Probable cause is the basis that police must have in order to apprehend someone, conduct a search on someone’s property and get a search warranty to perform the searches. Police officers must have a credible reason to judge that a crime was committed. In other words, officers cannot just assume or suspect that a crime was committed and must have an evidence to perform a search, make an arrest and get a search warrant.
Reasonable Suspicion is a legal standard by which, law enforcement officers have the right to arrest a suspect for a short period to enable them carry out an investigation and frisk the suspect’s possession in search for illegal ownership of firearms. To possess reasonable suspicion, a detective must be able to allude to facts to justify the intrusion. Possessions related to suspected criminal activity found in a search might be seized, or taken by the detective.
Free exercise clause was formed to proscribe the government from interfering with the practice of any religion apart from the cases of compelling interest of the society like bigamy, child abuse and human sacrifice as part of the religion
Broad interpretation is an interpretation of the American constitution holding that the motive of the times and the needs of the country can legally influence judicial decisions especially the decisions made by the Supreme Court
Narrow interpretation is an elucidation of the Supreme Court judges, which allows them to combine the written constitutional laws with their ideas to make judgments.
Exclusionary rule is a statute that averts the government from using most substantiation gathered in violation of the United State Constitution. The rule is premeditated to rule out evidence attained in infringement of the Fourth Amendment rights in US, which protects citizens against unreasonable seizures or searches, by law enforcement persons.
Unwritten constitution- These are processes and ideas achieved from precedent and customs of United States and are accepted and used as a part of American government but are not written in the American Constitution. Some of the crucial government rules take the form of usage, legal instruments and statutes.
Compelling state interest is a concept of law that gives the government a mandate to regulate a given matter. The interest of the government is so important in a way that it outweighs individual interests.
Desegregation is the process of terminating the customs, practices and laws under which diverse groups and races are constrained to separate public facilities like schools, organizations or even neighborhoods.
Judicial review is a set of guidelines under which, the courts review the actions of the executive and legislative government branches. The review is associated with the Supreme Court, which has definitive judicial authority.
How the first Amendment to the United States Constitution was interpreted in the following Supreme Court cases:
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
In this case, the United States Supreme court ruled that voluntary prayer in public schools violated the First Amendment of the US constitution, which prohibited a state establishment of religion. A New York State law wrote a short voluntary prayer for recitation by students at the beginning of each school day. The law permitted students not to follow the activity if they felt subjected to the prayer. The case was interpreted differently; Justice Black held the school-sponsored prayer as violation of the Establishment Clause.
A concurrence made by Justice Douglas ruled out that any type of public promotion of religion was a violation to the Establishment Clause. Justice Stewart on the other hand dissented that the Establishment Clause was only meant to prohibit the introduction of state-sponsored religion and not to prevent all activities related to religion. He found the absentee provision and nature of the prayer important as it solved constitutional challenges.
Schenck v. United States (1919)
United States Congress passed the Espionage law in 1917 after America entered World War. The law punished dissents in wartime who acted in violation of the First Amendment. The war saw almost 2,000 people put under trial for violating the Espionage law. Charles Schensk was against the war so he printed pamphlets, which were against the government mission to fund the war. United States government accused him of violating the act and charged him for making pamphlets, which were used to weaken American soldiers.
Justice Hugo Black an opponent to the case objected the idea that the First Amendment Freedom of speech could be balanced to other governmental goals. He thought that the balancing of view by the government destroyed the freedom of speech. Justice Holemes interpreted the Amendment saying that freedom of speech was only limited to the people whose actions prompted to overthrow the government.
The United States Supreme Court has made many landmark decisions that have had lasting implications upon our society.
Miranda V. Arizona (1966)
In this case, Arizona accused Ernesto Miranda for rape and kidnapping charges. He confessed the charges; Miranda was tried without a lawyer to defend him in his case. In this case, The Court apprehended that prosecutors had no right to use statements arising from custodial questioning of defendants unless they verified the use of technical measures, which were effective in securing the dispensation against self-incrimination. The Court in this case ruled that the contemporary practice of in-custody examination was psychologically oriented. The Court particularly delineated the essential aspects of officers warning to suspect, including admonitions of the right to stay silent and the right to have counsel present during court hearings. The rule made by the Supreme Court is still used in today’s ruling; a convicted person should remain silent as anything he or she says can be used against them in the court of law.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
It is one of the landmark cases handled by America’s Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Roe campaigned for the victory for choice; Wade on the other hand argued that abortion deprived the unborn child of his/her right to live. Dealing with the case, the court ruled that the issue of abortion was unconstitutional except when done to save the life of the mother
Roe v. Wade case on abortion remains one of the intensely debated issues in Supreme Court today. Courts are today torn between the worlds of religion, biology and ethics. On Roe’s case, people criticize the court for legalizing murder. On Wade’s case, people accuse the Supreme Court for ruling out unjustly. However, defendants of the case argue that the case was pragmatic and eventually made decision based on the consideration of the most basic rights (rights to life, personal privacy and liberty).