POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 2/29, I distributed one handout, the Maine criminal statutes about the use of force in defending your home and your property. We began class by going over the Speelman hypotheticals that I had handed out on Friday. We talked about the responsibility for gathering additional information when the sender learns that the recipient is not at home. I went over a U.S. Supreme Court case, Jones v. Flowers, that raised a similar (though not identical) fact pattern in terms of the due process requirements in sending notice. We also discussed what arguments could be made in a hearing on the merits of the subsidy termination. We then began our discussion of Katko v. Briney. I talked about the relationship between criminal liability and torts (which is the textbook heading for this section of Chapter 1). I discussed the difference between secondary authority and primary authority, as well as the difference between mandatory authority and persuasive authority. We looked at the authority relied on by the Katko court in terms of those categories. Finally, we looked at how the punitive damages issues was handled by the Iowa court. On Wednesday, 3/2, we'll have Exam #1 (see the rules from Friday's blog about requesting any missing handouts).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Monday 2/29, I handed back the Rodriguez outlines, and we briefly went over them.
On Wednesday, 3/2, we'll have Exam #1. I gave an in-class sample test in preparation for the exam. The exam is open-book and open-note. If you are using a laptop or similar device, you may not access the internet or do any searches or anything else that gives you any advantage over those with hard copy text and notes. If you are missing any handouts, notify me by 9:00pm on Tuesday 3/1. We then went over some variations of the Safford fact pattern. We also looked at Thomas' dissent. Then we went over Terry v. Ohio. We looked at the government's argument, Douglas' dissent, and how the majority dealt with these two extremes. Finally, we reviewed reasonable suspicion's place in the hierarchy of levels of suspicion, and discussed the implications of the finding that there was reasonable suspicion to believe that the suspects were armed and dangerous.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Friday, February 26, 2016
February 26, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 2/26, I handed back your Ayotte case briefs, along with my Comment Key. I also distributed my version of the Speelman case brief, and a sheet with hypotheticals regarding Speelman. I gave an in-class sample test in preparation for next Wednesday's exam (3/2). The exam is open-book and open-note. If you are using a laptop or similar device, you may not access the internet or do any searches or anything else that gives you any advantage over those with hard copy text and notes. If you are missing any handouts, notify me by 9:00pm on Tuesday 3/1. We talked about citation form in Speelman, and what the case was about. We will go over the hypotheticals on Monday, as well as discussing whether there is any defense to keep the housing voucher now that Speelman will get a hearing. The assignment for Monday 2/29 is to review Speelman, including today's two Speelman handouts, and to read and prepare to discuss Katko v. Briney (through p. 43 of the text).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Friday 2/26, I collected the Rodriguez outlines. I hope to grade them this weekend and return them on Monday. I distributed my version of the outline. We went over the outline, especially in the the clash in views between Ginsburg and Thomas. We began our discussion of Safford, trying to discern exactly where the line was between the search that would be reasonable and that which would be unreasonable. We'll discuss some other variations, and Thomas' dissent, on Monday. The assignment for Monday 2/29 is to review Safford, and to read in addition Terry v. Ohio (through p. 497 of the text).
In class today, Friday 2/26, I handed back your Ayotte case briefs, along with my Comment Key. I also distributed my version of the Speelman case brief, and a sheet with hypotheticals regarding Speelman. I gave an in-class sample test in preparation for next Wednesday's exam (3/2). The exam is open-book and open-note. If you are using a laptop or similar device, you may not access the internet or do any searches or anything else that gives you any advantage over those with hard copy text and notes. If you are missing any handouts, notify me by 9:00pm on Tuesday 3/1. We talked about citation form in Speelman, and what the case was about. We will go over the hypotheticals on Monday, as well as discussing whether there is any defense to keep the housing voucher now that Speelman will get a hearing. The assignment for Monday 2/29 is to review Speelman, including today's two Speelman handouts, and to read and prepare to discuss Katko v. Briney (through p. 43 of the text).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Friday 2/26, I collected the Rodriguez outlines. I hope to grade them this weekend and return them on Monday. I distributed my version of the outline. We went over the outline, especially in the the clash in views between Ginsburg and Thomas. We began our discussion of Safford, trying to discern exactly where the line was between the search that would be reasonable and that which would be unreasonable. We'll discuss some other variations, and Thomas' dissent, on Monday. The assignment for Monday 2/29 is to review Safford, and to read in addition Terry v. Ohio (through p. 497 of the text).
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
February 24, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 2/24, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Lawrence v. Texas case brief, and my version of the Ayotte v. State case brief. I collected the Ayotte papers, and we went over the case brief. I hope to have them graded by Friday. I also hope to have an in-class sample test on Friday, in preparation for our exam on Wednesday 3/2. The assignment for Friday 2/26 is to review the Speelman case (previously assigned) and to do a case brief of the case (for yourself, not handed in or graded).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Wednesday 2/24, I first clarified that I wasn't particular about whether the format when there are outline sub-elements (A,B) followed by further breakdown (1,2) was question/answer, versus question and answer/question and answer, or variants thereof. (What could be more clarified than that?) We then moved on to Arizona v. Gant. We looked at how Stevens, Scalia, Breyer and Alito each viewed the rule in Belton. We talked about what the Roman numerals might be in an outline of Gant. I also talked about the dangers of a vigorous dissent becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The assignment for Friday 2/26 is to finish up your Rodriguez outlines (due at the beginning of class) and to read and prepare to discuss through p. 492 of the text (Safford).
