26 questions, some are short answers.

Description

Instructions

Each question will tell you how much that question is worth. Please read each question in its entirety to be sure you address each portion of the question (some questions may be asking for more than one thing to be answered/addressed). If the question specifically asks you to discuss relevant caselaw, then be sure to include the case name(s) in your answer. This exam is open-book, is not timed, and will be available from Friday morning (Nov. 2nd) at 8am until Tuesday night (Nov. 6th) at 11:59pm. In most instances, a well-written 1-2 paragraphs will be sufficient to answer the question. That being said, be sure you provide enough in your answer to adequately address the question. Also, please be mindful of spelling and grammar.

Expand Question Completion Status:

QUESTION 1

Anytown PD officers have a warrant to arrest Freddie Fredrickson. They go to his home to arrest him, and his wife informs the officers that her husband isn’t home. She allows them to enter the home and wait for Freddie to come home. Once he comes home, the officers explain they have a warrant for his arrest and ask him if they can look around his home. He tells them no, but the officers inform him they are going to search his home anyway (even though they did not have a search warrant) on the basis of the lawful arrest. The search of Freddie’s home yields a number of items connecting him to the crime he allegedly committed. Freddie challenges the search of his home and claims it was a violation of his constitutional rights because the officers had only an arrest warrant, but no search warrant. Was this search lawful? Why or why not? If not, what could the officers have done instead? Discuss relevant caselaw.

Path: pWords:0

5 points

QUESTION 2

The picturesque city of Juiceville has recently enacted two laws that were designed to protect the interests of its largest employer, MegaJuice, Inc. The first law, intended to ensure an ample supply of the fruit essential to the production of MegaJuice's juice declares: "A person cannot eat apples." The second law, an effort to boost demand for MegaJuice's only product, declares "A person can drink juice."

One sunny afternoon, Fran Fruity is strolling down the main street in Juiceville and she gets arrested for consuming a jar of applesauce. The local prosecutor decides that Fran should be charged with violating the first law–"A person cannot eat apples."

Fran hires a defense attorney to represent her. This attorney cites the second law (A person can drink juice), and believes this is reason enough for Fran not to be charged or for Fran to be acquitted at trial.

If you were asked to determine whether Fran had broken the first law, what factors would be important to you in determining the outcome?

Path: pWords:0

3 points

QUESTION 3

John Johnson is an employee of a store/corporation that sells items in bulk. Although he is friends with a number of officers working for the department, he is in no way affiliated with the Happyland Police Department. Based on his work for this corporation, John becomes aware of information/evidence that would be helpful to law enforcement during their investigation of a murder. It is believed that a pair of men's slacks would help solve a murder. John decides (on his own accord) that he is going to enter the corporate apartment of the company he works for so he can look around. He does not have the legal authority to enter the apartment. In spite of that, he enters the apartment, looks around, and retrieves a pair of slacks that likely contain valuable evidence. He then hands over the slacks to Happyland PD detectives. Law enforcement officers were unaware that John was going to retrieve the evidence, and they did not advise him to do so.Even if John did not have the authority to enter the residence, is it likely that the pants could be used as evidence against the alleged murderer (also an employee of the corporation John works for) at trial? Why or why not?

Path: pWords:0

5 points

QUESTION 4

Bobby Robertson is seen by police selling drugs. They arrest him and conduct a search incident to arrest of his person. They find his iPhone X in his pants pocket, and decide to go through his phone without getting a warrant. They justify the search of his phone based on his lawful arrest. The phone reveals photos and videos demonstrating Bobby's participation in several other criminal acts, which lead to him being charged with murder. Bobby argues that even if he was lawfully arrested, the police still violated his constitutional rights by going through his iPhone without getting a warrant before doing so. Does the search incident to arrest exception justify the police going through Bobby's phone because it was found on his person during a lawful arrest?Why or Why not? Include relevant case law in your answer.

Path: pWords:0

5 points

QUESTION 5

What is the significance of Miranda v. Arizona? What rights are afforded to suspects under Miranda?—Be specific.

