CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: CRIMINAL LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION (PLS 367)
INSTRUCTIONS: Write an essay of between 8 and 10 double-spaced pages.
COVERAGE / OUTSIDE RESEARCH: This essay covers all course materials up to and including the materials on the Exclusionary Rule. No outside research is necessary; in fact, you are strongly discouraged from using out-of-class materials. If you feel that such material is absolutely essential to augment your argument, you can go ahead and include it … but be advised that your job in this essay is to demonstrate your mastery of the course materials (comprehension and analysis). Reliance on outside sources may thus detract from what I am testing, so check with me first.
STYLE: Do not re-hash relevant facts, etc. Assume the reader knows what happened, and wants to see you analyze it, not re-tell it. If along the way you need to mention a relevant fact, that’s fine. But DO NOT give a detailed blow-by-blow account of “what happened.”
OTHER REGULATIONS: Essays must be typed. You may consult with each other (study groups), but under no circumstances are you to write your essays together. Collaboration in the writing of your essay is punishable by automatic failure in the course and administrative discipline, as is the use of any artificial intelligence writing tool in the preparation of your essay.
SCORING: This essay is worth roughly 20% of your final course grade. Please note the requirement for the topic (failure to adhere to them will have negative consequences for your grade): 1. You must make frequent references to the course readings in your essay. 2. You must devote a paragraph at the end of your essay to the counterargument – you should be able to both explain the arguments on the other side of the issue, and discuss why you were not persuaded by these arguments.
TOPIC: In the aftermath of Escobedo v. Illinois, law enforcement officials, politicians, and “lay people” protested that the Warren Court had overburdened the police. Reacting to the Court’s imposition of newly-strict rules governing the acquisition of confessions, New York City’s chief of police, Michael Murphy, complained that what the Court had done was “akin to requiring one boxer to fight by the Marquis of Queensbury Rules while permitting the other to butt, gouge, and bite.”
While Murphy’s reaction can certainly be questioned for its accuracy – as we know, the police were able to comply with Miranda v. Arizona without undue stress – it is the theoretical thrust of his argument that is rather interesting. Murphy felt that in a criminal investigation and prosecution, the police and the suspect should have to play by the same rules. The problem with cases like Miranda, according to Murphy, is that they were ultimately unfair to the police because they were held to a higher standard. It can be argued, however, that making the police play by stricter rules than suspects is perfectly reasonable. Whether it is because the police already enjoy certain natural power-based advantages … or because placing limits on the power of government in general is part of our national tradition … or because the subjective nature of many of these cases affords trial courts a great deal of discretion that is often deployed against defendants … or for other reasons not stated here … some observers suggest restrictions on the police such as what is found in Escobedo, Miranda, Katz, and other cases is a good way level the playing field between suspects and law enforcement.
Is it appropriate to make the police play by stricter rules than suspects? Or should both sides play by equal rules?
I’ve included the following 32 sources which are mostly cases and there are two articles. Some of the sources are only a couple pages. Please use at least 10 sources throughout the essay.
Rochin v. California
Beck v. Ohio
Aguilar v. Texas
Spinelli v. United States
Illinois v. Gates
Olmstead v. United States
Katz v. United States
United States v. Jones
Arizona v. Hicks
United States v. Matlock
Georgia v. Randolph
Warden v. Hayden
Illinois v. Lidster
Chimel v. California
Terry v. Ohio
Minnesota v. Dickerson
Illinois v. Wardlow
Roger Traynor, “Mapp v. Ohio At Large in the Fifty States”
Weeks v. United States
Mapp v. Ohio
United States v. Leon
Arizona v. Evans
Herring v. United States
Nix v. Williams
Mallory v. United States
Massiah v. United States
Escobedo v. Illinois
Miranda v. Arizona
Brewer v. Williams
Dickerson v. United States
Berghuis v. Thompkins
David Sklansky, “Is the Exclusionary Rule Obsolete?”