Admentments

Yeisi Garcia
Period:8
1ST 10 Amendments
1. Amendment: Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition
Case: Pennsylvania Family Institute v. Black
Summary: A non-profit organization filed action for declaratory and injunctive relief against members of the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board and the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Counsel, restricting judicial candidate speech impermissiblychilled constitutionally protected speech in violation of the First Amendment. The District Court of Pennsylvania dismissed action without prejudice. The organization appealed the Court of Appeals held that the organization failed to establish the presence of a willing speaker.

2. Amendment: Right to Bear Arms
Case: Presser v. People of Illinois
Summary: Herman Presser was found guilty ofparading a group of armed men without authorization in the state of Illinois. The defendant claimed Illinois law violated provisions in the Constitution including the Second Amendment. The Court ruled the states have the power to control and regulate military bodies, including drilling and parading activities. The Court re-affirmed that the Second Amendment applied as a limitation only on the nationalgovernment and commented no further about it. The Presser court expressed the opinion that the states were prohibited from disarming "all citizens capable of bearing arms" because it conflicted with the federal government's right to a reserve military force and the militia powers granted to Congress by the Constitution.

3. Amendment: Quartering of Troops
Case: United States v. ValenzuelaSummary: United States v. Valenzuela, the defendant asked that a federal rent-control law be struck down because it was "the incubator and hatchery of swarms of bureaucrats to be quartered as storm troopers upon the people in violation of Amendment III of the United States Constitution." The court declined his request.

4. Amendment: Search and Seizure
Case: Illinois Supreme Court OnlySummary: Illinois State Supreme Court blocks a search pursuant to a dog sniff after a traffic stop. Although the decision is confusingly argued, they appear to invalidate suspicion less dog sniff searches: The Supreme Court stated that the dog-sniff test was permissible, and that they would be endorsing a drug-sniff test at every stop for a traffic violation... In sum, Officer McCormick did not have"specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences therefrom," reasonably warranted an extended detention of defendant's vehicle, and the ensuing drug-sniff test. He did not have even a hunch that defendant was engaged in criminal activity to support the call to Deputy Zola. Given these circumstances, Officer McCormick was justified in calling the canine unit, we wouldclearly support the view that police officers can resort to the use of canine units at every traffic stop."

5. Amendment: Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process
Case: Miranda v. Arizona
Summary: Ernesto Miranda was charged for rape and murder. He was at his house at the moment of the arrest, as soon as the police came he confess. Miranda was trial and found guilty.Later he appeal to court alleging that he did not knew his constitutional rights, therefore his testimony could not be valid. He was later tried again without his confession and still found guilty. (The Miranda Rights were created)

6. Amendment: Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel
Case: Strunk vs. United States
Summary: In Strunk vs. United States, thedefendant claimed that he had been denied a speedy trial in a federal automobile theft case, even though he was already in a state prison on other state charges. The district court denied his motion.The Appeals court agreed that he had been denied his right to a speedy trial, but said that the extreme nature of overturning the conviction was not warranted and sent the case back to the district court,...