In class today, Wednesday 2/24, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Lawrence v. Texas case brief, and my version of the Ayotte v. State case brief. I collected the Ayotte papers, and we went over the case brief. I hope to have them graded by Friday. I also hope to have an in-class sample test on Friday, in preparation for our exam on Wednesday 3/2. The assignment for Friday 2/26 is to review the Speelman case (previously assigned) and to do a case brief of the case (for yourself, not handed in or graded).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Wednesday 2/24, I first clarified that I wasn't particular about whether the format when there are outline sub-elements (A,B) followed by further breakdown (1,2) was question/answer, versus question and answer/question and answer, or variants thereof. (What could be more clarified than that?) We then moved on to Arizona v. Gant. We looked at how Stevens, Scalia, Breyer and Alito each viewed the rule in Belton. We talked about what the Roman numerals might be in an outline of Gant. I also talked about the dangers of a vigorous dissent becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The assignment for Friday 2/26 is to finish up your Rodriguez outlines (due at the beginning of class) and to read and prepare to discuss through p. 492 of the text (Safford).
Monday, February 22, 2016
February 22, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 2/22, I distributed one handout, a way to "test" your Holdings in Ayotte, to make sure that you've produced useful answers to particular questions. After discussing the Ayotte case brief, we went back and finished Lawrence v. Texas. We looked at the Court's treatment of Bowers v. Hardwick, both in terms of the characterization of the right involved, and the look at the history and traditional of that right. We looked at low hurdles (rational basis) and high hurdles (strict scrutiny) and how Kennedy looked like he was engaged in a "fundamental" rights analysis, only to switch horses at the end. We examined the relationship between morality and both law making (by the legislatures) and finding constitutional limits (by the Court). We talked about the references to gay marriage, O'Connor's concurrence, and discrimination against gays. The assignment for Wednesday 2/24 is to finish work on your Ayotte case briefs (due at the beginning of class Wednesday) and to read in the text through p. 38 (Speelman).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Monday 2/22, we started by providing structure to the Rodriguez outline. We went through Ginsburg's opinion and saw how structure (additional sub-elements) could be added to her undifferentiated part II. I then talked about a 2013 Maine Supreme Court opinion, State v. Ntim, which discussed suspicionless dog sniffs on interstate buses. We then went back to Maryland v. King. We talked about the usual definition of reasonableness as requiring fitting into a recognized exception, and how the DNA test did not seem to satisfy the rules for a search incident to an arrest. We saw how Kennedy went to a balancing test to decide reasonableness, and Scalia said that no balancing was allowed. We also looked at the government interest in identification of the suspect, and how Scalia said that the only real interest here was trying to solve cold cases, which should not allow the DNA testing. Along the way, I went over four levels of suspicion, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, a hunch, and a suspicionless checkpoint. The assignment for Wednesday 2/24 is to continue work on your Rodriguez outlines, (due Friday) and to review the previously assigned case of Arizona v. Gant (through p. 487).
In class today, Monday 2/22, I distributed one handout, a way to "test" your Holdings in Ayotte, to make sure that you've produced useful answers to particular questions. After discussing the Ayotte case brief, we went back and finished Lawrence v. Texas. We looked at the Court's treatment of Bowers v. Hardwick, both in terms of the characterization of the right involved, and the look at the history and traditional of that right. We looked at low hurdles (rational basis) and high hurdles (strict scrutiny) and how Kennedy looked like he was engaged in a "fundamental" rights analysis, only to switch horses at the end. We examined the relationship between morality and both law making (by the legislatures) and finding constitutional limits (by the Court). We talked about the references to gay marriage, O'Connor's concurrence, and discrimination against gays. The assignment for Wednesday 2/24 is to finish work on your Ayotte case briefs (due at the beginning of class Wednesday) and to read in the text through p. 38 (Speelman).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Monday 2/22, we started by providing structure to the Rodriguez outline. We went through Ginsburg's opinion and saw how structure (additional sub-elements) could be added to her undifferentiated part II. I then talked about a 2013 Maine Supreme Court opinion, State v. Ntim, which discussed suspicionless dog sniffs on interstate buses. We then went back to Maryland v. King. We talked about the usual definition of reasonableness as requiring fitting into a recognized exception, and how the DNA test did not seem to satisfy the rules for a search incident to an arrest. We saw how Kennedy went to a balancing test to decide reasonableness, and Scalia said that no balancing was allowed. We also looked at the government interest in identification of the suspect, and how Scalia said that the only real interest here was trying to solve cold cases, which should not allow the DNA testing. Along the way, I went over four levels of suspicion, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, a hunch, and a suspicionless checkpoint. The assignment for Wednesday 2/24 is to continue work on your Rodriguez outlines, (due Friday) and to review the previously assigned case of Arizona v. Gant (through p. 487).
Friday, February 19, 2016
February 19, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 2/19, we first went over the Obergefell excerpt that I had previously distributed. I talked about some of the previous marriage cases, in which states had criminalized or forbidden interracial marriage, or marriage by prison inmates, or marriage by men who owed child support. We looked at how Kennedy said that the description of the right involved in those cases was not limited to a "careful" description, and thus Glucksberg's requirement of a "careful" description did not apply to marriage cases. We also looked at how Kennedy said that the Court should not defer to the legislative process. We also talked about Roberts' dissent, in which he accused the majority of effectively overruling Glucksberg, and how he said that the state laws passed the low-hurdle test. We then moved back in time to Lawrence v. Texas. We started doing a case brief of the case, getting up to the issues. Along the way, we talked about the role of both trial court and appellate courts regarding findings of fact, and talked about trial "de novo". We looked at the provisions of the Texas law, and talked about how Lawrence raised both equal protection and due process objections to the law, as well as why Kennedy chose the attack that he did. We looked at the language used by Kennedy in terms of low versus high hurdles (fundamental rights or not), which is where we'll pick up on Monday. The assignment for Monday 2/22 is to continue work on your Ayotte case brief (due next Wednesday 2/24) and to review Lawrence v. Texas.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Friday 2/19, I first went over a part of the Rodriguez outline that I guessed needed some clarification, Ginsburg's and Thomas' Part III (regarding which issues the Supreme Court should properly reach). I then talked about two dog sniff cases that form the background to Rodriquez, U.S. v. Place (1983) and Illinois v. Caballes (2005). We looked at whether a dog sniff is a "search", and, if not, how could Jardines and Rodriguez itself have come out as they did. Next week we will return to the DNA case, Maryland v. King. The assignment for Monday 2/22 is to continue working on your Roderiguez outlines, and to review the previous handout of my Maryland v. King outline.
