AMENDMENTS 4-7 CASE STUDIES
MAPP V. OHIO (1961)
Summary
The rule that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment may not be used at trial, which
many Americans are familiar with from television crime shows, has its origins in the landmark
Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio (1961). In this case, the Court held that states must abide by the
“exclusionary rule” – a sometimes-controversial means of ensuring justice.
Reading
The police pushed open the door of Dollree Mapp’s home, despite her protests. They believed a
bombing suspect was hiding in her home. She demanded to see their search warrant, and they
waved a piece of paper at her, claiming it was a warrant. It was not. Police did not find the suspect
they were looking for. They did, however, find sexually explicit books and photographs. Mapp was
charged with violating Ohio state law prohibiting “lewd, lascivious, or obscene material.” She was
convicted and sentenced to one to seven years in prison.
Mapp appealed her conviction. She based her claim on First Amendment grounds, saying that she
had a right to possess the materials. When the case reached the Supreme Court, however, it did not
address her First Amendment claim and instead threw out her conviction on other grounds, saying
that the evidence against her should never have been used because it was seized without a
warrant—in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This is called the exclusionary rule.
The exclusionary rule already applied to federal cases. In Mapp, the Court held that the exclusionary
rule was an “essential part” of the Fourth Amendment, and that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause, which says that “No state shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law,” meant that the federal exclusionary rule now applied to the states. “Since
the Fourth Amendment’s right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, it is enforceable against them by the same sanction of
exclusion as is used against the Federal Government.”
The exclusionary rule is controversial. Critics argue that if the police act improperly they should face
punishment, but evidence should not be excluded. On the other hand, the Court reasoned, “The
criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government
more quickly than failure to observe its own laws, or worse, disregard the charter of its own
existence.”
Questions
1. Why did Dollree Mapp claim a search of her home violated her rights?
2. How did the Supreme Court rule in her case?
3. What is the exclusionary rule? Do you think it is an essential means of ensuring
justice?
4. To what was the Court referring to as “the charter of its [the government’s] own
existence?”
5. In his dissent, Justice Harlan raised concerns of federalism. He criticized the
majority for ignoring the First Amendment issues Mapp had raised and instead
“reaching out” to “impose upon the states this federal remedy.” Do you agree with
Justice Harlan? Why or why not?
ROE V. WADE (1973)
Summary
This month, we spotlight the landmark case Roe v. Wade (1973). In this case, the Court held that the
right to privacy included the abortion decision, and that states could not ban the procedure in the first
trimester. One of the Court’s most controversial decisions, the ruling overturned laws banning
abortion in at least thirty-one states.
Reading
According to common law tradition carried over in the United States from England, abortion before
“quickening,” (or when the fetus’s movements could be felt) was not a crime. In 1821, Connecticut
adopted a portion of a British law and passed the first US law banning abortion after quickening. At
the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, twenty states (out of thirty-seven)
restricted abortion. By the 1950s, almost every state banned all abortions except when necessary to
save the woman’s life.
A shift began in the 1960s. Beginning with Colorado in 1967, thirteen states opened access to
abortion. Several states restricted the procedure, while thirty-one states allowed it only to save the life
of the mother. A Texas woman, using the name Jane Roe, challenged her state law and her case
eventually went to the Supreme Court.
The Constitution does not list a right to privacy. The Court has held, however, that Bill of Rights
protections of free speech, assembly, and religious exercise (First Amendment), along with freedom
from forced quartering of troops (Third), unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth), and forced
self-incrimination (Fifth) create “zones of privacy.” Further, the Ninth Amendment’s protection of
unenumerated rights could be said to protect privacy. These “zones,” the Court held, are places into
which the government cannot unreasonably intrude. Roe claimed that the law robbed her of her right
to privacy as protected by the combination of Bill of Rights amendments, and of her liberty as
protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court agreed with Roe and held that “the right to privacy includes the abortion decision.” The
Court emphasized that abortion rights were not absolute. “The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in
her privacy…[I]t is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another
interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved.”
States could not ban abortion during the first trimester, but as pregnancy progressed, the Court held,
the state’s interest in protecting life could begin to outweigh the woman’s liberty. Therefore states
could restrict the procedure later in pregnancy.
The decision in Roe v. Wade continues to be one of the most controversial the Court has ever issued.
Demonstrations are frequently held on the anniversary of the decision—some in protest and some in
support. In subsequent cases, the Court has upheld laws requiring waiting periods and other similar
restrictions on abortion, even within the first trimester.
