amendment5

__1.Jack Velella 2. Kelo v. city of New London.(1974) 3.The man kelo took land from one private onwner to another private owner. 4. Kelo was found Guilty for his actions and was sentenced to jail. 5. This has an impact on the world because it shows us that we can not just steal things and think we can get away.

1.Ryan altieri 2.Dennis vs. Us (1951)__ 3.In 1948,the leaders of the communist partof america were arreted and charged with voilating provisions of the smith actb. The act made it unlawful to knowingly conspire to teach and advocate the overthrow or destruction of the Untied States goverment. 4.party leaders were found guilty and lower courts upheld the conviction.

//**Claire C: BERGER VS&gt; NY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!**//

__**//Claire Crimando//**__ 1.Berger Vs. NY 2.1967 3.Whether or not to use wiretap 4.Berger lost 5.This case is important because it extends the right to property to the more abstract property, such as conversation, rather than the purely physical property.

shane k. is doing **//__Williams v. Florida__//** 1.Graham Jensen 2. Watkins v. United States (1957) 3. He didn't give information on the communist party because he didn't have to answer and they had to treat him fairly. 4. it was a 6 to 1 decision that the House Comittee was beyond congressional power. 5. The impact on the country is that people know they have the freedom not to say anything that they think is to deep into the information. 1Jake Werkmeister 2 Malloy v. Hogan(1964) 3Malloy was arrested during a gambling raid in 1959. He went to jail and had to pay $500. The sentence lasted 90 days. He was arrested for gambling on "grounds it may intend(him)". He filed a petition that the supreme court on grounds that they had made an error. 4In a 5-4 decision was Yes he had been treated un-fairly. 5I agree that he had not been treated fairly. He could not even testify.

1. Eryk Banatt 2. Waller v. Florida (1969) 3. He was held for "destruction of city property and breach of peace" for 180 days. They later tried him for the same act under "grand Larceny" and was convicted of that. they denied the prevention of double jeopardy. 4. "The Double Jeopardy clause barred a second trial because all the charges grew out of the same criminal episode." (Justice Brennan) They ruled in his favor. 5. This impacted our country because now people know that you can't be tried from the same crime or episode twice.

1. David Manno 2. Hirabayashi v. United States (1943) 3. Whether the presidents executive orders and the United States Congress ratification of the executive orders exceeded the constitutional powers of the national government to impose restrictions on individuals of Japanese descent and whether the national government violated Japanese descendants due process guarantee of "life liberty or property" 4. The Supreme Court of the United States found the presidents executive orders and the establishment of the curfew to be constitutional. The restrictions placed on Japanese Americans and resident aliens of Japan served a military and national security interest, and the court viewed the curfew as a necessary protective measure in time of war. 5. The impact on the country was that Japanese Americans and resident aliens served a military and national security interest.

1. Mitchell Fliss 2. Kelly vs. Goldberg (1970) 3. John Kelly and others sued when State and local officials terminated their welfare benefits without having given them prior notice and an opportunity to be heard. Social Sevices of New York contacted the Supreme court for reveiw. 4. Supreme court ruled that the Due Process Clause gives welfare recipients an opportunity to present evidence and arguments to an impartial decision maker before their welfare benefits are terminated. 5. This shows people of the country that not everything the government officials do is right and you can question it.

Tayler is doing //University of California Regents v Bakke// (1976)

 1 . KRISTIN STETZEL 2. Gault v. Arizona (1967)   3. The defendant was only 15 years old when he was arrested for making prank phone calls and the case argued that his 5th amendment rights were violated because he had a right to due process. 4. The decision by the Supreme Court of Arizona was appealed and taken to the U.S Supreme Court where the decision was reversed. 5. This decision meant that the defendant was not given the right of due process which means that his parents were not given enough time to hire a lawyer and get prepared for the case. He also wasn't supposed to admit to anything without having a lawyer with him because his admission could be self-incriminating. Because of the decision of this trial, juveniles would now have the right to due process in Arizona.