In class today, Friday 2/19, we first went over the Obergefell excerpt that I had previously distributed. I talked about some of the previous marriage cases, in which states had criminalized or forbidden interracial marriage, or marriage by prison inmates, or marriage by men who owed child support. We looked at how Kennedy said that the description of the right involved in those cases was not limited to a "careful" description, and thus Glucksberg's requirement of a "careful" description did not apply to marriage cases. We also looked at how Kennedy said that the Court should not defer to the legislative process. We also talked about Roberts' dissent, in which he accused the majority of effectively overruling Glucksberg, and how he said that the state laws passed the low-hurdle test. We then moved back in time to Lawrence v. Texas. We started doing a case brief of the case, getting up to the issues. Along the way, we talked about the role of both trial court and appellate courts regarding findings of fact, and talked about trial "de novo". We looked at the provisions of the Texas law, and talked about how Lawrence raised both equal protection and due process objections to the law, as well as why Kennedy chose the attack that he did. We looked at the language used by Kennedy in terms of low versus high hurdles (fundamental rights or not), which is where we'll pick up on Monday. The assignment for Monday 2/22 is to continue work on your Ayotte case brief (due next Wednesday 2/24) and to review Lawrence v. Texas.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Friday 2/19, I first went over a part of the Rodriguez outline that I guessed needed some clarification, Ginsburg's and Thomas' Part III (regarding which issues the Supreme Court should properly reach). I then talked about two dog sniff cases that form the background to Rodriquez, U.S. v. Place (1983) and Illinois v. Caballes (2005). We looked at whether a dog sniff is a "search", and, if not, how could Jardines and Rodriguez itself have come out as they did. Next week we will return to the DNA case, Maryland v. King. The assignment for Monday 2/22 is to continue working on your Roderiguez outlines, and to review the previous handout of my Maryland v. King outline.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
February 17, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday, 2/17, I distributed one handout, the Maine theft statutes that are involved in the Ayotte case. We then spent the entire class period going over the Ayotte case, in an attempt to clarify the post-conviction review process, and the issues that the Court dealt with. The assignment for Friday 2/19 is to continue working on the Ayotte case brief (due Wednesday 2/24) and to review the Obergefell handout and Lawrence v. Texas.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Wednesday, 2/17, I distributed three handouts: Assignment #1 (reproduced below); the Rodriguez opinion that you'll be outlining; and my version of the outline of Maryland v. King (DNA testing). We went over the requirements of the assignment, and the basic issue in Rodriguez. I then talked briefly about yesterday's opinion by a federal judge that ordered Apple to give investigators access to the encrypted i-phone used by the San Bernardino shooters. We then began talking about Maryland v. King, going back and forth between Kennedy's majority opinion and Scalia's dissent. We went over the flow chart of "reasonableness", and its relationship to a cost/benefit analysis. We talked about the state's interest in identification, both as presented by Kennedy, and as rebutted by Scalia. We got to Kennedy's comparison with fingerprinting, which is where we'll pick up on Friday. The assignment for Friday 2/19 is to read Rodriguez, read my Maryland v. King outline, and review Arizona v. Gant.
Assignment due Friday, February 26, 2016
The assignment is to do an outline of Rodriguez v. U.S. (also distributed to the class today). Outline both Ginsburg’s majority opinion, and Thomas’ opinion (just those two).
Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed. Note that the basic format is Title (for the Roman numerals); and then Question and Answer for the other elements. For Ginsburg’s opinion, the only structure she provides is I. II, and III. So add sub-elements to the outline as necessary in order to cover the points raised by her (e.g. I (A) (1) (2) and (3)). Thomas provided I, II (A), (B),(C), III, and also needs sub-elements that should be added. How do you know when to add sub-elements? Ask yourself what questions the Justices are asking, and how they are answering them. For example, Ginsburg’s paragraphs 3-7 address one basic question --- what happened at the scene. Her paragraphs 8-11 address a different question --- what were the prior proceedings.
Do not outline the introductory section of the Opinions (before Roman Numeral I).
The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your outline. The outline will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar.
Please make two copies of your outline, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.
You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the assignment. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Friday 2/26, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Do not show your paper to anyone. Do not look at anyone else’s paper. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your assignment to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If you do not get a reply, then I have not received the assignment.
(The paragraph numbers on the left of the page are something I’ve added for ease of class discussion—they’re not part of the opinions.)
In class today, Wednesday, 2/17, I distributed one handout, the Maine theft statutes that are involved in the Ayotte case. We then spent the entire class period going over the Ayotte case, in an attempt to clarify the post-conviction review process, and the issues that the Court dealt with. The assignment for Friday 2/19 is to continue working on the Ayotte case brief (due Wednesday 2/24) and to review the Obergefell handout and Lawrence v. Texas.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Wednesday, 2/17, I distributed three handouts: Assignment #1 (reproduced below); the Rodriguez opinion that you'll be outlining; and my version of the outline of Maryland v. King (DNA testing). We went over the requirements of the assignment, and the basic issue in Rodriguez. I then talked briefly about yesterday's opinion by a federal judge that ordered Apple to give investigators access to the encrypted i-phone used by the San Bernardino shooters. We then began talking about Maryland v. King, going back and forth between Kennedy's majority opinion and Scalia's dissent. We went over the flow chart of "reasonableness", and its relationship to a cost/benefit analysis. We talked about the state's interest in identification, both as presented by Kennedy, and as rebutted by Scalia. We got to Kennedy's comparison with fingerprinting, which is where we'll pick up on Friday. The assignment for Friday 2/19 is to read Rodriguez, read my Maryland v. King outline, and review Arizona v. Gant.
Assignment due Friday, February 26, 2016
The assignment is to do an outline of Rodriguez v. U.S. (also distributed to the class today). Outline both Ginsburg’s majority opinion, and Thomas’ opinion (just those two).
Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed. Note that the basic format is Title (for the Roman numerals); and then Question and Answer for the other elements. For Ginsburg’s opinion, the only structure she provides is I. II, and III. So add sub-elements to the outline as necessary in order to cover the points raised by her (e.g. I (A) (1) (2) and (3)). Thomas provided I, II (A), (B),(C), III, and also needs sub-elements that should be added. How do you know when to add sub-elements? Ask yourself what questions the Justices are asking, and how they are answering them. For example, Ginsburg’s paragraphs 3-7 address one basic question --- what happened at the scene. Her paragraphs 8-11 address a different question --- what were the prior proceedings.
Do not outline the introductory section of the Opinions (before Roman Numeral I).
The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your outline. The outline will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar.
Please make two copies of your outline, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.
You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the assignment. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Friday 2/26, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Do not show your paper to anyone. Do not look at anyone else’s paper. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your assignment to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If you do not get a reply, then I have not received the assignment.
(The paragraph numbers on the left of the page are something I’ve added for ease of class discussion—they’re not part of the opinions.)
Monday, February 15, 2016
February 15, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 2/15, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #1 (reproduced below) and the case you'll be briefing, Ayotte v. State of Maine.
(If you weren't in class to get the case, you can get it by going to the Maine Supreme Court opinion site,
http://courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/publishedopinions.shtml
Scroll down to "Previous years' Opinions", select 2015, and select Ayotte v. State of Maine, 2015 ME 158).
We went over the assignment. and I briefly talked about both double jeopardy and effective assistance of counsel. We then went over Souter's concurring opinion in Glucksberg. We examined the Maine statute about assisted suicide (previous handout) and then went through the four mental states (intent, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence) that differentiate crimes in Maine. We began a discussion of the Obergefell v. Hodges handout (again, previously distributed) which presented two very different views about the relationship between Obergefell (same-sex marriage) and Glucksberg (assisted suicide) and the description of the right involved. The assignment for Wednesday 2/17 is to 1) read Ayotte, and come prepared with any questions that you have about the case or how to brief it; 2) review the Obergefell handout; and 3) review Lawrence v. Texas (previously assigned).
Assignment due Wednesday, February 24th, 2016
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Ayotte v. State of Maine, 2015 ME 158, ___ A.3d ___ (also distributed today).
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on. Remember that the purpose of the brief is to be useful. Check your holdings to make sure that they give the most useful rules possible. Mere conclusory facts just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed, including this: after giving the winner’s facts, give the loser’s facts with a parenthetical phrase that starts “even though...”.
For example: “Under the Maine common law rule that an issue will not be reached if it was raised for the first time on appeal. were the trial court and the opposing party alerted to the existence of an HHCA issue when the defendant did not raise the issue in his answer, or his opposition to the summary judgment, nor did he argue that point in his post-summary judgment motion, (even though he did make a glancing reference to the HHCA in that motion)?”.
Note especially that, after the “Issue” is composed, the “Facts” and “Holding” are copied and pasted. Everything that you put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be identical to each other, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.
Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.
You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Wednesday 2/24, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate. Do not show your work to anyone else; do not look at anyone else’s work. Do not discuss your case brief with anyone but me.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Monday 2/15, we went over some of the recent cases that we've studied thus far this semester (Missouri v. McNeeley; Florida v. Jardines; Navarette v. California, and Maryland v. King), and looked at how the late Justice Scalia voted. We then began our discussion of searches incident to an arrest. We talked about Chimel v. Californis, U.S. v. Robinson, and then the 2014 case of Riley v. California (cell phone searches). We also talked about the definition of "reasonable": meaning not just an open-ended balancing test, but rather a presumption that a warrantless search is "unreasonable" unless it fits within an established exception. The plan for Wednesday is that 1) I'll give the class the first graded outline assignment, with a projected due date of Friday 2/26; 2) I'll talk about Maryland v. King and the collection of DNA samples incident to an arrest; we'll go over the next assigned case. That assignment for Wednesday 2/17 is to read in the text and prepare to discuss through p. 487 (Arizona v. Gant).
In class today, Monday 2/15, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #1 (reproduced below) and the case you'll be briefing, Ayotte v. State of Maine.
(If you weren't in class to get the case, you can get it by going to the Maine Supreme Court opinion site,
http://courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/publishedopinions.shtml
Scroll down to "Previous years' Opinions", select 2015, and select Ayotte v. State of Maine, 2015 ME 158).
We went over the assignment. and I briefly talked about both double jeopardy and effective assistance of counsel. We then went over Souter's concurring opinion in Glucksberg. We examined the Maine statute about assisted suicide (previous handout) and then went through the four mental states (intent, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence) that differentiate crimes in Maine. We began a discussion of the Obergefell v. Hodges handout (again, previously distributed) which presented two very different views about the relationship between Obergefell (same-sex marriage) and Glucksberg (assisted suicide) and the description of the right involved. The assignment for Wednesday 2/17 is to 1) read Ayotte, and come prepared with any questions that you have about the case or how to brief it; 2) review the Obergefell handout; and 3) review Lawrence v. Texas (previously assigned).
Assignment due Wednesday, February 24th, 2016
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Ayotte v. State of Maine, 2015 ME 158, ___ A.3d ___ (also distributed today).
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on. Remember that the purpose of the brief is to be useful. Check your holdings to make sure that they give the most useful rules possible. Mere conclusory facts just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed, including this: after giving the winner’s facts, give the loser’s facts with a parenthetical phrase that starts “even though...”.
