Lightning Case Module #002
Search and Seizure
Dr. Brad Burenheide
Kansas State University
College of Education
Contents
For Teachers: Overview of Lightning Case Module
3
Introduction to the Controversy
7
The Cases
8
Weeks v. US (1914)
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Katz v . U.S. (1967)
Illinois v. Gates (1983)
Nix v. Williams (1984)
Flippo v. West Virginia (1999)
Brigham City, UT v. Stuart (2006)
For Teachers: More About the Cases (decisions and more)
12
Final Assessment California v. Greenwood (1987)
14
Bibliography
15
For Teachers: Overview of Lightning Case Model
Under the ruling levied in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court became the
institution in the American legal system that serves as the ultimate arbiter of issues of
constitutional law. In the opinion, Justice John Marshal noted that “the judicial power of
the United states is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution…It is also not
entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the
land, the Constitution, itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States
generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have the
rank (Marbury v. Madison, 1803).”
Under this system of judicial review, it becomes extremely important for students to
understand the rights contained with the Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights as
the Constitution is the ultimate law of the United States. As precedents developed, the
scope of the rights of citizens has evolved over time. Thus, it becomes important for
citizens to follow this evolution and how the courts currently measure these rights.
As Vontz and Leming noted, the use of Supreme Court cases lend themselves well to
certain methods (Vontz & Leming, 2003). But, in this specific case, it is important to realize
that the method must be integrated with the content. Vontz and Lemming further suggest
civics educators who utilize active and participatory strategies, analyze documents and
issues, teach with relevant topics, and teach civics content relevant to democratic
citizenship can best motivate students to acquire knowledge of citizenship. One of the
means of doing this is through the analysis of Supreme Court cases.
The case study method of court decisions can engage students in gaining key
knowledge through the analysis of important cases (McDonnell, 2002; Long, 1994). Vontz
and Leming denote however that the understanding of the “bigger topics” of citizenship can
be collected from the study of Supreme Court cases than the law students analyzing cases
for method and specific topics of study (Vontz & Leming, 2003). These cases can allow
students to investigate facts, issues, arguments, context, civic principles, and higher order
thinking skills (Knapp, 1993; Leming, 1991).
While there are common strategies to dissect cases of the Supreme Court, many of
them can be heavily involved and use up a large amount of time in the classroom. Hanna
and Dettmer (2004) encourage the teacher when designing assessments to maintain a
balance between reliability, authenticity, and economy. Reliability would be accuracy of
the measurement. Authenticity deals with the real-world application of knowledge to
encourage transfer of learning. Economy deals with the use of time, effort, and energy in
administering the assessment. Where economy focuses on the great “enemy” of the
teacher—time—the teacher must consider if the strategy is the optimal and most
appropriate use of time. In their article encouraging the use of Supreme Court cases, Vontz
and Leming (2003) called for the use of Socratic seminars and moot court cases to
effectively analyze the thinking of the court, the institution of the case in an historical
context, and by taking an active role in the participating of the activity, becoming content
experts of the case. But is this the best use of time in the classroom? Does the depth of
content in this instance supersede the coverage of breadth? This study intends to analyze
this question by employing a strategy that employs a significant quantity of cases without
sacrificing the apparent quality of learning.
Description of the Model
The “Lightning Case” method discussed in this study is rooted in a sound literature
base of experiential learning. Kolb (1984) and Kolb and Lewis (1986) provide a model for
experiential learning or having students actively engaged in testing explanatory ideas
created by the student. Mukhamedyarova (2005) explored the idea of interactive learning
and evaluated five strategies commonly used. O’Brien (2003) discussed a model for
students to engage in historical prediction making. Finally, Hess (2002) and Parker (2003)
illuminated the nature of controversial deliberation in the classroom and provided
guidelines for teachers to follow.
Through the sources cited above, a model was constructed that causes students to
be actively engaged in the analysis of cases, make predictions based upon their knowledge
of the Constitution, and discuss with fellow students, albeit briefly, about their decisions
and rationale. Figure 1 provides a visual overview of the model.
Figure 1: An Overview of the “Lightning Case” Model
Teacher Guides
Overview of
Right/Concept in
Question
Students deliberate a
number of illustrative
cases dealing with the
concept.