Questions
1. Why did Roe argue that the Texas law banning abortions was unconstitutional?
2. On what Bill of Rights protections does the Supreme Court base the right to
privacy?
3. How did the Court rule?
4. In his dissent, Justice White wrote, “The Court apparently values the convenience
of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the
life or potential life that she carries. … I find no constitutional warrant for imposing
such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States.” Do you
agree? Why or why not?
TAYLOR V. LOUISIANA (1975)
Summary
In commemoration of Women’s History Month, this Landmark Supreme Court Cases and the
Constitution Lesson focuses on the landmark case of Taylor v. Louisiana (1975). In this case, the
Supreme Court held that states could not systematically exclude women from juries. The
constitutional issue in the case was not the right of individual women to serve as jurors, but the right
of accused persons to be tried by a jury made up of a “representative cross section of the
community.”
Reading
Louisiana resident Billy Taylor was found guilty of kidnapping. He challenged his conviction because
there were no women on his jury. It was the 1970s, and under the state’s constitution, women were
never called for jury duty unless they had written a letter to the state asking to be considered for
service.
The Sixth Amendment protects the right of criminal defendants to a trial “by an impartial jury.” Taylor
argued that by systematically excluding women from jury pools, Louisiana had deprived him of that
Sixth Amendment right (applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment). He did not argue that
his particular jury had been biased or prejudiced against him. The state of Louisiana argued that
Taylor did not have grounds to object to his male-only jury since he was a male. Further, women
served special roles in society that would be particularly disrupted by jury duty. This was why they
were excluded unless they volunteered. His case eventually went to the US Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed with Taylor and ordered Louisiana to re-try him. The Court also
overturned Louisiana’s jury selection system as an unconstitutional violation of the Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments. The Court ruled, “The selection of a…jury from a representative cross
section of the community is an essential component of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.”
The Court cited that fact that fifty-three percent of the population eligible for jury duty was female. Yet,
the Court observed, only “only a very few women, grossly disproportionate to the number of eligible
women in the community, [were] called for jury service.” The Court concluded that excluding women
from juries deprived defendants of the “commonsense judgment of the community” that juries were
designed to impart.
Finally, the “distinctive” roles that women played in society was a “rational” reason for the state’s jury
system, but individual exemptions from jury duty could always be made. It was invalid for Louisiana to
suggest that “it would be a special hardship for each and every woman to perform jury service or that
society cannot spare any women from their present duties.”
Comprehension and Critical Thinking Questions
1. Why did Taylor challenge his conviction?
2. What were the arguments on each side?
3. How did the Supreme Court rule, and why?
4. Dissenting, Associate Justice Rehnquist argued that Louisiana’s jury system was
certainly outdated, but not unconstitutional. “[W ithout] any suggestion that
[Taylor’s] trial was unfairly conducted, or that its resul t was unreliable, I would not
require Louisiana to retry him…” How would you respond to Justice Rehnquist’s
argument?
DICKERSON V. UNITED STATES (2000)
Summary
In this case about the rights of criminal suspects, the Court ruled on whether Congress could
legislatively “overrule” one of the Court’s decisions.
Reading
Anyone who has ever watched Law and Order-type shows knows the familiar police phrase: “You
have the right to remain silent.” That statement and others that follow about the right to a lawyer are
commonly known as “Miranda Rights.” The Fifth Amendment protects an accused person’s right not
to incriminate himself, and the Sixth Amendment protects the right to have a lawyer’s help in one’s
criminal defense.
In a case from the 1960s, Ernesto Miranda was suspected of kidnapping and rape. He was
interrogated by police and confessed to the crimes. The Supreme Court overturned Miranda’s
conviction because he had not been adequately informed by police that he had the right to remain
silent, or that he had the right to legal counsel. The phrase “Miranda Warnings” or “Miranda Rights”
comes from that case, Miranda v. Arizona (1966). The Supreme Court held that if police do not inform
suspects of their rights while they are in police custody, statements made by the suspects may not be
used against them later at their trials.
Two years after the ruling in Miranda, Congress passed a law stating that federal judges must allow
confessions by suspects to be used at trial if the confessions were made voluntarily. In other words, if
a suspect confessed on their own (as opposed to admitting the crime while being interrogated), then
the confession could be used in Court, even if police had not read the suspect his or her Miranda
rights. Some believe this law was designed to overrule the Miranda ruling, while others believe it does
not contradict the Miranda ruling at all since it only involves voluntary confession that were not part of
an interrogation.
