1. After reading Mapp v. Ohio (1961) [2020 Ed. of textbook, pg. 62] explain the following:
o Which constitutional amendment is at issue in the case, and what right(s) does it encompass?
o What did the United States Supreme Court decide in this case and why?
o The Court has to balance the protection of the rights of individuals against the protection of society. If the police had not searched Mapp’s house, they would never have found the obscene material. With this in mind, do you think the rights of Mapp or society should have been more important? Explain.
2. After reading about Hudson v. Michigan (2006), Herring v. United States (2009), and Davis v. United States (2011) [2020 Ed. of textbook, pgs. 80, 88, 74], answer the following: Several scholars have suggested that in the wake of Hudson, Herring, and Davis, police have little to lose and much to gain from violating the Fourth Amendment rights of suspects. Assuming these scholars are correct, what are the potential costs and benefits of this new reality? Again, assuming this is true, how might the criminal justice system and crime be influenced by this new reality?
3. After reading United States v. Russell (1973) and Jacobson v. United States (1992), explain the following:
o What is the difference between entrapment and encouragement?
o What are the two major approaches to the entrapment defense?
o What did the United States Supreme Court decide in each case and why?
4. After reading Miranda v. Arizona (1966) [2020 Ed. of textbook, pg. 427], explain the following:
o Which constitutional amendment is at issue in the case, and what right(s) does it encompass?
o What did the United States Supreme Court decide in this case and why?
o Individual rights must be balanced against the values of society at large. In Miranda, what constitutional rights and societal values must be balanced against each other?
5. After reading Chapter 2 of 2020 Ed. textbook, explain each of the five constitutional themes that are involved in applying the due process clause and the privilege against self-incrimination to confessions obtained as a result of police interrogation:
o autonomy;
o transparency;
o procedural fairness and regularity;
o equality; and
o accuracy.
