Govt 2306 Module 9 Discussion Board: Amendments 4 – 8

This week’s discussion will dive further into civil liberties.  I would like you to research one and any Supreme Court case in the last 50 years – so 1974 – that deal with Amendments 4 – 8.  And, then in a discussion post,  If you use any other resources in your discussion post be sure to include correct MLA citation 


Name the case and year Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990), the ruling, for example a 8-1 majority vote, and who wrote the majority, in this case it was Justice William Brennan.

With what Amendment(s) did the case deal? 

What was the final decision in the case?

  1. What did you learn?

Helpful resources:   Oyez gives a nice summary of the case, how the justices voted in the case and you can even listen to the oral arguments in the case if you wish!  Links to an external site.SCOTUS blog is written for average Americans who have a mild interest in what the Supreme Court does each week.  On their home page you can find a calendar for what the Court is doing this month.  They also summarizes Court opinions.  Links to an external site. This will take you directly to the Supreme Court where you can find the opinions they wrote (friendly note: reading a Supreme Court opinion is a nerdy challenge and often difficult to understand, but not impossible).   is another great resource.The rules for discussion board credit:

  1. Your answer needs to be no less than 300 words.  
  2. Students then must post thoughtful replies to two other students’ posts (100 word minimum for each of the 2 student response posts). When you post your reply to the 2 other students, I want you to use the 3CQ model. What does this mean? It means that each response should include a complement about the student’s post, a comment about the student’s post, a connection to something external to the discussion (such as a comment on your own experience/thoughts on the issue), and a question that will prompt further discussion. Please divide your responses into 4 separate parts and label them with the corresponding heading. For example:
    Complement: (your complement here)
    Comment: (your comment here)
    Connection: (your connection here)
    Question: (your question here)
  3. ALIcia (student 1 )

1. Name the case and year, the ruling and who wrote the majority in the case: The case I chose was Breed v Jones 1975 which was for a 17 year old who was being charged as an adult for armed robbery. The issue came along when the courts had a verdict but wanted to try him as an adult. This was putting him at risk for double jeapordy since he has already had a prosecution in juvenile court. Although the 17 year old was found guilty for his crimes. The verdict went back and forth along the courts which ultimately ended in an unanimous decision ruled that Chief Justice Warren Burger delivered in this case. 

2. What amendments did the case deal? The full protection of The Double Jeapordy Clause of the Fifth Amendment 

3. What was the final decision of this case? The final decision was although the 17 year old was guilty, the courts decided that the double jeopardy would not affect those in the juvenile court system. The court also stated that allowing the verdict that they originally agreed upon would destroy the confidence in the judicial system. Ultimately, the courts chose to apply the lower court decision. The courts then said that the juvenile courts should only make determinations to try a juvenile as an adult at a preliminary hearing before any decisions are made. This would minimize the risk of double jeopardy and only allow juveniles to be tried as adults when necessary not just as a default due to the juvenile courts being overwhelmed with so many cases. 

4. What did you learn? This is new to me so reading the whole trial was interesting and hearing the arguments were really neat. Knowing that they were really going to try the 17 year old as an adult after already determining that he was guilty was surprising, the courts fought back and forth which at first I didn’t think that they were going to rule with him but they did what was best for the future and still gave him the punishment he deserved for his crime.

AVA (Student 2)

Name the case and year: The case I chose to research is Riley v. California (2014). David Riley was a part of the Lincoln Park gang in San Diego, California. August 2, 2009: he was part of an open fire on a rival gang member. On August 22, 2009, the police pulled Riley over while driving a different car based on the fact that he was driving with expired license registration tags. The police, because the car was impounded, were required to perform an inventory search to make sure the vehicle had all its components during the time of the seizure. While conducting the search, they found two guns and arrested Riley due to possession of firearms. Riley also had his phone in his pocket when he was arrested, and they were able to look at different videos and photos that linked him to the gang that he was a part of. When going to trial, he tried to hide evidence stating that it had been through his cell phone, which was not a part of the search that was being conducted on him in the first place. This was denied. () 

With what Amendment(s) did the case deal? This case dealt with the Fourth Amendment. This Amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” () 

What was the final decision in the case? During the trial, a gang expert confirmed Riley’s membership in the Lincoln Park gang. The jury convicted Riley due to the shooting, expired documents, and gang affiliation. He was sentenced to fifteen years to life in prison. 

What did you learn? Towards the end of the () page, it talks about whether the Supreme Court thought that it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment or not. I found it interesting that they did find it in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but still convicted him on all three counts, instead of the two they were able to affirm within Constitutional rights. 

Govt 2306 Module 9 Discussion Board: Amendments 4 – 8

We offer the best custom writing paper services. We have answered this question before and we can also do it for you.


Leave a Comment