For example: “Under the Maine common law rule that an issue will not be reached if it was raised for the first time on appeal. were the trial court and the opposing party alerted to the existence of an HHCA issue when the defendant did not raise the issue in his answer, or his opposition to the summary judgment, nor did he argue that point in his post-summary judgment motion, (even though he did make a glancing reference to the HHCA in that motion)?”.
Note especially that, after the “Issue” is composed, the “Facts” and “Holding” are copied and pasted. Everything that you put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be identical to each other, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.
Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.
You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Wednesday 2/24, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate. Do not show your work to anyone else; do not look at anyone else’s work. Do not discuss your case brief with anyone but me.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Monday 2/15, we went over some of the recent cases that we've studied thus far this semester (Missouri v. McNeeley; Florida v. Jardines; Navarette v. California, and Maryland v. King), and looked at how the late Justice Scalia voted. We then began our discussion of searches incident to an arrest. We talked about Chimel v. Californis, U.S. v. Robinson, and then the 2014 case of Riley v. California (cell phone searches). We also talked about the definition of "reasonable": meaning not just an open-ended balancing test, but rather a presumption that a warrantless search is "unreasonable" unless it fits within an established exception. The plan for Wednesday is that 1) I'll give the class the first graded outline assignment, with a projected due date of Friday 2/26; 2) I'll talk about Maryland v. King and the collection of DNA samples incident to an arrest; we'll go over the next assigned case. That assignment for Wednesday 2/17 is to read in the text and prepare to discuss through p. 487 (Arizona v. Gant).
Friday, February 12, 2016
February 12, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 2/12, I distributed three handouts: my version of the Glucksberg case brief; an excerpt from the same-sex marriage case of Obergefell v. Hodges; and an article about a recent attempt in Maine's legislature to allow assisted suicide. I told the class that our first exam will probably be on Wednesday 3/2. I talked about the difference between "distinguishing" precedent and "following" it. I also went over how, in cases like Roe v. Wade, a broad description of the right involved (the right to privacy), led the Supreme Court to overturn the laws of almost all of the states. Since there was no fundamental right found in Glucksberg, we also went over how the Court found the low hurdles to be satisfied. We came close to finishing the Glucksberg case brief, and will finish it with a discussion of Souter's concurrence in the judgment. The assignment for Monday 2/15, is to read the three handouts; to read in text pp.67-72 (Lawrence v. Texas); and to do a case brief (not handed in or graded) of Lawrence.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Friday 2/12, I told the class that our first exam will probably be on Wednesday 3/2. I talked about one last case about the reasonable expectation of privacy, California v. Greenwood, about the expectation of privacy in the garbage that you put out to be collected. We finished up our discussion of Gates, and its outline. I went over the concept of investigatory stops of ongoing criminal activity. We went over the four levels of suspicion that justify (or not) police searches and seizures: probable cause; reasonable suspicion; a hunch; and suapicionless (dragnet) searches. I then talked about three cases that address whether there is "reasonable suspicion" to make investigatory stops: Alabama v. White (1990), Florida v. J.L. (2000), and Navarette v. California (2014), all based on anonymous phone calls. The assignment for Monday 2/15 is to read in the text pp.479-482. I plan to talk about two recent cases about searches incident to an arrest, one about searches of a cell phone, and another about the taking of DNA.
In class today, Friday 2/12, I distributed three handouts: my version of the Glucksberg case brief; an excerpt from the same-sex marriage case of Obergefell v. Hodges; and an article about a recent attempt in Maine's legislature to allow assisted suicide. I told the class that our first exam will probably be on Wednesday 3/2. I talked about the difference between "distinguishing" precedent and "following" it. I also went over how, in cases like Roe v. Wade, a broad description of the right involved (the right to privacy), led the Supreme Court to overturn the laws of almost all of the states. Since there was no fundamental right found in Glucksberg, we also went over how the Court found the low hurdles to be satisfied. We came close to finishing the Glucksberg case brief, and will finish it with a discussion of Souter's concurrence in the judgment. The assignment for Monday 2/15, is to read the three handouts; to read in text pp.67-72 (Lawrence v. Texas); and to do a case brief (not handed in or graded) of Lawrence.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Friday 2/12, I told the class that our first exam will probably be on Wednesday 3/2. I talked about one last case about the reasonable expectation of privacy, California v. Greenwood, about the expectation of privacy in the garbage that you put out to be collected. We finished up our discussion of Gates, and its outline. I went over the concept of investigatory stops of ongoing criminal activity. We went over the four levels of suspicion that justify (or not) police searches and seizures: probable cause; reasonable suspicion; a hunch; and suapicionless (dragnet) searches. I then talked about three cases that address whether there is "reasonable suspicion" to make investigatory stops: Alabama v. White (1990), Florida v. J.L. (2000), and Navarette v. California (2014), all based on anonymous phone calls. The assignment for Monday 2/15 is to read in the text pp.479-482. I plan to talk about two recent cases about searches incident to an arrest, one about searches of a cell phone, and another about the taking of DNA.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
February 10, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 2/10, I first went over the history of the 14th Amendment and the concept of substantive due process. We looked at the question by Brittany Maynard of why anyone should have the right to make the decision (about whether have assistance in suicide) for her. We then began work on putting together a case brief for the Glucksberg case. We went over proper SCOTUS citation form, and the organization of the federal court system. We talked about fundamental rights, and the flow chart that follows a determination of whether an asserted right is fundamental or not. We started work on how to characterize the asserted right in this case. We will pick up on Friday with the remainder of the question about the proper characterization of the asserted right, and then go on to the rest of the Glucksberg case brief. The assignment for Friday 2/12 is to continue refining your Glucksberg case brief (not handed in or graded).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Wednesday 2/10, I distributed three handouts: two articles by Orin Kerr, one about the Grady ankle bracelet case, and one about the 6th Circuit Houston video surveillance decision, and also my version of the Gates outline. I talked about the Gates and Houston cases, which both explored the question of whether there was a "search". We then began our outline of Gates. We got to the part of Rehnquist's opinion in which he asked whether probable cause was demonstrated in this case. Along the way, in discussing the role of a reviewing court, we went over the concept of de novo review, and the idea of a substantial basis for the issuance of the warrant. We will pick up on Friday with the remainder of the Rehnquist opinion in Gates, as well as the dissent. Also on Friday, I will go over the 2014 Supreme Court opinion in Navarette v. California.