Eryk Banatt has claimed Slochower V. Board of higher education of new york

1. Samantha Mornhineway 2. United States v. Moreland 3. The case involved a issue centering on whether or not hard labor was an infamous punishment or whether imprisonment in a penitentiary was a necessity for punishment to be considered infamous. 4. The majority opinion also included the court’s contention for continued support of the findings of a previously held case, [|Wong Wing v. United States], (1896). Lawyers for the United States argued that Wong Wing was improperly applied in the Moreland case, and had been modified or overruled by subsequent cases. The court strongly rejected the government’s contentions regarding Wong Wing in its opinion, and ruled in favor of Moreland. 5.This impacted the country because hard labor shoudn't be a punishment. 1:Devin Hogan 2:Miranda v. Arizona 1966 3:the defendent, a rape suspect,was not given his due process rights 4:The lower court's descision was overturned by the supreme court because he was not informed of his rights 5:People now haveto be read they're rights

Sasha J. Adkins vs. Children's Hospital (1923) The amendment was challanged because in the 5th Amendment it prohibited women from working for less than the established minimum wage so they aren't living in poverty but the Children's Hospital said they were paying Adkins less than minimum wage but enough to stay out of poverty The decision was 5-3 in favor of Adkins and said that they were required to pay her that much This decision effected the country by saying that people were required to pay no littler than minimum wage to matter what

1.Tanya Townsend 2.Adamson vs. California, 1947 3.Dewey Adamson was charged with first-degree murder but chose not to testify on his own behalf because he knew the prosecutor would treat him unfairly because of his criminal record. The prosecutor then argued that this refusal to testify could be seen as an admission of guilt under a California statute that allowed the jury to infer guilt in such cases. 4.Adamson was origionaly tried for murder, but when the case went to the Supreme court he felt his fifth amendment rights had been violated. The judges disagreed that Adamson did have the right not to testify. Adamson was sent to jail and decided the procecutor had not made any error. 5.Many feel that you do have the right to not testify and that Adamson was deprived of his fifth amendment rights. All parts of the Bill of Rights now apply to the states as well as the Supreme Court.

Jack Cubberly On January 12th 2004 Nixon et al vs. Missouri municipal league et al was argued, the case was all started because missure forebid plitical subedvisions to provied or offer sale, a telimarketers service or facalty. The municipal respondents, including municipally owned utilities, petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for an order declaring the statute unlawful under 47 U.S.C. 253, which authorizes preemption of state and local laws and regulations " that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity" to provide telecommunications services. relying on is earlier order resolving a challenge to a comparableTexas law and the affirming opinion of the District of Columbia Circuit, the FCC refused to declare the Missouri statute preempted, concluding that "any entity" in 253(a) does not include state political subdivisions, but applies only to independent entities subject to state regulation. THen the eigthcircut panal decidedto reverce explaining the words. GO GIANTS!

1.Lindsay Muhs 2. Brady vs. Maryland (1963) 3. The reason this was challenged was because Brady was convivted of a crime and sentenced until death. Later the realized that someone had evidence that he didn't commit the crime but they didn't show others the evidence. 5. This violated Brady's due process of law and required a retrial. Then then found him guilty anyway. 6. The impact on the country is that people would get a fair trial.

Gault v. Arizona Kristin Stetzel

1.Brad Pettigrew 2.Barron v. City of Baltimore 1833 3.Barron argued that his 5th amendment rights had been violated when the state drained a portion of Barron's water from his wharf without compensation. 4.The court decided that the 5th amendment did not apply to the states. 5.The decision meant that the state could take land for a reasonable cause. People could no longer argue that the state could not take their land.

1. Kristina Genovese 2. [|**Dred Scott v. Sanford**] 1857 3. Scott was taken by his owner to northern federal territory. He thought he was free because that part of the country excluded slavery. He went back to Missouri and sued his owner. He felt he was allowed to use the court to sue. 4. The court decided that slaves were property and not citizens so the did not have the right to use the courts. The court focused on the rights of the owner and said that black people had no rights that white people were bound to respect. 5. This did not make a good impact on the country because it goes against that all people equal rights no matter what race, religion, or skin color.

1:Abbey Thomas 2: Penn Central Transportation v. New York City (1978) 3:Whether a city may, as part of a comprehensive program to preserve historic landmarks, place restrictions on the development of individual landmarks. 4: The court decided that there was not a taking requiring just compensation under the Takings Clause of the fifth amendement when the government designated the GRand Central Terminal building in nyc as a historical landmark,so it was stopping a proposed office tower to be built over the terminal. 5: It meant that Nyc was stopping Penn Central Transportation from building a tower over the terminal. I think this is fair and unfair at the same time. There has to be reasons why they didnt want the tower to be built that are not over the internet.

