Opinion ID: 2088275
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process of Law

Text: Burbine also disposed of the claim that the conduct of the police was so offensive as to deprive him of the fundamental fairness guaranteed by that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits any State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.... Burbine alleged that conveying false information to an attorney should be condemned as violative of canons fundamental to the traditions and conscience of our people. 106 S.Ct. at 1147 (citations omitted). The Court held that, on the facts, the challenged conduct falls short of the kind of misbehavior that so shocks the sensibilities of civilized society as to warrant a federal intrusion into the criminal processes of the States. Id. at 1148. It left the door ajar, however: We do not question that on facts more egregious than those presented here police deception might rise to a level of a due process violation. Id. at 1147. Since the police conduct in Burbine regarding counsel was not sufficient to rise to a level of a federal constitution due process violation, we cannot say that similar police conduct with respect to Lodowski's counsel reached that level. There was no deception, conspiracy or collusion on the part of the police which prevented Lodowski's lawyers from reaching their client. As we noted in Lodowski I: The police made their position perfectly clear to the lawyers, to the State's Attorney and to the judge. Their position was that since Lodowski had waived his right to counsel and had not asked for a lawyer, they were not going to allow the lawyers representing him to talk to him. 302 Md. at 714, 490 A.2d 1228. Those facts appear to be less egregious than the facts in Burbine. Therefore, in light of Burbine, we hold that the conduct of the police regarding Lodowski's counsel did not violate the due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. The first question we posed to be briefed and argued before us on the remand of our Lodowski v. State, supra , by the Supreme Court was: Whether, under the decision of the Supreme Court in Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. [___, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed.2d 410] (1986), this Court erred in holding, as a matter of federal constitutional law, that the third statement made by Kenneth James Lodowski to the police was inadmissible in evidence. The answer to that question is yes.