In class today, Wednesday 2/10, I first went over the history of the 14th Amendment and the concept of substantive due process. We looked at the question by Brittany Maynard of why anyone should have the right to make the decision (about whether have assistance in suicide) for her. We then began work on putting together a case brief for the Glucksberg case. We went over proper SCOTUS citation form, and the organization of the federal court system. We talked about fundamental rights, and the flow chart that follows a determination of whether an asserted right is fundamental or not. We started work on how to characterize the asserted right in this case. We will pick up on Friday with the remainder of the question about the proper characterization of the asserted right, and then go on to the rest of the Glucksberg case brief. The assignment for Friday 2/12 is to continue refining your Glucksberg case brief (not handed in or graded).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Wednesday 2/10, I distributed three handouts: two articles by Orin Kerr, one about the Grady ankle bracelet case, and one about the 6th Circuit Houston video surveillance decision, and also my version of the Gates outline. I talked about the Gates and Houston cases, which both explored the question of whether there was a "search". We then began our outline of Gates. We got to the part of Rehnquist's opinion in which he asked whether probable cause was demonstrated in this case. Along the way, in discussing the role of a reviewing court, we went over the concept of de novo review, and the idea of a substantial basis for the issuance of the warrant. We will pick up on Friday with the remainder of the Rehnquist opinion in Gates, as well as the dissent. Also on Friday, I will go over the 2014 Supreme Court opinion in Navarette v. California.
Monday, February 8, 2016
February 8, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 2/8, I distributed two handouts: an excerpt from the Maine statutes regarding assisted suicide, and an article by Brittany Maynard about her fight to allow assisted suicide. We began class by finishing Roberts' dissent in Miller. We talked about what makes something "unusual" in Roberts' view, as well as how one knows what are the "evolving standards of decency." We talked about deference by the courts to the decisions of the legislative bodies, and also about the three recurring institutional conflicts that the Supreme Court grapples with: the rights of the individual versus the power of government; the separation of powers between the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches; and the division of powers between the federal government versus the state governments. We then looked at the Maine sentencing statutes (previously handed out) and the impact of Miller on Maine's laws. We also went over proper Maine statutory citation form. I went over the recent SCOTUS case of Montgomery v. Louisiana, which dealt with the question of the retroactive application of the rule in Miller. We went over the difference between new substantive constitutional rules versus new procedures, and how only substantive rules are applied fully retroactively. We looked at the lineup of the nine justices, and how the result in Montgomery largely mirrored the votes in Miller. We saw how the majority clarified the holding in Miller, and concluded that the holding in Miller was a categorical bar with an exception, rather than a procedural rule. We talked about the language that the majority relied on, and how our text had edited out what proved to be the crucial language in Miller. I went over what would likely happen next for Mr. Montgomery. The assignment for Wednesday 2/10 is to read the two handouts from today. Review Glucksberg (previously assigned) and do a case brief of it (not handed in or graded).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Monday 2/8, I distributed one handout, my version of an outline of a case that I went over (though not from the text), Florida v. Jardines. I first talked about Sotomayor's concurrence in Jones, which questioned both the need to demonstrate an "extended" use of the GPS, and went on to question the entire limitation of the expectation of privacy in circumstances in which information is shared with a limited number of people (the third party doctrine) such as phone companies, ISPs, banks, etc. I then talked about Florida v. Jardines, a 5-4 2013 case that discussed whether there was a "search" when the police bring a drug-sniffing dog to a suspect's front door. We looked at the line-up of Justices, the definitions of a "search", and the question of precedent regarding implied consent to come to a home's door, as well as prior dog-sniff cases that were held not to be "searches". The assignment for Wednesday 2/10 is to read over today's Jardines handout, and to do an outline (not handed in or graded) of the previously assigned Gates case.
In class today, Monday 2/8, I distributed two handouts: an excerpt from the Maine statutes regarding assisted suicide, and an article by Brittany Maynard about her fight to allow assisted suicide. We began class by finishing Roberts' dissent in Miller. We talked about what makes something "unusual" in Roberts' view, as well as how one knows what are the "evolving standards of decency." We talked about deference by the courts to the decisions of the legislative bodies, and also about the three recurring institutional conflicts that the Supreme Court grapples with: the rights of the individual versus the power of government; the separation of powers between the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches; and the division of powers between the federal government versus the state governments. We then looked at the Maine sentencing statutes (previously handed out) and the impact of Miller on Maine's laws. We also went over proper Maine statutory citation form. I went over the recent SCOTUS case of Montgomery v. Louisiana, which dealt with the question of the retroactive application of the rule in Miller. We went over the difference between new substantive constitutional rules versus new procedures, and how only substantive rules are applied fully retroactively. We looked at the lineup of the nine justices, and how the result in Montgomery largely mirrored the votes in Miller. We saw how the majority clarified the holding in Miller, and concluded that the holding in Miller was a categorical bar with an exception, rather than a procedural rule. We talked about the language that the majority relied on, and how our text had edited out what proved to be the crucial language in Miller. I went over what would likely happen next for Mr. Montgomery. The assignment for Wednesday 2/10 is to read the two handouts from today. Review Glucksberg (previously assigned) and do a case brief of it (not handed in or graded).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Monday 2/8, I distributed one handout, my version of an outline of a case that I went over (though not from the text), Florida v. Jardines. I first talked about Sotomayor's concurrence in Jones, which questioned both the need to demonstrate an "extended" use of the GPS, and went on to question the entire limitation of the expectation of privacy in circumstances in which information is shared with a limited number of people (the third party doctrine) such as phone companies, ISPs, banks, etc. I then talked about Florida v. Jardines, a 5-4 2013 case that discussed whether there was a "search" when the police bring a drug-sniffing dog to a suspect's front door. We looked at the line-up of Justices, the definitions of a "search", and the question of precedent regarding implied consent to come to a home's door, as well as prior dog-sniff cases that were held not to be "searches". The assignment for Wednesday 2/10 is to read over today's Jardines handout, and to do an outline (not handed in or graded) of the previously assigned Gates case.