1.Kevin Schoenfeld 2.David H. Lucas vs. South Carolina Costal Concil 1992 3.In 1986 David H. Lucas paid $ 975,000 for two residential lots on the Island of Palms in Charleston County, on which he wanted to build single family homes. In 1988, however, the South Carolina Legislature enacted the Beachfront Management Act, which had the effect

Tyler Roy Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, 2006 The 5th amendment guarentees the right to due process of law. Salim Ahmed Hamden was detained at Guatanamo bay, and tried for being associated with al-Queda under military commisions before the Supreme court authorized it. On June 29, 2006, the Supreme court issued a 5-3 decision saying that they had to give permission to Guatanamo before military combatants could be tried. The effect on the country is that all Guatanamo detainees must be tried before Supreme court before they go through military commisions.

1.Rushi Patel 2.Brown vs. Mississippi(1936) 3.This case was challenged by 3 black farmers who were accused of murdering a white plantation owner. It was brought up because the government openly claimed that the police tortured these men into confessing. The men were convicted and sentenced to death. 4.The Supreme Court, however, found the farmers innocent, under the due process amendment. 5. This case affected not the country but the supreme court. They were in the middle of interpritation of the 5th and 14th amendments at this time. After the case they realised the 5th dealt with only the federal government and the 14th dealt with all parts of the government.

1. Rani Hamade 2.Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) 3.Danny Escobedo was arrested in connection with a murderand was brought to the police station. He asked to see his lawyer but was held in the interrogation room. His lawyer even came to the police station but was denied access. Escobedo confessed, while under interrogation, to firing the gun that killed the victim. Danny was soon convicted. 4.It was a 5-4 vote in favor of Danny. 5. This case changed our country because it enforced the 5th amendment.

1. Kristin Hart 2. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 3. The reason this case was challenged was because the police did not inform Miranda of his fifth amendment right against self- incrimination. Miranda was accused of a robery and a rape which he denied until he was brought to court. He then confessed and wthe Supreme Court was able to make their decision. 4. The decision that the supreme court made was to put Miranda in jail for 20-30 years. 5. This case impacted our country because by putting Miranda in jail it protected everybody else from getting hurt. By bringing this case to the Supreme Court it protected everybody elses 5th amendment right.

Frank is doing Reno v. A.C.L.U.

Bianca Faria is doing Korematsu v. United States (1944) sam bird is doing Nix vs. Williams

 Sean Landy is doing Fong Foo v.s the united states 1.Sean Landy 2.Fong foo v.s the united states,1962 3.The reason it was challenged was because the 5 amendment protects aganst doulble jeapordy. 4.The decision of the case was that the supreme court refersed the judgement of the court of appeals. 5.The outcome of ths case on the country is that there was no real outcome on the country.

Hiba R. is doing Schneck vs. the United States

//__Backround:__// Olmstead a bootleg operation in out of the state of Washington. His employees took many orders over the telephone. Government agents, ignoring the laws of Washington prohibiting wiretaps, placed eight illegal wiretaps of Olmstead and his employees. Nearly 800 pages of evidence was found. Olmstead was convicted, and the appeal went to the Supreme Court. Petitioners stated that the wiretaps constituted "unreasonable search and seizure" within the 4th amendment, and that the evidence obtained amounted to a compelling of the defendents to be a witness against themselves, in violation to the 5th amendment.
 * //__Maya:__// [|//Olmstead vs. U.S (1928)//]**

//__Ruling:__// In a 5-4 decision, the evidence found was not unreasonable search and seizure, however it could be used against them.

//__Change:__// This case will affect future cases by giving a new meaning to the 4th and 5th amendments. It also says that wiretapping is an acceptable way to collect evide

1. Maggie DePaul 2. Kelo vs. New London-2005 3. This case was challenged because Kelo felt his Fifth Amendment rights were being taken away from him and he did not want to give up his property. 4. The decision of this case was that Kelos property was taken away from him and used as a “public use.” 5. The decision meant more jobs and the rebuilding of a distressed city. It revitalized the city and brought economic relief for the community.

__**1.**__ Christy Smetana __**2.**__ HIIBEL //v.// SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY __**3.**__ Hiibel failed to identify himself to police officer who was investigating an assault. __**4.**__ Hibbel lost win the case. __**5.**__ This decision means that you may think something violates your rights but it doesn't.