Students tackle a
Students conceptualize
number of
the boundscases
of the
illustrative
right/concept in the eyes
dealing with the
of the law.
concept.
The model provides students with the opportunity to utilize several cases to
develop their own conceptualization of the boundaries of liberty within society and in the
“eyes of the law.” The teacher provides a brief overview of the rights enumerated in the
Constitution based upon the specific concept that will be addressed. After this introduction,
several cases are presented to the student in a written or oral format with a short synopsis
of the key facts of illustrative Supreme Court cases. Pending on the teacher’s preference,
students may be given the opportunity to deliberate with their classmates, or they will
create their own decision of the case. After the court’s actual decisions are shared with the
students with brief rationale for their decision, students conceptualize the boundary of the
right or concept discussed in the “Lightning Case” session.
Introduction to the Controversy
The Fourth Amendment
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.
In this module, you will explore a set of cases that have set the precedents
dealing with search and seizure. You will read a short synopsis of the case and
based on the facts given, provide their opinion of the case. The teacher will then
inform you if it was correct or not. Continue looking at the cases and see if you can
determine what the bounds of the case are.
The Cases
Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
Overview of the Case
Police entered the home of Fremont Weeks and seized papers, which were used to
convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. This was done without
a search warrant. Weeks took action against the police and petitioned for the return
of his private possessions.
Question
Did this search and seizure violate Week’s Fourth Amendment Rights?
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Overview of the Case
Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly
illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the
basis of freedom of expression.
Question
Is the evidence obtained illegally admissible in a court of law?
Katz v. U.S. (1967)
Overview of the Case
Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the
phone to clients in other states, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to
the outside of a public phone booth used by Katz. Based on recordings of his end of
the conversations, Katz was convicted under an eight-count indictment for the
illegal transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami.
On appeal, Katz challenged his conviction arguing that the recordings could not be
used as evidence against him. The Court of Appeals rejected this point, noting the
absence of a physical intrusion into the phone booth itself. The Court granted
certiorari and heard the case.
Question
Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone?
Illinois v. Gates (1983)
Overview of the Case
The Bloomingdale, Illinois Police Department received an anonymous tip that
Lance and Susan Gates were selling drugs out of their home. After observing the
Gates's drug smuggling operation in action, police obtained a warrant and upon
searching the suspects' car and home uncovered large quantities of marijuana, other
contraband, and weapons.
Question
Did the search of the Gates's home violate the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments?
Nix v. Williams (1984)
Overview of the Case
Williams was arrested for the murder of a ten-year-old girl. He disposed of the body
along a gravel road. State law enforcement officials engaged in a massive search for
the child's body. During the search, after responding to an officer's appeal for
assistance, Williams made statements to the police (without an attorney present)
which helped lead the searchers to the child's body. The defendant's Miranda rights
were only read to him after his arrest.
Question
Should evidence resulting in an arrest be excluded from trial because it was
improperly obtained?
Note bene
It would be extremely difficult to convict Williams of murder without the discovery
of the body. Thus, the evidence of the body would be vital for the prosecution’s case.
Flippo v. West Virginia (1999)
Overview of the Case
In 1996, James Michael Flippo called 911 to report that he and his wife had been
attacked while camping in a West Virginia state park. Inside Flippo's cabin, officer's
found his wife, with fatal head wounds. During their search, officers found and
opened a closed briefcase, in which they discovered various photographs and
negatives that allegedly incriminated Flippo. After he was indicted for murder,
Flippo moved to suppress the photographs and negatives on the grounds that the
police had obtained no warrant, and that no exception to the warrant requirement
of the Fourth Amendment had justified the search and seizure. The Circuit Court
denied the motion to suppress on the ground that the officers, having secured the
homicide crime scene for investigative purposes, had been within the law to conduct
a thorough investigation and examination of anything and everything found within
the crime scene area. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
denied discretionary review. Flippo took the case to the Supreme Court that heard
the case.
Question
Does the judgment of a West Virginia Circuit Court, which denied a motion to
suppress evidence on the ground that the police were entitled to make a thorough
search of any crime scene and the objects found there violate Flippo’s Fourth
Amendment rights?
