Must have equal up to 1200 words and have at least 3 sources.

1. Differentiate overbreadth from vagueness. Give an example of each.

2. Which of the following is protected by the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause? Explain your answers.   a.  A public flag burning in protest of a recently enacted law.   b.  An advertisement for potato chips found on a billboard.   c.  The placing of a hand over one’s heart while the national anthem is played.

3. State law requires that all children between the ages of 5 and 16 years attend an approved school. Defendants have been charged with violating the statute, as they do not permit their children to attend school. The defendants are Mennonites and claim that it would violate their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. The defendants teach their children in a manner consistent with their religious teachings. Should they be convicted? Explain your reasoning.

4. What is the exclusionary rule?

5. Give an example of when evidence would be fruit of the poisonous tree.

6. The Constitution of the United States significantly affects all criminal law. Why is that so when more than 95 percent of all prosecutions occur in state courts?

7. Do you believe that evidence that has been obtained by law enforcement in an unconstitutional manner should be inadmissible at trial? Explain your position.

Reply to Josh listed below 75 words

I believe "Miranda" should still be required in today's society. If you ever watch a show, where police officers are arresting someone, you have heard someone being read their Miranda rights. These rights protect the person being questioned and also protect the officers who are doing the questioning. Personally, I believe if a person has committed a crime and they confess to that crime, that confession should be used against them even if their rights were not read to them. From a legal standpoint, I understand the reasoning for police officers to make sure you understand your rights. If someone is suspected of committing a crime and ultimately they did not commit the crime, then the police could continue to interrogate the individual until they broke and confessed. Informing everyone they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer, helps to prevent this from happening. I believe it also protects the officers who make the arrest and conduct the investigation or interrogation. By reading them their rights, the officer does not have to worry about what they can and cannot ask the suspect. This allows the officer to gather information without the fear of the evidence being thrown out. People often believe that if an officer fails to read them their Miranda rights, they wont get punished. That is false, Miranda rights only protect a person from unwillingly incriminating themselves, not from being arrested (Findlaw, 2017). While Miranda rights protect the defendant, their are exceptions to the rule. If someone robs a store and the police ask the suspect where they hid the gun and the suspect tells them, the police can use this as an admission of guilt without reading him his rights. The reason for this is by Supreme Court ruling of the emergency exclusion, "police are allowed to defuse a dangerous situation before reading the Miranda rights" (Wachtler, 2010).

Reply to Jake listed below 75 words

I absolutely agree that "Miranda" should still be used today when a person is being arrested or questioned as a suspect. The "Miranda Rights" are still the basic rights of people that they need to be informed of. Sadly, many people do not know or do not understand their rights and they need to be explained so that the subject has a clear understanding of what their rights are so that they do not self-incriminate or make a false confession.

I believe that every person regardless of age, race, religion, or any other demographic difference should be allowed to exercise their rights to the maximum extent. I believe that this could often cause communication problems and raise concern in the courtroom when problems such as language barriers exist. Many officers and departments either speak a secondary language, have translators readily available, or have "Miranda Rights" printed in other languages so there is no communication gap and the subject can know what their rights are.

I feel that if a person is arrested without their Miranda Rights being explained to them, they will not know that there are such provisions available to them and there can be no legal dispute over them. For example, if they choose to remain silent, or have an attorney present for questioning they are acting within their rights. If they were not aware that it was their right to do so, they may say something incriminating whether they are actually guilty or not. If they were not given adequate legal representation by a lawyer, they probably would not stand a chance at a fair trial. This would be a way that officers and legal authorities around the country could manipulate the system to get the results they desire without an adequate due process either intentionally or unintentionally. "The Miranda warning may seem easy-to-understand, yet a 2011 university study claims nearly one million criminal cases each year may be compromised in the United States because suspects don’t actually understand their constitutional rights under Miranda"(Page, 2013).

I also believe that if a person has been properly briefed their "Miranda Rights" they will be more likely to understand that whatever they say can and will be used against them. "The Miranda rule strikes a delicate balance, enabling us to protect a fundamental constitutional right without forcing the courts to allow the legitimacy of every confession to be proven before it is allowed into evidence"(Wachtler, 2010). If this is understood by the subject, they will be less likely to be a witness against themselves. Most people do not understand that their words are key pieces of evidence that can be used in order to help find them guilty or to clear their name. Miranda is a key that can unlock the door wil either allow you to maintain your rights and be given a fair trial with due process, or it can allow the door to remain closed and you forfeit your Constitutional Rights if you do not understand them already.