Criminal Law, University of Minnesota Libraries

Sample Solution

The arrest of individuals for standing outside a Jewish temple with signs that indicate a disbelief in the Holocaust raises several potential constitutional concerns.

Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech, which includes the right to express unpopular or offensive views. The Supreme Court has held that the government may not prohibit speech based on its disagreement with the views expressed. In this case, the individuals' signs expressing disbelief in the Holocaust are protected by the First Amendment, even though they are offensive and highly controversial.

Full Answer Section

The First Amendment also protects freedom of assembly, which includes the right to gather together for peaceful purposes. The Supreme Court has held that the government may not regulate assembly based on the content of the speech that is likely to occur at the assembly. In this case, the individuals' assembly outside the Jewish temple is protected by the First Amendment, even though their signs are offensive and highly controversial.

Freedom of Religion

The First Amendment also protects freedom of religion, which includes the right to hold and express religious beliefs. The Supreme Court has held that the government may not prohibit the free exercise of religion, even if the religious beliefs are offensive to others. In this case, the individuals' disbelief in the Holocaust is a religious belief, and the government may not arrest them for expressing that belief.

Unlawful Assembly

The law enforcement officer in this case arrested the individuals for unlawful assembly. Unlawful assembly is a crime that occurs when two or more people gather together to commit an unlawful act or to disturb the peace. The law enforcement officer in this case must be able to show that the individuals' assembly was unlawful in order to justify their arrest.

In this case, it is not clear that the individuals' assembly was unlawful. The individuals were not committing any illegal acts, and they were not disturbing the peace. They were simply expressing their views on a public sidewalk.

Balance of Interests

The Supreme Court has recognized that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting public order and safety. However, the government's interest in protecting public order and safety must be balanced with the First Amendment rights of individuals to express their views and gather together.

In this case, the government's interest in protecting public order and safety is significant. The individuals' signs are likely to incite violence from others, and the government has a responsibility to protect the public from violence. However, the government's interest in protecting public order and safety must be balanced with the individuals' First Amendment rights.

Conclusion

The arrest of the individuals in this case raises several potential constitutional problems. The individuals' First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion were likely violated. The government's interest in protecting public order and safety is significant, but it must be balanced with the individuals' First Amendment rights.

In light of these concerns, the law enforcement officer's decision to arrest the individuals is questionable. The officer may have been able to protect public order and safety without arresting the individuals. For example, the officer could have asked the individuals to leave the area, or the officer could have increased police presence in the area.

Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to arrest the individuals was up to the law enforcement officer. However, the officer must be able to show that the arrest was justified in light of the relevant constitutional concerns.