Lesson 2: Due Process RightsTopic:How have due process rights been applied to the states? Background:Due process rights provided by the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments provide limits to the powers of the Federal Government. Through a doctrine called "incorporation" the United States Supreme Court has used the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment to apply due process rights to defendants in state courts. This lesson presents the case of Mapp v. Ohio (1961) that resulted in the application to the states of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against the use of illegally obtained evidence. In Mapp v. Ohio, the police entered Mrs. Mapp’s apartment claiming to have a warrant that they never produced. They said that an informant had told them that a person wanted for a recent bombing was hiding in Mapp’s home. In fact their search revealed no evidence of the bombing. Instead, they found several allegedly pornographic books and pictures. Mapp was convicted of possession of obscene literature and imprisoned. In affirming her conviction, the Ohio Supreme Court held that, although the search had been "unlawful," a previous Supreme Court decision (Wolf v. Colorado) allowed the admission of the evidence. Eventually, the Supreme Court decided to hear the Mapp case. In their decision in Mapp, the Court overturned Wolf by stating, "We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court." Thus the exclusionary rule that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence was applied to the state courts in Mapp. Using the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court applied the exclusionary rule -- which holds that evidence obtained by law enforcement personnel in violation of due process rights may not be used against a defendant -- to the states. Objectives:Students will be able to:
Handout 2A "Mapp v. Ohio;" Time Required: 1 class period Procedures:Distribute Handout 2A and 2B, "Mapp v. Ohio" and "Mapp Cartoon Exercise." Have students complete the exercise on the handout. Then, as part of the whole class discussion, have them explain/answer the following:
Distribute Handout 2C. Select three students to play the roles of Narrator (introduces each Act and Scene of the play), Fanny and Hans. Have students perform the play before the class and then, complete the exercise that follows. As part of the whole class discussion, have students explain/answer the following:
Distribute Handout 2D. Have students complete the exercise accompanying the handout, then have them explain their answers to the following questions:
Write a letter to either Lydia or Charles (whomever you disagree with) convincing them of your point of view of the Mapp case. Further Enrichment:Based on multiple intelligence theory. Linguistic: Students should write an essay that argues that Mrs. Mapp's rights were violated when the police entered her house without a search warrant. Students should be persuasive in presenting their arguments. Distribute the fact pattern in Wolf v. Colorado. Students should reach a decision in the case and write an opinion based on that decision. Students should research how the "exclusionary rule" has been applied since the Mapp case. Have students write a report explaining how the exclusionary rule has changed over time. Logical/Mathematical: Create a board game or puzzle using the exclusionary rule and have students play the game or solve the puzzle. Kinesthetic: Have students use pantomime to reenact the scene in which police enter and search Mrs. Mapp's house. Hold an interview with Hans and Fanny Fuzz discussing how their views of the Mapp decision differ. Spatial: Create a button supporting or opposing the decision in the Mapp case. Intrapersonal: Students should pretend they are Mrs. Mapp and write a journal entry explaining their feelings about what happened when the police entered their house. In the journal entry, have students discuss how important it is to them to be safe and secure in their own home and free from invasions of privacy. Interpersonal: Divide the class into groups of equal size. Have each group research and determine under what conditions a search is justified. Members of the group should coach each other by sharing the results of their research. One member of each group will be selected to discuss whether the search was justified in Mapp.
Research the Wolf v. Colorado, write an opinion as if you were asked to reach a decision in the case. Research the "exclusionary rule" since the Mapp case. In a report, explain to what extent courts have modified the exclusionary rule. In Mapp, the Court applied the exclusionary rule to the states. Find and explain another Supreme Court decision that applied a different due process right (other than the exclusionary rule) to the states.
