3.6 Amendments: Balancing Individual Freedom with Public Order and Safety

Announcements:

Welcome to another week of online learning! It looks like the Missouri Constitution test was a success and you have cleared that hurdle towards graduation. This week, we will continue our examination of civil liberties, specifically looking at Amendments 2-8. Like past weeks, this will consist of daily posts, Khan Academy modules, videos, and multiple Supreme Court cases. You can find our weekly planner here. Remember, posts are reverse ordered, so you may have to scroll to find Monday's, Tuesday's, etc.


Please continue to stay on top of the content as all of this material is part of Unit 3 which will be tested on the AP exam on May 11th.

In addition to watching the screencast and/or reading today's post, please make sure you:

1. Read the Oyez summary of Mapp v. Ohio
2. Fill in the information about this case on the Supreme Court case matrix (use the same copy you have been using)
3. Watch the Khan Academy video on the 4th Amendment

READING: 85-126 in Edwards

UNIT THREE Identification Terms 

Today's Essential Question: How does the government effectively balance protection of private property and privacy with the need to maintain order?

Learning Standards:

LOR-2.D: Explain how the Supreme Court has attempted to balance claims of individual freedom with laws and enforcement procedures that promote public order and safety.

LOR-2.D.2 The debate about the Second and Fourth Amendments involves concerns about public safety and whether or not the government regulation of firearms or collection of digital metadata promotes or interferes with public safety and individual rights.

LOR-3.B.3: Pretrial rights of the accused and the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures are intended to ensure that citizen liberties are not eclipsed by the need for social order and security, including: 

1. The right to legal counsel, a speedy and public trial, and an impartial jury 
2. Protection against warrantless searches of cell phone data under the Fourth Amendment 
3. Limitations placed on bulk collection of telecommunication metadata (Patriot and USA Freedom Acts)

LOR-3.B.4: The due process clause has been applied to guarantee the right to an attorney and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, as represented by: 

1. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), which guaranteed the right to an attorney for the poor or indigent 
2. The exclusionary rule, which stipulates that evidence illegally seized by law enforcement officers in violation of the suspect’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used against that suspect in criminal prosecution

The 4th Amendment

One of the most difficult challenges for government is finding the balance between individual freedom and maintaining order. The rights outlined in the first ten amendments are designed to protect individual freedoms, but government must also protect public safety. One area that is frequently at issue is the protection from unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by the 4th Amendment.

Review Videos: