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).