Essential Question: How do the first and fourth amendments protect individual rights?

Questions NOTES:
Declaration of Independence
● Put king of England on notice that the colonists want to
form their own government
Articles of Confederation
● Charter for common government for the 13 colonies
● Many felt a stronger central government was needed and
this led to the birth of the U.S. Constitution
U.S. Constitution
● THE BILL OF RIGHTS (FIRST 10 AMENDMENTS)
○ Adopted to ensure US citizens would enjoy the
rights proclaimed in the declaration of
independence
○ Today there are 27 amendments
Civil rights
● The bill of rights and other amendments that were to
follow the constitution became a shield for personal and
natural rights
● Most vital of these rights are those protected in the 1st
Amendment:
● Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition
Fundamental rights
● Tinker… Justice Abe Fortas wrote in the majority opinion
that students and teachers do not “shed their
constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse gate.”
5th amendment
● Federal government can’t take a person’s life, liberty or
property without due process of law
14th amendment
● State government can’t take a person’s life liberty or
property without due process of the law
Tinker vid
● Believed in peace and love from her church
● People were really mad about their protests
● People said they were communists (they were methodists)
● Their small action led to supreme court case
● Judges said kids should have rights
4th amendment
● Protects from unreasonable searches and seizures
● Feeling secure in your person and home
● 4th amendment case law deals with 3 main issues:
○ What government activities are searches and
seizures
○ What constitutes probable cause to conduct
searches and seizures
○ How violations of 4th amendment rights should be
 addressed
Vid
●Criminal cases were decided by goats
●Judges have to determine probable causes exists before
going into ppls houses
● Police didn’t have warrants so they’d just come in
● The exclusionary rule protects guilty ppl
● If guilty and bad people don’t get these rights then maybe
the innocent won’t either
● Exclusionary almost only protects guilty
● Only a little protection for the innocent
● There should be compensation for innocent people
● You aren’t protected if you give you information to a third
party
Terry vs Ohio
● The ruling set the precedent that if the public or police
are being endangered the police are allowed to stop
and search without a warrant
●

Summary: The Tinker vs Des Moines ruling affects me because it allows me to wear
something such as a black lives matter shirt. I could use my first amendment rights by voicing
my opinion on a topic like black lives matter. An example of misusing my first amendment
rights would be trying to start a conflict using “fight words”. The Mapp vs Ohio ruling allows
me to feel more comfortable in my own home because it prevents the police from basically
breaking and entering. I feel like if I were Dollree Mapp I would’ve taken the paper but instead
of slipping into my shirt I’d glance at it and read it. On top of that if the paper wasn’t a real
warrant I would’ve held onto it so that I could use it as evidence to defend myself. I do feel
that law enforcement targets a certain group of people. Over Covid, the whole George Floyd
situation is proof of that along with other things where police would literally attack and kill
black people for no reason.