Case name: ARIZONA v.

EVANS
On December 13, 1990, a Justice of the Peace issued a warrant for the arrest of Isaac Evans
(respondent), because respondent failed to appear to answer for several traffic violations. Six days
later, respondent appeared by his own volition, and the Justice of the Peace marked respondent's file
for the warrant to be "quashed". Under standard court procedure, a justice court clerk informs the
Sheriff's Office of a quashed warrant, however this did not take place. Thus the warrant remained on
file at the Sheriff's Office even though it was no longer valid.
On January 5, 1991, respondent is observed by Phoenix police officer Bryan Sargent driving the
wrong way down a one-way street near the police station. When respondent was asked for his
driver's license, respondent informed Sargent that it had been suspended. This prompted Sargent to
check the data terminal in his patrol car for respondent's records. The record confirmed the
respondent's license was suspended, and also showed the erroneous outstanding warrant for his
1 arrest. Based on this warrant, Sargent proceeds to arrest respondent, and in the process of arrest,
respondent drops a "hand-rolled cigarette that the officers determined smelled of marijuana."
Sargent then searched respondent's car and discovered a bag of marijuana, and was charged with
possession. When the Phoenix Police Department notified the Justice court of the arrest, they
discovered the warrant had been quashed, and informed the police.
Respondent argued that his arrest was unlawful since the warrant for his arrest had been quashed
17 days prior, and the discovery of the marijuana would not have happened without said arrest.
Therefore, he filed a motion to suppress due to a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, to which
the exclusionary rule is a remedy. Furthermore, he argued that "the purposes of the exclusionary rule
would be served here by making the clerks for the court ... more careful about making sure that
warrants are removed from the records." The trial court agreed, granting respondent's motion on the
grounds that it could find no "distinction between State action, whether it happens to be the police
department or not."
Is the cased considered…
2 CRIMINAL or CIVIL?
3 Highlight ALL sentences that clue you in on your answer.
4 Precedent or Law that is interpreted in order to make judgment:
Mapp v. Ohio
Dollree Mapp lived in Cleveland, Ohio. One day, the police broke into Mapp's house to look for a
suspected bomber. Mapp had refused to let the police into her house earlier because they did not
have a search warrant. When the police broke in, they showed Mapp a piece of paper. They said the
paper was a search warrant, but they did not let her see it.
The police searched Mapp's house without her permission. They looked in her room, her daughter's
bedroom, the kitchen, the living room, and the basement. In the basement they found a trunk. Inside
the trunk were obscene pictures, photographs, and books. The police did not find the bomber, but
they arrested Mapp anyway. They said she broke the law by having obscene pictures.
The court found her guilty. Mapp then appealed her case to the Supreme Court of Ohio. She said that
her rights were violated in the search. The Supreme Court of Ohio said that the actions of the police
were probably illegal. However, they also said that the evidence (the illegal pictures) the police found
could be used against Mapp, even though the search itself may have been illegal. Mapp then appealed
her case to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches by the
government. In Mapp's case, the Supreme Court of the United States had to decide when a search is
legal and whether evidence from an illegal search could be used in a criminal case. In 1961 the
Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of Mapp on the basis that the exclusionary rule of
 the Constitution applied to actions of the states.

Exclusionary Rule: holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's
constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for prosecution in a court of law, as a result of illegal
search and seizure.
If the case is CRIMINAL… If the case is CIVIL…
Is the defendant guilty, or not guilty, and why? Who is at fault and why?
We rule in favor of …