Path: pWords:0

6 points

QUESTION 6

In class, we discussed whether an individual was 'in custody" based on the circumstances of a particular situation. Consider the following set of facts:

A woman's home is burglarized and when police ask her who she thought had done it, she names Bobby Blue (who happens to be on parole). The officer investigating the case leaves word for Mr. Blue that he would like to speak to him. Bobby calls the officer and the officer asks Bobby where he would like to meet. Bobby says he does not care where they meet, so the officer invites him to come down to the station to speak. Upon his arrival, the officer met Bobby in the hallway, shook his hand, and took him into an office. Bobby was told he was not under arrest, but the office door was closed. The two sat across a desk from each other. The police radio in another room could be heard. The officer told Bobby he wanted to talk to him about a burglary and that his truthfulness would possibly be considered by the district attorney or judge. The officer further advised that the police believed Bobby was involved in the burglary and [falsely stated that] Bobby's fingerprints were found at the scene. Bobby sat for a few minutes and then said he had taken the property. This occurred within five minutes after he had come to the office. The officer then advised Bobby of his Miranda rights and took a taped confession. At the end of the taped conversation the officer told Bobby he was not arresting him at this time; he was released to go about his job and return to his family. The officer said he was referring the case to the district attorney for him to determine whether criminal charges would be brought. Bobby was eventually charged with the crime. He alleged that his incriminating statements should not be used against him because Miranda rights were not read to him before his initial incriminating statement. Based on the facts given, do you think Bobby was in custody? Why or why not?

Path: pWords:0

4 points

QUESTION 7

Which amendment of the U.S. Constitution did the U.S. Supreme Court rely on in making its decision in Miranda v. Arizona?

Path: pWords:0

2 points

QUESTION 8

What is the exclusionary rule? What is the “good-faith” exception to the exclusionary rule? A definition of each will suffice.

Path: pWords:0

4 points

QUESTION 9

What is the name of the U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the exclusionary rule to state cases? In what year was it decided?

Path: pWords:0

2 points

QUESTION 10

Officer Smith became aware that Billy Blue had arrived at the Bold County Sherriff’s Department to get something he needed from his impounded truck. Blue had a history with the criminal justice system, so Officer Smith asked the county’s warrant clerk to do a quick check to see if Blue had any outstanding warrants for his arrest. The clerk found no outstanding warrants, but then decided to check with a clerk in neighboring Reliable County. The clerk in Reliable County checks her computer and finds that there is indeed an active arrest warrant for Billy Blue based on a failure to appear on a felony charge. Bold County asked Reliable County to fax over a copy of that warrant for confirmation, and Officer Smith arrested Billy Blue. A search incident to arrest found methamphetamine and a pistol (as a felon, Billy was not allowed to have a pistol in his possession). It was shortly thereafter revealed that the warrant from Reliable County was not valid because it had been recalled five months earlier. As such, it should have been removed from the computer. This mistake was discovered within 10-15 minutes, but Billy Blue had already been arrested based on the warrant and the search incident to arrest had already revealed the methamphetamine and the pistol. Billy filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that his initial arrest was illegal because the warrant was no longer valid. As such, he argued that the evidence uncovered in the search incident to arrest should be suppressed. Considering the fact that these types of errors are not a regular occurrence, should the evidence be able to be used against Billy Blue? Why or why not? Discuss relevant case law.

Path: pWords:0

4 points

QUESTION 11

On the first night of class, we briefly discussed the core constitutional provisions that would be relevant to our course. Which amendment protects freedom of speech and of the press?

Path: pWords:0

2 points

QUESTION 12

What is the approach the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to take in determining whether probable cause exists in a case when the police are given an anonymous tip about potential illegal activity? What is the case that set forth this approach? What is the name of the test it replaced?

Path: pWords:0

5 points

QUESTION 13

In class, we discussed whether an individual was "in custody" based on the circumstances of a particular situation. Consider the following facts:

Police officers who are investigating reports of child pornography obtain a warrant authorizing them to search the work computer of an employee by the name of Bess. As such, a detective and three other officers appear at Bess’s job and tell her to stop working. They have in their possession the warrant to search her work computer. These officers are in plain clothes and no weapons are visible. She is escorted to the conference room by an HR representative and one of the detectives. Two officers are waiting for them in the conference room. Once they enter the conference room, those two officers leave and close the door behind them. As such, Bess is in the conference room with one detective. The detective tells her she is not under arrest and that she’ll “walk out of here when we’re done.” The officer did not, however, tell her that she was free to leave. The officer does not give a Miranda warning. He questions her for over two hours in a generally calm tone. At one point near the end of the two hours, the officer told Bess, “Like I said at the beginning, you’re not under arrest.” Bess makes incriminating statements during the interview that are used against her at her trial. She argues that she was in custody and that officers should have given the Miranda warnings, and that as a result the incriminating statements should not be used against her. Based on this set of facts, was Bess in custody? Why or why not?