Brigham City, UT v. Stuart (2006)
Overview of the Case
Responding to a complaint about a loud party, police arrived at a house where they
saw minors drinking alcohol outside and heard shouting inside. As they approached
the house, they saw a fight through the window involving a juvenile and four adults,
one of whom was punched hard enough to make him spit blood. The officers
announced their presence, but the people fighting did not hear them so they entered
the home. They arrested the men for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and
other related offenses. The trial court judge, however, refused to allow the evidence
collected after the police entered the home because it was a warrantless search in
violation of the Fourth Amendment. On appeal, the government argued that the
search was covered by the "emergency aid doctrine" because the officers were
responding to seeing the man be punched. The Supreme Court of Utah disagreed,
however, ruling that the doctrine only applies when there is an unconscious,
semiconscious, or missing person who is feared injured or dead. The Court also gave
weight to the fact that the officers acted exclusively in a law enforcement capacity,
not to assist the injured man.
Question
Were the events of the case significant enough to trigger the emergency aid
exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement?
For Teachers: More About the Cases
Weeks v. US (1914)
In a unanimous decision, the court declared that the search was unconstitutional.
This case established the “exclusion rule” for case law. This rule established that
evidence obtained illegally could not be used in a court of law.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
In a 6-3 ruling, the Court ruled the search was unconstitutional. The case was
significant as it applied the exclusion rule to both the federal government (Weeks)
and to state governments.
Katz v. U.S. (1967)
In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled that the wiretap was unconstitutional. The
justices ruled that the 4th Amendment “protects people” not just evidence.
Illinois v. Gates (1983)
In a 6-3 decision, the court found no violation of the police department’s actions.
They stated that the police acted within a “totality of circumstances.”
Nix v. Williams (1984)
In a 7-2 decision, the Court developed the “inevitable discovery” doctrine. As it was
determined that the volunteer’s would have eventually found the body, it could be
admitted as evidence.
Flippo v. West Virginia (1999)
In a 9-0 decision, the Court said that in investigating a murder scene, those
conducting the search do not receive free reign to search parts of the scene if there
is no likelihood of finding other suspects or victims. Thus, the search of the police
was unconstitutional.
Brigham City, UT v. Stuart (2006)
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that police may enter a building
without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe that an
occupant is “seriously injured or threatened with such injury.” Chief Justice John
Roberts wrote “[t]he need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is
justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.”
The actions of the Brigham City police department were legal.
Final Assessment
California v. Greenwood (1987)
The court decided 6-2 that garbage placed at the curbside is unprotected by the
Fourth Amendment. The Court argued that there was no reasonable expectation of
privacy for trash on public streets “readily accessible to animals, children,
scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public.” The Court also noted that
the police cannot be expected to ignore criminal activity that can be observed by
“any member of the public.”
Final Assessment:
Review your understanding of the Fourth Amendment from the cases you have
explored to this point in time. You will be given a final case to decide upon. In
addition to your decision, you need to write a position as to why you decided how
you did. A note of warning, this case is a tough one to decide. To support your
decision, it would be important for you to cite previous cases in your decision.
California v. Greenwood (1987)
Overview of the Case
Local police suspected Billy Greenwood was dealing drugs from his residence from
an anonymous tip. Because the police did not have enough evidence for a warrant to
search his home, they searched the garbage bags Greenwood had left at the curb for
pickup. The police uncovered evidence of drug use, which was then used to obtain a
warrant to search the house. That search turned up illegal substances, and
Greenwood was arrested on felony possession charges.
Question
Did the warrantless search and seizure of Greenwood's garbage violate the Fourth
Amendment's search and seizure guarantee?
Bibliography
Cover Graphic:
http://www.dwiblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/officer_search.jpg
Overview of the Controversy
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Weeks v. US (1914)
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1913/1913_461
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_236
Katz v. U.S. (1967)
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_35
Illinois v. Gates (1983)
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_430
Nix v. Williams (1984)
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_1651
Flippo v. West Virginia (1999)
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_8770
Brigham City, UT v. Stuart (2006)
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_05_502
California v. Greenwood (1987)
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_684