5 The evidence used is…

Case name: In re Gault

Gerald Gault, a 15-year-old delinquent, was on probation when he and a friend were accused of
making a lewd phone call to a neighbor. The neighbor called the police and reported that the
comments were offensive and of a sexual nature. Gerald was arrested without his parents being
notified of the situation. The two delinquents were taken to a juvenile detention home.
The arresting officer filed a formal petition without any facts about the arrest, but suggested that the
delinquent was in need of protection through the court. Gerald's father and the accuser neglected to
show up for the hearing for which the petition was for. During this hearing; no one was sworn in and
no record of the proceedings was made. Following the hearing Gerald was sent back to the juvenile
detention home. A few days later Gerald was released to his parents with no explanation for the
incarceration.
1
A few days after Gerald's release, the court held a habeas corpus hearing in which the witness's
testimonies were different from the first hearing. The accuser did not report for this hearing, which
was excused by the judge who states that "she didn’t have to be present at that hearing.” Gerald's
probation officers filed a referral report with the court without Gerald or his parent knowledge. The
judge sentenced Gerald to the juvenile state industrial school until he reaches the age of majority (21
years old).
A month and a half later Gerald's attorney petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus because the state of
Arizona did not allow appeals in cases involving juveniles. The juvenile judge, Judge McGhee, was,
“vigorously cross-examined as to the bases for his actions.” The judge testified that Gerald was a
delinquent who had violated the law by making lewd comments towards a person, and he was
repeatedly involved in "immoral matters.”
Is the cased considered…
2
CRIMINAL or CIVIL?
3 Highlight ALL sentences that clue you in on your answer.
4 Precedent or Law that is interpreted in order to make judgment:
Gideon v. Wainright
On June 3, 1961, someone broke into the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. Some beer
and wine were stolen. The cigarette machine and jukebox were smashed and money was missing. A
witness said he saw Clarence Earl Gideon in the poolroom early that morning. The police found
Gideon and arrested him. He had a lot of change in his pockets and was carrying a bottle of wine.
 They charged him with breaking and entering.
Gideon was poor. He could not afford a lawyer. At the trial, he asked the judge to appoint a lawyer for
him. The judge said no. Gideon argued that the Sixth Amendment says he is entitled to a lawyer. The
judge told Gideon that the state doesn't have to pay for a poor person's legal defense. This meant
that Gideon had to defend himself. He tried hard but didn't do a very good job. For example, he called
some witnesses who helped the other side more than they helped him.
Gideon was found guilty and was sentenced to five years in jail. He thought that this was unfair
because he had not been given a lawyer. He asked the Supreme Court of Florida to release him but
the court said no. Gideon kept trying. He wrote a petition and sent it to the Supreme Court of the
United States. When it read what Gideon had written, the Court agreed to hear his case. The court
ruled in favor of Gideon, thereby stating that individuals unable to afford an attorney would be
provided with one in accordance with the sixth amendment henceforth.
If the case is CRIMINAL… If the case is CIVIL…
Is the defendant guilty, or not guilty, and why? Who is at fault and why?

Case name: Grutter v. Bollinger

In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a white resident of Michigan, applied for admission to the University of
Michigan Law School. Grutter applied with a 3.8 undergraduate GPA and an LSAT score of 161 (a
pretty darn high score!). She was denied admission. The Law School admits that it uses race as a
factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity
among its student body." The District Court concluded that the Law School's stated interest in
achieving diversity in the student body was not a compelling one and enjoined its use of race in the
1 admissions process. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that Justice Powell's opinion in Regents of
the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), constituted a binding precedent
establishing diversity as a compelling governmental interest sufficient under strict scrutiny review to
justify the use of racial preferences in admissions. The appellate court also rejected the district
court's finding that the Law School's "critical mass" was the functional equivalent of a quota.
Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Is the cased considered…
2 CRIMINAL or CIVIL?
3 Highlight ALL sentences that clue you in on your answer.
4 Precedent or Law that is interpreted in order to make judgment:
Regents of California v. Bakke
In the early 1970s, the medical school of the University of California at Davis admitted 100 students
each year. The university used two admissions programs: a regular admissions program and a
special admissions program. The purpose of the special admissions program was to increase the
 number of minority and "disadvantaged" students in the class. Applicants who were members of a
minority group or who believed that they were disadvantaged could apply for the special admissions
program.
In the regular admissions program, applicants had to have a grade point average of at least 2.5 on a
scale of 4.0 or they were automatically rejected. In the special admissions program, however,
applicants did not have to have a grade point average of 2.5. Sixteen of the 100 spaces in the medical
program were reserved only for the disadvantaged students. This is known as a quota system.
From 1971 to 1974 the special program admitted 21 black students, 30 Mexican Americans, and 12
Asians, for a total of 63 minority students.* The regular program admitted 1 black student, 6 Mexican
Americans, and 37 Asians, for a total of 44 minority students. No disadvantaged white candidates
were admitted through the special program.
Allan Bakke was a white male. He applied to and was rejected from the regular admissions program
in 1973 and 1974. Minority applicants with lower scores than Bakke's were admitted under the
special program.
After his second rejection, Bakke filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Yolo County, California. He
wanted the Court to force the University of California at Davis to admit him to the medical school. He
also claimed that the special admissions program violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The
Fourteenth Amendment says, in part, "No State . . . shall deny to any person . . . the equal protection of
the laws." Bakke said that the University, a state school, was treating him unequally because of his
race. He thought that if he were a minority that he would have been admitted to the school.
The university argued that their system of admission preferences served several important
purposes.  It helped counter the effects of discrimination in society.  Since historically, minors were
discriminated against in medical school admissions and in the medical profession, their special
admission program could help reverse that.   The university also said that the special program
increased the number of physicians who practice in underserved communities.  Finally, the
university reasoned that there are educational benefits to all students when the student body is
ethnically and racially diverse. 
The Superior Court of Yolo County, California agreed with Bakke. It said that the special admissions
program violated the federal and state constitutions and was therefore illegal. The Court said that a
person's race could not be considered when the University decides whom to admit.
The University of California and Bakke both appealed the case to the Supreme Court of California.
This court also declared the special admissions policy unconstitutional and said that Bakke had to
be admitted to the medical school. The Regents of the University of California then appealed the case
to the Supreme Court of the United States.