Friday, February 5, 2016
February 5, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 2/5, I distributed one handout, my version of the Miller v. Alabama case brief. We finished going over that brief, both its substance and its format. We talked about the issue not decided, whether the 8th Amendment requires a categorical bar on life without parole for juveniles. I went over the ultimate sentence for both Miller and Jackson. We discussed Breyer's concurring opinion, and started Roberts' dissenting opinion and his method of determining what is "unusual". On Monday we will finish the dissenting opinions, including the concept of the "evolving standards of decency". We'll look at the Maine sentencing statute. We'll also go over a recent U.S. Supreme Court case regarding retroactive application of the Miller decision. The assignment for Monday 2/8 is to review the remaining Miller opinions and the two handouts (Miller case brief and Maine statutes), and, in addition, read through p. 34 of the text (Washington v. Glucksberg).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Friday 2/5, I distributed one handout, my version of the Jones outline. I started with a brief discussion of the 1961 case of Silverman v. U.S., a case that illustrated the nature of the technical trespass rules against which Katz rebelled. We reviewed how Katz changed the definition of a "search" from the prior questions of physical intrusion on protected spaces to the reasonable expectation of privacy. We then looked at the three opinions in Jones, Scalia's, Sotomayor's and Alito's, and the unusual lineup of Justices. We went over the revival of the physical intrusion test by Scalia, the application of the privacy test by Alito, and Sotomayor's strategic decision to join Scalia. We looked at what constituted the "search" for Scalia, and for Alito. I started going over the points of Sotomayor's opinion that were not covered in the textbook, including the concepts of what we mean by privacy when we share otherwise secret information with entities like banks, phone companies and ISPs. We will pick up next week with more discussion of the definition of a "search" including the recent dog-sniff case of Florida v. Jardines. The assignment for Monday 2/8 is to review Jones, and today's handout, and, in addition, to read and outline (for yourselves) Illinois v. Gates (through p. 479 of the text).
In class today, Friday 2/5, I distributed one handout, my version of the Miller v. Alabama case brief. We finished going over that brief, both its substance and its format. We talked about the issue not decided, whether the 8th Amendment requires a categorical bar on life without parole for juveniles. I went over the ultimate sentence for both Miller and Jackson. We discussed Breyer's concurring opinion, and started Roberts' dissenting opinion and his method of determining what is "unusual". On Monday we will finish the dissenting opinions, including the concept of the "evolving standards of decency". We'll look at the Maine sentencing statute. We'll also go over a recent U.S. Supreme Court case regarding retroactive application of the Miller decision. The assignment for Monday 2/8 is to review the remaining Miller opinions and the two handouts (Miller case brief and Maine statutes), and, in addition, read through p. 34 of the text (Washington v. Glucksberg).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Friday 2/5, I distributed one handout, my version of the Jones outline. I started with a brief discussion of the 1961 case of Silverman v. U.S., a case that illustrated the nature of the technical trespass rules against which Katz rebelled. We reviewed how Katz changed the definition of a "search" from the prior questions of physical intrusion on protected spaces to the reasonable expectation of privacy. We then looked at the three opinions in Jones, Scalia's, Sotomayor's and Alito's, and the unusual lineup of Justices. We went over the revival of the physical intrusion test by Scalia, the application of the privacy test by Alito, and Sotomayor's strategic decision to join Scalia. We looked at what constituted the "search" for Scalia, and for Alito. I started going over the points of Sotomayor's opinion that were not covered in the textbook, including the concepts of what we mean by privacy when we share otherwise secret information with entities like banks, phone companies and ISPs. We will pick up next week with more discussion of the definition of a "search" including the recent dog-sniff case of Florida v. Jardines. The assignment for Monday 2/8 is to review Jones, and today's handout, and, in addition, to read and outline (for yourselves) Illinois v. Gates (through p. 479 of the text).
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
February 3, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 2/3, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Maine sentencing statutes. We began class by going over a few concepts from the introductory material from the text: the concept of common law and the specific definition used in POS 282 (law made by judges in the absence of enacted law), and the lingering echo of the dual system of courts of law versus courts of equity that survives in the power of some trial courts (such as the Maine Superior Court, but not the Maine District Court) to grant equitable relief (such as an injunction). We then began our discussion of Miller v. Alabama. We began with a close look at the language of the 8th Amendment, and considered Justice Thomas' view that the meaning of the words is set by their original meaning at the time of their adoption. We talked about the history and methods of capital punishment. I discussed several juvenile sentencing cases that set the background for Miller: Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988); Stanford v. Kentucky (1989); Roper v. Simmons (2005); and Graham v. Florida (2010). For each of those cases we looked at the issue presented, the resolution, and how the current Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) Justices who were on the Court at that time voted. We also talked about the difference between an concurring opinion that concurs in the Court's Opinion, versus a concurrence that only concurs in the Judgment. We then began our case brief of Miller. We covered the citation both in terms of the order of parties listed in SCOTUS cases and the set of books in which those opinions are published. We got through the objective of the State of Alabama in the Miller case, and we'll pick up the brief with the State's cause of action. The assignment for Friday 2/5 is to finish your version of the Miller case brief (not handed in or graded) and to review today's Maine statutory handout and determine the effect of the Miller decision on Maine law.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Wednesday 2/3, we went through the Katz opinion. We reviewed the three questions presented by the language of the first clause of the 4th Amendment: the meaning of "person, house,paper and effect"; the meaning of "search"; and the meaning of "reasonable". We looked first at the question that the Court said had been previously decided: that a conversation is covered. We then looked at the Court's definition of "search" and how it looked to neither the concept of a constitutionally protected area, nor the broad sweep of "privacy". We saw how the Court's definition of "search" differed from that of the English language in that the Court looked at the viewpoint of the suspect, rather than the goal of the police. Then we examined the Court's definition of "reasonable", which rejected both the view that the existence of probable cause made the search reasonable, and the proposal that the Court create a phone booth exception. We saw how Harlan refined the definition of search into both a subjective and objective segment, and we talked about what those terms mean. Finally we looked at Black's dissent, and how he disagreed that a conversation was protected as a person, house, paper or effect. The assignment for Friday 2/5 is to review Jones (previously assigned) and to do an outline of the opinion (not handed in or graded).
