LGST 101 Const/Crim Law Flashcards
Due Process Clause
Everyone gets due process of the law to protect their rights
Supremacy Clause
US Constitution and federal law preempt conflicting state legislation.
If federal and state laws not exactly contradictory but in same field, federal reigns supreme
Avoidance of abrogation of state sovereignty cannon
Still need to remember and pay attention to state sovereignty and state rights, but federal law preempts
Catnip Example:
Say state law regulates catnips marketing but federal law says no such regulation
Federal action in the field preempts, no regulations allowed
Marbury v. Madison
Court finds Judiciary Act of 1789 to be in conflict with Constitution, rules that Constitution overrules such contradictory laws. As such, Court gains power of Judiciary Review, can declare a law unconstitutional
Taking
Taking clause of 5th Amend says government can’t take private property without just compensation and public use (eminent domain–right of government to turn private to public with just comp and public use)
How to decide if it is a taking
- Basis: Needs to be used for public use for it to be a taking
- Nature (Physical or regulatory taking–see next two cards)
Physical Taking
When government actually physically takes a property. Almost always a taking as long as it is used for public purpose and there is just compensation.
Consider per se (physical or total regulatory) v. debatable (not as obvious)
Regulatory Taking
A taking may occur if the government engages in an activity that destroys use of private property without physically seizing it
Consider:
Economic impact (if lose all economic benefits of the property, then more likely to be a taking)
Character of action (it is a taking when regulation causes loss of all economically beneficial/productive uses of the land, unless regulation is justified by background principles of property law/nuisance law)
–> Depends on the extent of the regulation. If the regulation goes too far, it is a taking.
Lastly, consider regulations limiting harmful use of a property are not takings (Noxious use test: regulation adopted under police power to protect public health, safety, or welfare is not a taking even if it reduces the value of the property–as such, zoning and landmarks are allowed)
US v. Causby
Federal government built a military airfield close to a house, causing planes to fly very low and cause disruption on the farm, resulting in chicken not being able to be raised on the farm. It is a taking because it deprived owner’s the use and enjoyment of their land and lowered the property value.
Penn Central v. NYC
Landmark restrictions do not constitute a taking, and the building owner is not entitled to just compensation
4th Amend
Need probable cause for a warrant and a warrant to search and/or arrest
Requirements for a Warrant
- Probable cause–>
Probable cause for arrest: reasonable basis for believing a crime may have been committed
Probable cause for search: reasonable basis for believing evidence of a crime is present in the place to be searched - Particular–warrant given for a particular, not general, thing
- Warrant must be issued by natural and detached magistrate (judge)
Exclusionary rule
Evidence gained from searches that violate the 4th Amendment can’t be used in trial
See 4th Amend Flow Chart
ok, note that for a warrant to be property executed need no unreasonable delay, after announcement unless officers/evidence would be endangered, person/place searched within scope of warrant