Handout 2A: DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
Handout 2B: DUE PROCESS RIGHTS Mapp Cartoon Exercise
1) __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________
2) __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________
1) __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________
2) __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________
Handout 2C: DUE PROCESS RIGHTS Mapp Role-Play "A Fine Kettle of Fish" Act I, Scene I: Late in the evening of May 23, 1957: Officer Hans Fuzz has just returned home from patrol and is talking to his wife, Fanny. Hans: "Well, tonight we had a little excitement on the job! We busted a woman on pornography."Fanny: "Really! How did you catch her?" Hans: "We were looking for a man connected with a recent bombing when we got a tip that he was hiding in her house. She called her lawyer and wouldn't permit us to enter the house. We got a warrant and when we presented it, she grabbed it and shoved it down her dress. What could I do but get it out of there?" Fanny: "You mean to tell me that you went down her dress to get the warrant! I can't believe it! There must be a law against that!" Hans: "She was acting in a very suspicious manner so we knew that something was going on." Fanny: "You think that is a good enough reason to search her?" Hans: "But Fanny, she didn't cooperate with us; all we wanted was to look for that bombing suspect." Fanny: "Well, I'm too tired now to listen to all the details -- I've been helping Junior cram for his law boards. You can finish telling me in the morning." Act I, Scene II: Next morning at breakfast, Hans and Fanny are discussing an article in the newspaper about the arrest of Mrs. Mapp. Fanny: "You didn't tell me that you pushed that lady around. What right did you have to handcuff her and search her belongings? Then you find a few pieces of paper which you claim are pornography and book her on that!" Hans: "But Fanny, we had no choice; we knew she was hiding something." Fanny: "Why, because she insisted on a warrant? Because she didn't want to let you in? You broke down her door! What kind of a job is this? You violated that poor woman's rights! (Fanny walks across the room and picks up one of Junior's law books). Fanny: (Reading from the law book) "The Fourth 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."
Fanny: Hans, I don't think I can live with a man who uses his badge to bully defenseless women! I'm going to live with mother!" Hans: "But, but…" Act II, Scene I: A reconciliation had occurred a few days later. Also, Mrs. Mapp was found guilty in the State Trial Court. It is now about four years later. Both are eating breakfast. Fanny: "See, I told you so! Mrs. Mapp, the defendant in that trumped up pornography charge, finally won her case on appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court." Hans: "I don't believe it! Maybe our search wasn't totally legal, but they should have used that porno material as evidence. Down at the precinct, the captain said that back in '49 the Wolf case ruled that illegally obtained evidence could be used at a state trial. He said that the Fourth Amendment that you quoted applied only to federal cases." Fanny: "Well it says here (pointing to the paper) that the Fourth Amendment protection applies to states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Illegally obtained evidence can no longer be admitted into state trials." Hans: "Well, that's a fine kettle of fish! I get paid to risk my life chasing these criminals and now the courts are going to let them off on some legal technicality. Next time it might be a murderer or rapist!"
A. What were Fanny's views? What were Hans' views? _____________________________________________________________________________ B. Reasons for Fanny's views. Reasons for Hans' views. _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ C. Fanny's Values Hans' values _____________________________________________________________________________ D. Write a statement of the values conflict in this story. _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ E. What is a values conflict? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________
Handout 2D: DUE PROCESS RIGHTS Letters Read the letters below. Then, write a letter to either Lydia or Charles (whomever you DISAGREE with more) convincing them of your point of view of the Mapp case.
MAY OF 1957 208 Main St. Cleveland, Ohio May 24, 1957 Dear Charles, Yesterday they arrested Mrs. Mapp, that awful woman next door. I never heard such a commotion as when they tried to take her away. I heard one of the officers say that they were looking for the person connected with a recent bombing and they thought she was hiding him. Imagine, right next door! This morning's paper says she was charged with possessing pornographic materials in her house. I'm sure glad that the police are right on top of these vagabonds. Write me soon. Yours truly, Lydia
TWO WEEKS LATER 1318 Fog St. London, England June 12, 1957 Dear Lydia, I say, haven't you been having quite the go round! I've researched this preposterous holocaust of your neighbor's and I must say I'm really quite astounded by it all. Obviously, the constables in this case have absolutely no regard for your Bloody Fourth Amendment that protects the commoner from an unlawful search and seizure! Elementary! One's rights by far supersedes the vicious acts of an over-zealous police department! Chin up, Charles
FOUR YEARS LATER Dear Charles, Do you remember that case we discussed about four years ago? Well, that woman is back on the streets again! That's right, the Supreme Court let her off on some technicality. Sometimes I wonder about our whole system of justice! That lady was nabbed red-handed with the pornography. Honestly, Charles, if they let these people off just like that, maybe I'll move over there. Yours truly, Lydia
TWO WEEKS LATER Dear Lydia, Recently I picked up a copy of The New York Times and read of the case called Mapp v. Ohio. I must say I'm terribly sorry to disagree with you, my dear, but I'm inclined to agree with the court's decision. Smashingly Constitutional, don't you know! For the first time, the Supreme Court has held that the protections granted in your federal courts under the Fourth Amendment must now be guaranteed in the state courts because of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As Justice Clark points out, "Our decision gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guarantees him, to the police officer no less than that to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and, to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the administration of justice." I fear my time is quite limited and I must bid you farewell, my fine lady. Please write soon. Cheerio, Charles |
