AP U.S. Government and Politics · Lesson 2

Gun rights, the accused and privacy

Know Know it

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court held that it protects an individual right, not only service in a militia, and struck down a ban on keeping a handgun at home for self-defense. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) applied that right to state and local governments. Heller also said the right is not unlimited, so governments may still pass some gun laws in the name of public safety.

Several amendments protect people accused of crimes. The Fourth bars unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth protects against forced self-incrimination and double jeopardy and requires due process. The Sixth guarantees a speedy, public jury trial and a lawyer. The Eighth bans excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Three cases applied these rights to the states. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) applied the exclusionary rule, so illegally seized evidence generally cannot be used at a state trial. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) required states to provide a lawyer to poor defendants charged with felonies. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) requires police to warn a suspect in custody of the right to stay silent and to have a lawyer before questioning.

The word privacy is not in the Constitution. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court found a right to privacy implied by several Bill of Rights guarantees and struck down a state ban on birth control as applied to married couples. Roe v. Wade (1973) extended that right to abortion. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), the Court overruled Roe, holding that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion and returning the issue to elected officials.

Rights of the accused and the cases that applied them to the states
AmendmentProtectionKey case
FourthNo unreasonable searches and seizuresMapp v. Ohio (1961): illegally seized evidence is excluded in state courts
FifthNo forced self-incriminationMiranda v. Arizona (1966): warnings before custodial questioning
SixthRight to a lawyerGideon v. Wainwright (1963): states must appoint lawyers for poor felony defendants
EighthNo cruel and unusual punishment or excessive bailLimits on the kinds of punishment a state may impose

Trap Miranda is about custody plus questioning

Miranda warnings are required before police question a suspect who is in custody. A person who walks into a police station and confesses without being asked anything has not been interrogated, so the lack of warnings does not by itself make that statement unusable.

Worked example Easy

State police search a home without a warrant or any legal exception and find stolen goods. Under Mapp v. Ohio, what generally happens to the goods as evidence?

  1. They may be used, because the Fourth Amendment limits only federal officers
  2. They may be used if the jury agrees they are stolen
  3. They cannot be used at trialAnswer
  4. They must be returned to the suspect along with an apology from the police

How to solve it

  1. Spot the problem: a search with no warrant and no exception is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
  2. Mapp says the remedy in state courts is to exclude the evidence.

Why each choice is right or wrong

  • A. Incorrect. Mapp applied the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule to the states, so state police are bound too.
  • B. Incorrect. Whether the goods are stolen does not cure an illegal search; the rule is about how the evidence was found.
  • C. Correct. Mapp applied the exclusionary rule to state trials, so evidence from an illegal search generally cannot be used.
  • D. Incorrect. No rule requires an apology; the remedy Mapp set is keeping the evidence out of the trial.

Explain Explain it

Task verbs: explain, compare

Many questions in this part of the unit turn on a balance: individual rights on one side, public safety or order on the other. Name the right, name the government interest, and say which way the Court's holding tips the balance.

Worked example Hard

How did McDonald v. Chicago (2010) build on District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)?

  1. It overruled Heller and held that the Second Amendment protects only state militias
  2. It applied the individual right recognized in Heller to the statesAnswer
  3. It held that the Second Amendment bars every gun law passed by a city or state
  4. It moved gun cases from the federal courts to state courts

How to solve it

  1. Recall Heller: an individual right, decided for the District of Columbia, which is not a state.
  2. That left open whether the right binds states, a question of incorporation.
  3. McDonald answered it: the right applies to states and cities through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Why each choice is right or wrong

  • A. Incorrect. McDonald did not overrule Heller or limit the right to militias; it relied on Heller's reading of an individual right.
  • B. Correct. Heller arose in Washington, D.C., a federal district, and McDonald used the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate that right against states and cities.
  • C. Incorrect. Neither case barred every gun law; Heller said the right is not unlimited, and McDonald repeated that point.
  • D. Incorrect. McDonald was a ruling on what the Second Amendment means for states, not on which courts hear gun cases.

Explain Your turn

The word privacy does not appear in the Constitution. Explain where the Court found a right to privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), and say what the ruling did to the Connecticut law.

Write it, then compare. Nothing you type here is saved or graded.

Compare with a model answer

A full answer does this

  • Says that the right was found implied by guarantees in the Bill of Rights
  • Says that the ruling struck down the Connecticut birth control law

Model answer

In Griswold, the Court reasoned that several Bill of Rights guarantees, such as the protection of the home and against unreasonable searches, together imply a zone of privacy, even though the word itself is absent. Using that right, the Court struck down Connecticut's ban on using birth control as applied to married couples.

Apply Apply it

Practice these topics. AP Practice questions on exactly what this lesson covers, with an explanation for every answer.

Practice these topics