In class today, Wednesday 2/3, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Maine sentencing statutes. We began class by going over a few concepts from the introductory material from the text: the concept of common law and the specific definition used in POS 282 (law made by judges in the absence of enacted law), and the lingering echo of the dual system of courts of law versus courts of equity that survives in the power of some trial courts (such as the Maine Superior Court, but not the Maine District Court) to grant equitable relief (such as an injunction). We then began our discussion of Miller v. Alabama. We began with a close look at the language of the 8th Amendment, and considered Justice Thomas' view that the meaning of the words is set by their original meaning at the time of their adoption. We talked about the history and methods of capital punishment. I discussed several juvenile sentencing cases that set the background for Miller: Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988); Stanford v. Kentucky (1989); Roper v. Simmons (2005); and Graham v. Florida (2010). For each of those cases we looked at the issue presented, the resolution, and how the current Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) Justices who were on the Court at that time voted. We also talked about the difference between an concurring opinion that concurs in the Court's Opinion, versus a concurrence that only concurs in the Judgment. We then began our case brief of Miller. We covered the citation both in terms of the order of parties listed in SCOTUS cases and the set of books in which those opinions are published. We got through the objective of the State of Alabama in the Miller case, and we'll pick up the brief with the State's cause of action. The assignment for Friday 2/5 is to finish your version of the Miller case brief (not handed in or graded) and to review today's Maine statutory handout and determine the effect of the Miller decision on Maine law.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Wednesday 2/3, we went through the Katz opinion. We reviewed the three questions presented by the language of the first clause of the 4th Amendment: the meaning of "person, house,paper and effect"; the meaning of "search"; and the meaning of "reasonable". We looked first at the question that the Court said had been previously decided: that a conversation is covered. We then looked at the Court's definition of "search" and how it looked to neither the concept of a constitutionally protected area, nor the broad sweep of "privacy". We saw how the Court's definition of "search" differed from that of the English language in that the Court looked at the viewpoint of the suspect, rather than the goal of the police. Then we examined the Court's definition of "reasonable", which rejected both the view that the existence of probable cause made the search reasonable, and the proposal that the Court create a phone booth exception. We saw how Harlan refined the definition of search into both a subjective and objective segment, and we talked about what those terms mean. Finally we looked at Black's dissent, and how he disagreed that a conversation was protected as a person, house, paper or effect. The assignment for Friday 2/5 is to review Jones (previously assigned) and to do an outline of the opinion (not handed in or graded).
Monday, February 1, 2016
February 1, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 2/1, we first went over the Maine statutes involved in the Warren v. Reis case, the HCCA and the UTP. We talked about affirmative defenses and counterclaims, and how the UTP authorizes the claim, but not the defense. We discussed the idea of a private cause of action, and the meaning of presenting a prima facie case. We then moved to the introductory material in Chapter 1 of the text. We talked about natural law and looked at MLK Jr.'s Letter From the Birmingham Jail (P.61 of the text). We talked about judicial activism, both conservative and liberal, and the power of the nine Supreme Court Justices. The assignment for Wednesday 2/3 is to read in the text through p.21 (Miller v. Alabama) and to write out a case brief of Miller following the format and template that I gave you (not handed in or graded).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Monday 2/1, we first went over some concepts from the introductory material from the text: the enforcement of the constitution (criminal prosecution; civil suit; internal discipline; and exclusionary rule), and also the uses and abuses of grand juries. We went through the three levels of prosecuting authorities in Maine (county, state, and federal) and how each gets chosen. We then talked about Weeks, Olmstead, and Goldman, and saw how the expansive language of the 4th Amendment turned out not to be broad enough to cover conversations. We will pick up with our discussion of Katz on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 2/3 is to review Katz (previously assigned) and to read in addition Jones (through p. 475).
In class today, Monday 2/1, we first went over the Maine statutes involved in the Warren v. Reis case, the HCCA and the UTP. We talked about affirmative defenses and counterclaims, and how the UTP authorizes the claim, but not the defense. We discussed the idea of a private cause of action, and the meaning of presenting a prima facie case. We then moved to the introductory material in Chapter 1 of the text. We talked about natural law and looked at MLK Jr.'s Letter From the Birmingham Jail (P.61 of the text). We talked about judicial activism, both conservative and liberal, and the power of the nine Supreme Court Justices. The assignment for Wednesday 2/3 is to read in the text through p.21 (Miller v. Alabama) and to write out a case brief of Miller following the format and template that I gave you (not handed in or graded).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Monday 2/1, we first went over some concepts from the introductory material from the text: the enforcement of the constitution (criminal prosecution; civil suit; internal discipline; and exclusionary rule), and also the uses and abuses of grand juries. We went through the three levels of prosecuting authorities in Maine (county, state, and federal) and how each gets chosen. We then talked about Weeks, Olmstead, and Goldman, and saw how the expansive language of the 4th Amendment turned out not to be broad enough to cover conversations. We will pick up with our discussion of Katz on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 2/3 is to review Katz (previously assigned) and to read in addition Jones (through p. 475).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)