-
Olmstead v. US
Several individuals were convicted of conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act by illegally possessing and selling alcohol. The information of the conspiracy was found by federal officiers who intercepted telephone messages. The individuals were convicted and the Supreme Court ruled that eavesdropping did not violate any amendments. -
Mapp v. Ohio Argued
Three officers went to Dollree Mapp’s home on May 23, 1957, without a search warrant. They searched her house for evidence of bombing materials and betting equipment, but instead found pornographic material. She was arrested for possession of porn. -
Mapp v. Ohio Decided
The court decided in Mapp's favor and further defined the right of privacy. In the majority opinion, Justice Tom Clark declared: “We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution [is] inadmissible in a state court…. Were it otherwise…the assurance against unreasonable…searches and seizures meaningless" -
Griswold vs. Connecticut
Connecticut state law stated that it was illegal for any person to inform married couples on contraception. Griswold, a physician in Connecticut, was charged with giving medical advice to a married couple about contraception. He appealed to the courts and argued that such a law goes against the 14th amendment. The Courts agreed in a 3-2 decision that the law was unconstitutional and Griswold could not be charged. They granted that privacy in marriage is a right far older than the Constitution. -
Berger v. New York Argued
Ralph Berger was indicted and convicted of conspiracy to bribe the Chairman of the New York State Liquor Authority based on ebidence obtained by eavesdropping. Under New York Code of Criminal Procedure Section 813a, police obtained an ex parte order to bug the office of attorney Ralph Berger. -
Berger v. New York Decided
The Supreme Court ruled that section 813-a violated the Fourth Amendment, made enforceable against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, because it lacked "adequate judicial supervision [and] protective procedures." -
Katz v. US Argued
Petitioner convicted under an indictment charging him with transmitting wagering information via telephone. Evidence of Katz phonecalls, overheard by FBI agents, was introduced in the case. -
Katz v. US Decision
The Court affirmed the conviction finding there was no 14th amendment violation because there was "no physical entrance into the area occupied by the petitioner." -
Stanley v. Georgia
Stanley v Georgis is about the suspected and previously convicted bookmaker named Robert Eli Stanely, whose Georgian home was searched by police with a federal warrant to seize betting paraphernalia. They found none but instead seized three reels of pornographic material from a desk drawer in his bedroom. The Supreme Court of the United States, however, per Justice Marshall, unanimously overturned the earlier decision and invalidated all state laws that forbade the private possession of porn. -
Eisenstadt v Baird
At the time Massachusetts state law stated that it was illegal for unmarried women to obtain contraceptives. The Appellee was charged for exhibiting contraceptive articles and for giving a woman a package of Emko vaginal foam. He was charged for giving out the foam but the charges for exhibiting the articles were dropped under the first amendment. The issue that was then argued was whether or not the state could have different treatment for married and unmarried women. -
Eisenstadt v Baird Decision
In Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, they proclaimed that such a law is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. -
Roe vs. Wade Trial
In Texas surgical abortions were prevented unless the fetus endangered the mother. Roe and Wade argued over this abortion law. Roe believed that each mother should have the right to “choose,” which was granted through the “fundamental rights” of privacy, such as the mothers personal, marital and familial right to privacy. Wade, on the opposing side, argued that each fetus has the “right to life” as soon as it is conceived, and this must be protected by the state. -
Roe vs. Wade Decision
This trial went to the Supreme Court and was decided 7-2 in favor of Roe. It gave women the right to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester. -
Ravin v. Alaska
Decision by the Alaska Supreme Court that legalized possession of small amounts of cannibus (4 ounces) in state. Irvin Ravin, an attorney, deliberately got arrested in Anchorage for refusing to sign a traffic ticket while in possession of marijuana. The issue of privacy was defined by the court who said there is freedom to do what you please in your home and police do not have the right to search for marijuana without resonable doubt. -
Nixon vs. US
In Nixon vs. US, the prosecutor subpoenaed the recordings made by Nixon containing evidence of the Watergate scandal. The President claimed executive privilege of the tapes. This right, as proclaimed by the courts, was not absolute and at times must bend to the fourth and fifth amendment. Also, in these proceedings, considering the defendant was not a normal citizen, Nixon was given some privileges. The tapes were listened to only by the judge in his chambers and were kept from the public trials -
Earls vs. Board of Education
This began when Tecumseh Public High School stated that all students participating in after school activities must subject themselves to a drug test. Lindsey Earls had her parents sue the school for violating the 4th amendment in the Bill of Rights that protects against unlawful searches and seizures without probable cause. After appealing to the circuit court, the court case was then sent to the Supreme court. -
Earls vs. Board of Education Decision
Here the justices decided in a 5 to 4 decision in favor of the Board of Education, for they felt that probable cause was unnecessary in schools for it would restrict their disciplinary procedures. -
Lawrence v. Texas Argued
Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered petitioner Lawrence’s apartment and saw him and another adult man engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Petitioners were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. -
Lawrence v. Texas Decided
The State Court of Appeals held that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court considered Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, controlling on that point. -
SOPA legislation (Stop Online Piracy Act)
Lamar S. Smith introduced this legislation to enable more privacy within the Internet by expanding the US Law enforcements ability to persecute online trafficking in copyrighting. In essence this bill would cease search engines from linking websites, and Internet providers would have to block such websites. The consequences for copyrighting would also become much stricter. It was recommended that it become a criminal offense and can be charged with up to 5 years in prison. -
Response to SOPA
The Response to the SOPA legislation was drastic. Those who opposed the bill argued that it infringed upon the first amendment and would allow the blockage of complete Internet domains. In the end, the believe, it would create a worldwide arms race of censorship of the Web. Large websites such as Wikipedia and Google arranged full blackout days on their websites to gain support against the legislation, which proved very affective. Other pro-SOPA websites were hacked and blocked to all users. -
SOPA: final verdict
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Smith agreed to postpone plans on the SOPA legislation, but made it known that they were still looking for a legislation that would increase internet privacy. The opponents to SOPA also proposed the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN).
