Shafa Nathani Mr. Clapper Government H. September 27, 2013 ROSENBERGER v. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA The Rosenberger V.

University of Virginia case is about a student, Ronald W. Rosenberger, who was a student at the University of Virginia asked for $5,800 from the University to fund a magazine called Wide Awake: A Christian Perspective at the University of Virginia. Upon asking, the University declined the students request because the funds would be going to a publication that supports a certain belief which is not allowed in the guidelines of the University. This case affects the 1st Amendment because it questions the idea that by funding the money, it would be supporting a religion which is not allowed under the 1st

Amendment. The result of the case was 5-4 in Rosenbergers favor. The court explained that this case leaned towards discrimination, and that if the University was funding other religious publications, which it was, then it had to support all publications regardless to its content and cost. This case affected many colleges throughout the country because it defined the blurry line. Even though the 1st Amendment states that no law should protect any religion, it also states that no religion should be prohibited. This means that all Universities are supposed to fund every

publication. If one is being supported then all shall be supported. This allows for college students to freely express their opinion. UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ The United Sates v. Verdugo-Urquidez case talks about a citizen named Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez who was a citizen and resident of Mexico. He was arrested for various narcotics-related offenses by the Drug Enforcement Agency and Mexican police officers took him to the U.S. border. After he was arrested, a DEA officer got permission to search Verdugo-Urquidez's residences for evidence of the narcotics. The Director General of the Mexican Federal Judicial Police allowed the searches, however since no search warrant from a U.S. magistrate was ever received Verdugo brought it up at trial. The district court granted Verdugo-Urquidez's motion to make the evidence un-usable since the search violated the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. This affects the fourth amendment. The verdict was in favor of United Sates. The Fourth Amendment applied to "the people," which means that it only applied to citizens or naturalized citizens. Aliens without any strong connection to the U.S. do not apply to this rule and cannot use it in court. Since he was a Mexican student, it states that non-"fundamental" rights are not even guaranteed to inhabitants of territories under U.S sovereign control, much less aliens. Therefore, he was allowed to be search and his home be search since non of the amendments apply to him.

The case opened the eye of people showing who actually is protected by these amendments. Even though Mexico is under United States, the constitution does not apply to them. SALINAS v. TEXAS In the case Salinas v. Texas Houston police officers found two homicide victims which led to Genovevo Salinas being accused. Salinas agreed to answer all of the polices questions and was questioned for about one hour. When this occurred he was not read his Miranda Rights. The bullets at the scene of the crime matched the gun found in Salinas home. A witness was also found who said Salinas admitted to killing the victims. In 1993, Salinas was charged with the murders, but could not be located until 15 years later, and Salinas was finally captured. The prosecution attempted to introduce evidence of Salinas silence about the bullets found on the scene. However, Salinas objected because he could invoke his Fifth Amendment protection against selfincrimination whether he was in custody or not. The trial court admitted the evidence and Salinas was found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. The Fifth Amendments privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to defendants who simply decide to remain mute during questioning. This case shows us that in fact, you loose your rights if you do not work with the courts. In order to use the 5th amendment, you cant be mute during an investigation. IOWA v. TOVAR

In the Iowa v. Tovar case, Felipe E. Tovar was charged with drunk-driving in Iowa three times in four years. Tovar pleaded guilty both times and gave away his right to an attorney the first time. The third time Tovar faced up to five years in prison since Iowa law increases sentencing for successive drunk-driving,. Tovar used his 6th Amendment , the right to counsel, and argued that his first conviction should not be counted. Hence, his third sentence doesnt increase. The request was invalid because the judge did not warn him of the consequences of entering a guilty plea without an attorney. The Iowa district court rejected Tovar's argument and sentenced him to 30 days in jail. This case shows that if you waive your rights, then its permanent. Even though you are given your rights to protect yourself in court and have an equal chance, if you choose to waive your rights of counsel then the court will not give your rights back. HELLING v. MCKINNEY In the Helling v. McKinney, William McKinney, a Nevada state prisoner, sued his warden for violating his Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting him to unhealthy levels of second-hand smoke, which is harsh punishment hurting his health. McKinney shared a cell with a man who smoked five packs of cigarettes a day and he claimed that he was being harmed by the smoke, and that the prison officials werent doing anything about it. At first the court told him that he did not have an Eighth Amendment right to a smoke- free environment and that he had failed to prove any "serious medical needs. Late on he was given another

opportunity to prove that the smoke levels were sufficient to constitute an unreasonable danger to his future health. In the end, he was given a chance to prove his violation of the 8th amendment. If McKinney could prove that the second-hand smoke posed a serious threat to his future health McKinney would be entitled to relief. Even though people who break the law and are in jail, they still have rights. The eighth amendment is still applicable to them. If there is an unreasonable bail or punishment given, the prisoner can fight that. This goes to show that even though they are in jail, the government still protects them. GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT In the case, Griswold v. Connecticut, Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. In her League, she gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. I Connecticut, that is illegal. She was convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counseling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. The 9th amendment gives the right to privacy in a martial relationship. Hence, she was not convicted. People who are married can make their own decision on how they want to live their sexual life. This amendment shows that the government doesnt control everything and there is some privacy to come extent. The 9th amendment helps that even though the constitution doesnt state it all, it doesnt mean that its not protected.