Setting and background: On May 17, 2007, three Cleveland, Ohio, police officers arrived at the home of Perry Davis, accused him of harboring a person wanted for questioning, and charged him with concealing narcotics in his home. On his attorney's advice, he refused to admit the police without a search warrant.
After notifying headquarters, the police maintained a watch until reinforcements arrived. When they knocked on the door, Davis's 11-year-old son, Sean, answered. The officers produced a scrap of paper, allegedly a warrant, and asked the boy if they could search the premises. When the officers entered the house, Mr. Davis demanded to see the warrant. He snatched the paper from the officer, but in the ensuing struggle the officer recovered it. It was later determined not be a proper warrant. A search of the bedroom produced a 3-pound bag of a substance believed by the police to be cocaine. Mr. Davis said it belonged to a former tenant, but he was convicted of possession and sentenced to from 1 to 7 years. His case is now being appealed.

The problem with the warrant? Click here for a copy of the warrant. Notice the circled spot where the judge was supposed to sign -- the judge never signed the warrant as required. This is the problem. However, in the original trial, the judge testified that she saw the officers, saw the warrant, approved of it, and thought she DID sign it. She cannot explain why it's not signed.

The prosecution contended that the police were given permission to enter by the son and, hence, whether or not there was a warrant was not important. The Supreme Court has upheld exceptions to the need for a warrant in United States v. Leon (1984), if the officers, in good faith, believe they were allowed to enter. The police believe Sean's consent and/or the judge's approval demonstrates their good faith in entering.
The defense claims that the police did not use good faith and the full protection of the Fourth Amendment should be afforded Mr. Davis. Davis's defense claims Sean, as a child, was possibly subject to intimidation, and that there's no legal PROOF the judge approved or even saw the warrant (and no matter what, it wasn't signed!).

How should the appeals court rule? Is there enough evidence of good faith to uphold the conviction, or should it be overturned on a Fourth Amendment violation?

Presentations, Schedule: Below is a flow chart of judicial activity up to the point where our exercise begins:

To be decided in our exercise: To uphold Davis's conviction by delaring the search to be valid, or to overturn the conviction because of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Our class activity: Day one. The lawyers argue their case in front of the justices. The prosecution (police) present first, then the defense (Davis). The prosecution has 6 minutes to argue, the defense then has 8 minutes, and the prosecution will have two final minutes to rebut. Outside of class, the judges will conference, vote, and write opinions (see "To be decided...", above). Day two. The judges announce their decision, and we will discuss the case.

*Based on Ross, Robert S., American National Government: Institutions, Policy, and Participation, 3rd edition, Dushkin Publishing Group, 1993. p.118.