If the case is CRIMINAL… If the case is CIVIL…

Is the defendant guilty, or not guilty, and why? Who is at fault and why?
Evans was guilty, because he gave the police probable cause to search the car when he dropped his
marijuana cigarette on the ground. Had he not, the evidence wouldn’t have been admissible, based on
the exclusionary clause.
5
 Case name: NEAL v. FULTON
A high-school football player, Durante Neal, sued his football coach, the principal, the superintendent,
and the school board for violating his substantive-due-process right to be free from excessive
corporal punishment. During football practice, another player slapped Neal in the face. Neal reported
this incident to his coach, who told him to handle his own business. After practice, the player
approached Neal, and Neal hit him with a metal weight lock. A fight broke out between the two
1 players, and neither the principal nor the coach, who were in the immediate area, stopped the fight.
Instead, the coach ran over to Neal’s bag shouting, “[W]hat did you hit him with; if you hit him with it,
I am going to hit you with it.” The coach then struck Neal in the eye with the metal weight lock,
causing his eye to be ripped out of its socket and destroyed.
The question considered here, is whether or not the plaintiff’s substantive due process rights were
violated through the act of corporal punishment.
Is the cased considered…
2 CRIMINAL or CIVIL?
3 Highlight ALL sentences that clue you in on your answer.
Precedent or Law that is interpreted in order to make judgment:
Ingraham v. Wright
James Ingraham was a 14-year-old eighth grade student at Charles R. Drew Junior High School in
1970. On October 6, 1970, Ingraham was accused of failing to promptly leave "the stage of the school
auditorium when asked to do so by a teacher". He was then taken to the school principal's office,
where he stated that he was not guilty of the accusation against him. Willie J. Wright, Jr., the principal,
ordered Ingraham to bend over so that Wright could beat Ingraham with a spanking paddle. When
Ingraham declined to bend over and allow himself to be beaten, he was forcibly placed face-down on
the top of a table. Lemmie Deliford, the assistant principal, held Ingraham's arms and Solomon
Barnes, an assistant to the principal, held Ingraham's legs. While Ingraham was being restrained,
Wright used a spanking paddle to hit Ingraham more than 20 times. The paddling was so severe that
4 he suffered a hematoma requiring medical attention and keeping him out of school for several days.
Ingraham and his parents sued the school, calling it "cruel and unusual punishment" and loss of
liberty, but lost the case. The Court held that Florida state tort laws provided sufficient remedies to
satisfy Ingraham's due process loss of liberty claims. The Court also held that the U.S. Constitution's
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to the corporal punishment of
children in public schools, and that the constitution's due process clause does not require notice and
a hearing prior to the imposition of corporal punishment in public schools.
Substantive-due-process rights are violated by conscience-shocking or arbitrary behavior. At
a minimum, for corporal punishment to constitute conscience-shocking behavior, the facts must
demonstrate the following: “(1) a school official intentionally used an amount of force that was
obviously excessive under the circumstances, and (2) the force used presented a reasonably
foreseeable risk of serious bodily injury.”
If the case is CRIMINAL… If the case is CIVIL…
Is the defendant guilty, or not guilty, and why? Who is at fault and why?
Fulton is at fault, because he violated the substantive-due-process rights of Neal.

5 This is evident, because Neal hit the child with a metal lock. This serves as conscience-
shocking and arbitrary behavior, since the use of force was obviously excessive and presented
a reasonably foreseeable risk of serious bodily injury.