This federal law became an issue in a case in the 1990s: Dickerson v. United States. Dickerson was
indicted for bank robbery. At his trial, Dickerson tried to have a confession he had made in an FBI
field office suppressed, because he had not been read his rights. A Circuit Court upheld the federal
law allowing voluntary confessions, reasoning that informing suspects of Miranda rights was not a
constitutional requirement. The case went to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled for Dickerson (7-2). Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, wrote:
“Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not be in effect overruled by an Act of
Congress.” The Court also reasoned that Miranda warnings had become expected in the US:
“Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have
become part of our national culture.”
The two dissenting Justices argued that there was nothing unconstitutional about using voluntary
statements by defendants against them: “Preventing foolish (rather than compelled) confessions is
likewise the only conceivable basis for the [ruling]… The Constitution is not, unlike
the Miranda majority, offended by a criminal’s commendable qualm of conscience or fortunate fit of
stupidity.”
Comprehension and Critical Thinking Questions
1. Why is the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) important to understanding Dickerson
v. United States (1999)?
2. What were the facts of the case in Dickerson v. United States (1999), and how did
the Court rule?
3. The Fifth Amendment states in part, “nor shall [any person] be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himse lf, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law.” What does “compelled” mean?
Using your definition of the term, would any of the following be “compelled”
confessions?
A suspect confesses as soon as he sees police approaching him.
A suspect confesses as soon as police ask him where he was the night of the
murder.
A suspect confesses as soon as he is arrested.
A suspect confesses after being promised something (e.g. a lighter sentence)
A suspect confesses after being threatened.
A suspect confesses after being physically tortured.
In your interpretation of this amendment, should voluntary confessions by suspects
be admissible in federal court?
4. The Supreme Court interpreted the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in Miranda v.
Arizona (1966). Should Congress be able to pass laws that “overrule” a Supreme
Court interpretation of the Bill of Rights?
5. How does this case, in which the Supreme Court was asked to rule if Congress can
overrule one of its rulings, test the Constitution’s separation of powers and checks
and balances?
THE UNITED STATES V. CAUSBY (1946)
Summary
In this case, the Court held that owners of a chicken farm had to be compensated for the lost value of
their land, when the government’s actions made farming on the land impossible.
Reading
Lee and Tinie Causby bought 2.8 acres of land, intending to raise a chicken farm. The fact that the
land was just one third of a mile from an airport didn’t concern them, as it was a small, municipal
airport that was little used. But several years later, the military began using the airport. Army bombers
and transports would fly sixty feet over their house, skimming just eighteen feet above the tallest
trees. The roar and glare of the planes disturbed the Causbys’ sleep. Even worse, the noise was so
loud that their chickens would fly into walls from fright and die. Sometimes half a dozen chickens
would die in a single day, and eventually 150 of their chickens were dead. It became impossible for
the Causbys to sustain their once-successful farm.
The Causby’s believed that their Fifth Amendment rights had been violated. The Fifth Amendment
says in part, “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Though
government had not physically taken the Causby’s property from them, they believed they were
entitled to compensation because the government’s actions had made it impossible for them to use
their property as a chicken farm. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court.
The government argued that the Causbys’ property had not been taken, as the government had not
physically intruded on their land. Furthermore, people could not be said to own all the air above their
land, because this would make it impossible for the United States to control its own airspace. Finally,
the planes were taking off and landing at legal altitudes.
The Court agreed with the Causbys, finding that the government’s actions amounted to what is called
a “partial taking.” The Court held, “The flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is
as much an appropriation [taking] of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it.” The
Court held that the facts of the case “plainly establish[ed] that there was a diminution in value of the
property and that the frequent, low-level flights were the direct and immediate cause…. The result
was the destruction of the use of the property as a commercial chicken farm.” Therefore, the Causbys
had to be compensated for the lost value of their property.
The Supreme Court case US v. Causby highlights the constitutional principle that the government
must pay owners for the lost value of their property, sometimes even in cases where the government
did not physically take the land away.
Questions
1. How did the Army’s use of the airport affect the Causbys’ farm?
2. Why did the Causbys believe they were entitled to just compensation?
3. How did the Supreme Court rule, and why?
4. What kinds of government intrusion do you believe should be considered a “partial
taking,” entitling the owner to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment?
Should the following be considered partial takings?
o
A state government enacts a temporary ban on new construction in an area;
landowners cannot build on their property for an indefinite but temporary
period.
o
A state government enacts a permanent ban on new construction in an area;
landowners cannot build on their property.
o
A local ordinance grants a cable company permanent access to parts of an
apartment building in order to maintain the cable lines.
o
The owner of a private bookstore argues that the new public library has
driven his store out of business.