because the officer had no warrant.
The Supreme Court decided that there was an "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment. If there is enough probable cause a car can be searched without a warrant. The Court said the reason for this is because cars can be moved, hidden, or taken out of the country before a warrant can be issued. Therefore, they present a special circumstance.
Think About It...
How has technology changed our Fourth Amendment rights to privacy?
Should search warrant requirements be stricter or looser because of technology?
U.S. v. Jones
The FBI vaguely suspected Antoine Jones of engaging in illegal activity. They obtained a search warrant that permitted them to put a GPS tracker on the bottom of his wife's car. For 28 days they tracked his movements and got enough evidence to prove he was involved in drug sales.
The Supreme Court determined that even with a search warrant this was a terrible infringement on Jones's Fourth Amendment rights.
Rhode Island v. Patino
A woman called 911 because her 6 year old son had stopped breathing. After the boy was taken to the hospital, police came by to ask some questions. They noticed some odd things around the house. One officer was standing in the kitchen when a cell phone beeped. He picked it up and and a series of text messages were on the screen. One said ""Wat if I got 2 take him 2 da hospital wat do I say and dos marks on his neck omg."
Police used this to start an investigation where more than enough evidence was discovered to prove that the boy's mother and stepfather had killed him. However, it was determined in court that none of the evidence was legal because the text messages were read without a search warrant.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Huh?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury
=
You can't be taken to trial for a really big crime without being indicted by a
Grand Jury.
Formally accused
A jury that decides if there is even enough evidence to have a trial.
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
=
The military has special rules about their trials. During a war, they are allowed to rush the trial process a little bit.
nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
=
This is the double jeopardy clause. If you go to trial for a crime but you are found not guilty at trial, you cannot go to trial for the same crime again even if they find more evidence you did it.
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
=
Self-incrimination is when you say something that makes you sound guilty. You can't be forced to do this when the police are questioning you.
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
=
The police cannot hold you in jail or prison unless you have been given
due process.
All your rights are respected after your arrest
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
=
If for some reason your property needs to be taken so it can be used by the government, they must pay you
"fair market value."
Whatever your stuff is worth
(not necessarily as much as you want)
So...
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court. You have the right to have an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been given to you?
The police do NOT have to tell you...

that you can stop the questioning whenever you want.
if you stop the questioning that cannot be used as a sign of guilt in trial.
you can talk to your lawyer before you answer any questions at all.
you can have your lawyer answer all the police's questions for you.
Your rights only have to be read if you are placed under arrest.
It is up to YOU to know these things.
before your trial
after your trial
Miranda v. Arizona
Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in Arizona in 1963. A woman was kidnapped and hurt, and she identified Miranda in a police lineup. Miranda was arrested, charged with the crimes, and questioned by the police for two hours. The police officers questioning him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or of his Sixth Amendment right to have a lawyer. Miranda confessed in writing to the crimes. His statement also said that he was aware of his right against self-incrimination. He was found guilty at his trial and he was sent to prison.
His case was appealed because his lawyer said his confession was not legal because he was not informed of his rights. The Supreme Court agreed that when a person is arrested they must be informed of their right to remain silent and their right to have a lawyer.
Custodial Interrogation: the ability of the police to ask you questions when you are under arrest.
Once you are "in custody" you may not leave.
Pleading the Fifth
Refusing to say something that would incriminate yourself
Infamous Crime
Any crime for which the penalty is being in prison for more than one year
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Speedy Trial
Public Trial
Impartial Jury
Confrontation and Compulsory Process
Right to Counsel
The time between arrest and trial is not to exceed one year unless:
There is a good reason for the delay (it isn't just because the prosecution is building it's case)
The defendant agrees to the delay
The delay doesn't make the defendant look bad.
All defendants are allowed to have a public trial. There are certain circumstances where trials can be closed, but all information shared during trial becomes public record.
Juries must:
Have 12 people
Be as unbiased as possible
Represent the community they are taken from
Be from the state the crime was committed in
Voir Dire
The process by which unbiased jurors are selected
Notice of Accusation
If you are accused of a crime you have a right to know exactly what you are accused of doing

This notice must include ALL the specifics of the crime so that if the accused is found not guilty they are protected from double jeopardy
The right of confrontation prevents hearsay.

Hearsay is when you say something that you have no direct knowledge of.
Ex. "Tim told me that Joey was there the night of the crime."
The Compulsory Process Clause states that every defendant has the right to call witnesses and find evidence in their favor. However, the prosecution must be notified in a timely mannered.
You have the right to have a lawyer even if you can't afford one.
The lawyer you are given will not charge you any money.
Gideon v. Wainwright
A man named Clarence Earl Gideon was accused of breaking into a hotel bar and robbing the cash register. He was seen leaving the hotel with a bottle of wine and money in his pocket. Based on this, the police arrested him and charged him with the burglary.

Gideon appeared in court but was too poor to afford a lawyer. At the time, a lawyer would only be appointed for someone if they were accused of a capital crime. Therefore, Mr. Gideon had no lawyer in court. He did not defend himself well and was sentenced to five years in prison.

The case went before the Supreme Court where it was decided that it didn't matter what kind of crime someone was accused of - a lawyer must be appointed for them if they cannot afford one.
Think About It...
If you were a lawyer what would you do for your client?
How would you protect them?
Tell me how you would turn yourself into the perfect lawyer.
Draw yourself as a lawyer
Label the drawing to show what special abilities you will have to protect your client
Connect everything to the 5th and 6th Amendment - explain what part of each amendment you are representing
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Bail
The amount of money paid to await trial at home.
There are several different types of bail:
Cash bail: You must pay the full amount set for bail in cash
Surety bond: you pay 10% of your bond to a bail bondsman and the bail bondsman pays your bail. You also provide them some kind of collateral. If you run, you pay them the full amount.
Property bond: You put up some form of property as collateral
Bounty Hunters
If you do not show up to court, a bail bondsman can send a bounty hunter out to get you.
Punishment
Your punishment depends very much on the severity of your crime.
In the state of Florida
3rd degree felony < 5 years
5 years < 2nd degree felony < 15 years
15 years < 1st degree felony < 30 years
Life felony = Life
Fighting or baiting animals
Making books (being a bookie)
Forgery
Encouraging someone to join a gang
Assault
Selling drugs
Identity theft
Selling prescription drugs
Breaking into someone's home (no weapon)
Kidnapping
Sexual Assault
Accomplice in murder
Is the death penalty cruel and unusual?
Is the right to keep and bear arms a collective right meant just for militia purposes, or is it an individual right that every American citizen has?
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.
a good enough reason
signed by a judge
Full transcript