To what extent has "due process" been redefined by recent case law?

While many of the landmark due process cases were decided in the 1950's and 60's, defining these rights is still one the Supreme Court’s major preoccupations. Two recent cases, New York v. Quarles (1984) and U.S. v. Leon (1984), are examples.

The Quarles case concerned the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, specifically the Miranda warnings. Quarles was a rape suspect, whom the police had followed into a supermarket. Once apprehended and before being arrested, the police discovered that Quarles was wearing a gun holster. Without informing Quarles of his Miranda rights, the police asked the suspect about the location of his gun. The suspect said, "the gun is over there." The trial judge excluded the statement about the gun and the gun itself as evidence, since the statement was made prior to Quarles’ being read his Miranda rights. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the circumstances overriding considerations of public safety justified the officer’s failure to provide Miranda warnings to Quarles before he asked questions about the suspect’s abandoned weapon.

In U.S. v. Leon (1984), the police provided what they believed was sufficient evidence to justify the issuing of a warrant to search for illegal drugs in Leon’s home. Ultimately, a judge issued a warrant and the police found the drugs in question. However, upon appeal, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to issue a warrant and the judge who did so acted in error. The U.S. Supreme Court was asked to consider if the exclusionary rule should apply in this case, since the police were acting in good faith in carrying out their search. In a controversial decision, the Supreme Court held that the evidence could be used in a trial against Leon, because the police had obtained what they believed to be a valid search warrant.

Finally, students are asked to take the same survey they did during the first lesson in this unit. Results of the survey will help the teacher in determine what students have learned and if their attitudes towards due process has changed as a result of undertaking this project

 Students will be able to:

• Suggest arguments that should have been raised by both sides in New York v. Quarles in light of the Miranda decision.
• Analyze the decision in U.S. v. Leon and its effect on the protections afforded to defendants by the exclusionary rule.
• Draw conclusions as to the extent that their attitudes towards due process rights have changed as a result of their participation in this unit.

Handout 8A "Quarles Visual"

Handout 8B "United States v. Leon Visual"

Handout 8C "U.S. v. Leon"

Handout 8D "Survey II"

 1 class period

Distribute Handout 8A "Quarles Visual." Have students complete the exercise on the handout, then have them explain/answer the following:

• What is this cartoon about?
• What legal issue does this cartoon raise?
• Discuss the arguments you would raise if you were New York?
• Discuss the arguments you would raise if you were Quarles?
• Whose arguments were the strongest?

Distribute Handout 8C "U.S. v. Leon." Have students complete the exercise on the handout, then have them explain/answer the following:

• What are the most important facts of this case?
• Which arguments did you underline as the strongest made the lawyers for the U.S.?
• Which arguments did you underline as the strongest made by the lawyers for Leon?
• If you were sitting on the Supreme Court how would you have decided this case?
• The Court decided against Leon based on the argument that, having been issued a search warrant by a judge (which was later proved to be an error), the police believed they were acting legally. Was this a victory for justice?

  Distribute Handout 8D "Survey II." As they did in lesson #1 of this unit, have students answer all the questions. Prior to explaining/answering the following, have them take out the survey they completed in lesson #1:

• How would you compare the responses you gave this time to the survey, to those you gave before we began our study of due process?
• Which responses were most similar to those given in the first survey?
• Which responses were most different? How do you explain those items to which you responded differently?
• Which responses do you feel even more strongly about than you did the first time?

Have students create a chart or a series of stamps showing how our concept of due process has changed since the nation’s founding.

Invite a police officer to class for "press conference," about the officer’s reactions to the Quarles and Leon decisions. Students should each be asked to prepare three questions for the press conference.

Based on multiple intelligence theory.

Linguistic: Using the library or the internet, have students determine whether the decisions related to the Miranda warnings and the exclusionary rule in Quarles and Leon have been changed. Students should then write a legal brief explaining whether or not they agree with the current rulings.

Logical/Mathematical: Students should determine percentage changes in each item on the survey about due process given at the beginning and end of the unit.

Kinesthetic: Have students play a jeopardy type quiz show in which they answer questions about due process.

Create role-plays in which students act as police arresting a suspect. In each instance, the police must decide whether or not to read the Miranda warnings.

Spatial: Have students create a timeline or a series of stamps showing how our concept of due process has changed over time.

Intrapersonal: Have students discuss their feelings with a friend about due process. The discussion should concentrate on whether due process rights of defendants have gone too far or due process rights have not gone far enough.

Interpersonal: Divide the class into groups of equal size. Have students write the main concepts about due process. Then, have students discuss what they wrote. The discussion should include the decisions in Quarles, Leon and Miranda and an analysis of the exclusionary rule and the Miranda warnings.

Have students research the decisions reached in either Quarles or Leon. Then ask them to write an editorial, supported by at least two arguments, describing whether or not they believe the Court made the right decision in the case.

Using, the library or the Internet have students determine whether the decisions related to the Miranda warnings and the exclusionary rule, in Quarles and Leon, have been updated. Have students write a legal brief explaining whether or not they agree with the updated rulings.

"New York v. Quarles (1984)"

Instructions: Have you ever wanted to create a cartoon, today you’ll have a chance. Read the cartoon below. Write in the empty bubbles above the characters in frame #4, one argument that you believe the lawyer for Quarles would have made and one argument that you believe the lawyer for New York would have made in support of their opinions.

"United States v. Leon (1984)"

Study the facts in United States v. Leon (1984), described below, and then underline both the two strongest argument offered by the lawyers for the U.S. and by the lawyers for Leon.

Facts: Based on an anonymous tip from an informant, the police began watching the activities of Leon, whom they suspected of being a drug dealer. As a result of evidence they obtained from observing Leon’s activities, the police applied for a search warrant of Leon’s home. The warrant was approved and subsequently, the police found large quantities of illegal drugs. Prior to the trial, lawyers for Leon requested that the trial judge prohibit the prosecution from using the evidence the police found in the search of Leon’s home. Leon’s lawyer’s argued that the first judge should never have issued a search warrant. The lawyers based this claim on the fact that the police’s observations of their client did not turn up sufficient evidence to prove that there was probable cause that Leon was dealing in drugs. The trial judge agreed with Leon’s lawyers and ordered that any evidence found in the search could not be used. As a result, the government had to drop the case against Leon, he was allowed to go free. Eventually, the government appealed its case to the Supreme Court, where the following arguments were made:

By the Lawyers for the U.S.: Even though the search warrant was mistakenly issued, the evidence seized should be admissible at trial. The exclusionary rule (which prevents the use of evidence at trial that is taken illegally by the police) is supposed to be used to stop the police from acting outside the law. However, in this case the police acted in good faith, having obtained from a judge what they believed was a valid search warrant. If the drugs found in Leon’s house cannot be offered as evidence a guilty defendant would go unpunished and people would lose respect for the law.

By Leon’s Lawyers: Almost everyone who has reviewed this case agrees that the police observing Leon did not find sufficient evidence of drug dealing to justify the issuing of a search warrant. It is clear that the judge who signed the search warrant made a mistake. The fact that the police acted in good faith in searching for, and finding drugs in Mr. Leon’s house, should not matter -- a warrant should not have been issued. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to stop the police from obtaining evidence illegally. To allow this illegally obtained evidence to be used against Leon would tell the police it’s okay to undertake illegal searches, thus removing the protection offered by the Fourth Amendment.

"Survey II"

Instructions: Indicate your reactions to these statements by placing a check in the appropriate box.