__1. Matthew La Vigna is doing 2. US vs. Miller (1993) 3.Miller was caring around a 12-gauge shotgun in the back of his car with out a permit. 4.court cannot say that the second amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. 5.sence the second amendment aplies they dont know weather to arest him or to fine him. the impact was that you must have a permmit in order to have a gun.__ Andrew Kero is doing Tennessee V. Lane 1:Marki 2:New Jersey v. T.L.O.(1985) 3: The reason the amendment was challenged was 2 girls were smoking were caught then the principal took on suspicion and searched her purse and violated the 4th and at the same time he did not take the proper procedures to make sure her 5th amendment the right to the Due Process, was not violated 4: the Supreme Court ruled that the search was constitutional 5: the meaning is the 5th amendment does not apply to students at a school. Warden v. Hayden- Kayla is doing Lauren F is doing [|//Troxel v. Granville// **530 u.s. 57 (2000)**]

Tara Sanders is doing Kilo vs. City of New London

1.Drew Stirnweis. 2.Yarborough v.s. Alvarado. 3.Alvarado was convticed of scond degree murder and attempted robbery when qustioned the police did not givie him special consideration. 4.The court decided the police did not have to give him special consideration. 5. This ment he was covicted as an adult. The impact it had was even if your under 18 you can be covicted as an adult.

1.Jon D'Agati 2.Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States 3.This case was brought to the Supreme Court in 1964. The owner of the Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. had refused to give rooms to blacks. This was in violation of the Civil Rights act of 1964. He tried to use his fifth amendment right to choose his own customers and run his hotel the way he wanted. And this, he said, deprived him the use of his own property without compensation in violation of the fifth amendment. He finally argued that making him give rooms to blacks was involuntary servitude, which was in violation of the thirteenth amendment. 4.The final decision on this case was that the thirteenth amendment applied mostly to slavery. And that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not violate his fifth amendment rights. He had to serve rooms to anybody. 5.no real impact

2. Fisher v. U.S. (1976) 3. The amendment was applied because the district attorney wanted the taxpayer to turn over documents that would make him go to jail. Also, the documents couldn't be used because they were given to his attorney and the attorney-client relationship means they are not usable for the trail and could not testify against himself. 4.The decision was that the documents could be used since the taxpayer had them and just because the attorney had them didn't violate his 5th amendment rights. 5.The decision meant the taxpayers rights were not violated. The impact on the country in this case was that turning over all papers to your attorney would be a smart thing because then they can't be used against you in a trail.**
 * 1.Grace Grieco

1. Lauren Fabiano 2. Troxel v. Granville 2000 3. Troxel petitioned for the right to visit their deceased son’s daughters. Respondent Granville, the girls’ mother, did not oppose all visitations, but objected to the amount wanted by the Troxels. The superior court ordered more visitation than Granville desired, and she appealed. 4. The decision was that Troxel was now allowed to visit their son’s daughters at anytime as long as the child wanted Troxel to visit them. 5. Now any child can decide if they want to see them (so in other words, the children have the choice not their parent)

&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt; 1. Sam Bird 2. Nix v. Williams-1984 3. Robert Williams was arrested for the murder of a 10 year-old girl. Police asked for the location of the body and where it was buried, Willams agreed. Williams was convicted, the body was the pain piece of evidence. 4. Williams's attorney protested the use of the body stating that the police had acted in bad faith, forcing the defendant. The court disagreed (seeing no bad faith). They said the police would have found the body anyway. 5. The location did not need to be revealed police could have found it without that information. "Evidence otherwise excluded may be admissible when it would have been discovered anyway". &lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt; Christian Ruiz KNIGHT v. commissioner A trust was violated and Knight sued the commissioner the court ruled in favor of Knight the court will keep a close watch on robbers

Kayla is doing Warden v. Hayden 1. Kayla Weinstein 2. Warden v. Hayden 1967 3. A woman's house had been robbed and minutes later the police arrived and found clothes that the suspect should have worn prior and during the robbery. The only man in the house was a respondent and he was arrested, the evidence was that there were weapons found in a flush tank. 4. The pursuit for taking the items from the robbery site was allowed with the excuse of "evidential only". The suspect was found guilty and was put away to jail for robbery. 5. The police men/women are now allowed to take evidence from a crime scene without a search a seize warrant if the evidence taken is strictly 'evidential only'

1.Vasil Mico 2.United States v. Jenkins 3.Jenkins was refusing to postponed his induction. The case went to the supreme court and Jenkins argued that he did not have a due process and the court committed double jeopardy. 4.The court did decide it violated his double jeopardy clause and they reversed his conviction. 5.This means that courts must give you a due process like everyone else and they can't accuse you for the same crime.

1. Kelly Giardina 2. Kelo vs. city of New London 1974 3. Kelo took land from another owner 4. Kelo was found guilty and sent to jail. 5. This had an impact on the world because it makes people understand that they cannot steal things