Path: pWords:0

4 points

QUESTION 14

Detroit police officers are conducting a murder investigation, and applied for a warrant to search the person of Susie Smith and "the premises known as 1234 Main Street, fourth floor apartment." After making a reasonable investigation, including a verification of information obtained from a reliable informant, an exterior examination of the four-story building at 1234 Main Street, and an inquiry of the utility company, the officer who obtained the warrant concluded that there was only one apartment on the fourth floor of the building and that this apartment was occupied by Susie.It appeared that the officer had done his due diligence in determining that there was only one apartment on the fourth floor.

When the officers got to the fourth floor of the building to conduct the search there were two doors open (one on the left and one on the right). The officers entered the door to the right and began to search. During the search they found cocaine, cash, and drug paraphernalia. It was at this point that they realized the fourth floor actually had two separate apartments and they were actually in the wrong apartment. They were in the apartment of Betty Blue. As soon as they realized their mistake, they stopped searching Betty's apartment. They did, however, arrest Betty based on the items found in her apartment before the search was discontinued. She was charged with violating that state's Controlled Substances Act. She argued that the search of her apartment was unconstitutional because officers did not have a warrant to search her apartment. Instead, they had a warrant to search Susie's apartment.

What should the trial court do? Should the evidence found in Betty's apartment be used against her at trial? Why or Why not. Discuss relevant case law. If you happen to disagree with relevant case law, explain why.

Path: pWords:0

4 points

QUESTION 15

If a defendant is challenging a search of his residence and saying that it was unlawful, which amendment of the U.S. Constitution is he saying was violated?

Path: pWords:0

2 points

QUESTION 16

In Maryland v. King (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment allows states to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested, but not convicted, of serious crimes. How do they justify their holding in this case? Do you agree with the outcome of this case? Why or Why not?

Path: pWords:0

5 points

QUESTION 17

A young girl is kidnapped, and police feverishly try to locate her. They are able to identify a potential suspect who likely knows the location of the little girl. They find the suspect hiding on his ex-wife's boat. One of the officers working the case immediately sticks a gun in the suspect's face and begins to demand that the suspect tells him where to find the girl. The suspect refuses to provide any information. As such, the officer repeatedly puts the suspect's head in the toilet and tells him he will continue to do so until the suspect tells him what he wants to hear. After multiple "dips" in the toilet, the suspect finally tells the officer where the little girl can be found. She is indeed found safely. After being charged with kidnapping, the attorney for the suspect (now defendant) argues that the defendant's incriminating statements should be suppressed because of the officer's actions. Based on the facts given here, what should the judge decide? Should the incriminating statements be admissible? Why or why not? Include relevant case law.

Path: pWords:0

4 points

QUESTION 18

Which amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides individuals with the right to have counsel?

Path: pWords:0

2 points

QUESTION 19

Which amendment of the U.S. Constitution was used to make the majority of rights afforded to citizens in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states?

Path: pWords:0

2 points

QUESTION 20

Several years ago, police arrested six men in connection with a series of crimes. One of these men confessed to the FBI, while also providing them with this cell phone number and the numbers of the other participants. This information was used to obtain a court order pursuant to a federal statute that provided them with transactional records for each of the phone numbers. The records they obtained included the date and time of calls, and the approximate location where calls began and ended based on their connections to cell towers–"cell site" location information (CSLI). The cell-site evidence led to Freddy Fredrickson being indicted for several federal offenses. Fredrickson moved to suppress and argued that the government's cell-site evidence had violated his Fourth Amendment rights because the government failed to get a search warrant. What did the U.S. Supreme Court decide in a recent case with this set of facts? Briefly discuss the Court's decision in that case. Do you agree with the outcome of this case that was discussed in class? Why or Why not?

Path: pWords:0

5 points

QUESTION 21

What is the significance of the Katz v. U.S. decision? What important 2-part test did it provide for us?

Path: pWords:0

5 points

QUESTION 22

What are exigent circumstances? Provide a definition of exigent circumstances, and then explain one of the categories of exigent circumstances we discussed in class. Provide the name of the case we discussed that fits into the category you describe, and give a brief description of that case.

Path: pWords:0

5 points

QUESTION 23

Joan Johnson got into a fight with another woman outside of a bar shortly before midnight. During the course of the fight Joan beat the other woman to within an inch of her life, and then shot her. The woman was taken to the hospital where she was pronounced dead on arrival, while Joan fled the scene and went home. At about 3am, several police officers arrived at Joan's residence and an unidentified woman let them in to the residence. They found Joan in her bedroom and began to question her. One of the officers would later admit while giving testimony that once Joan identified herself, she was "under arrest," and was not free to go where she pleased. They began to question her while they were all still in her bedroom. They asked her about her movements several hours prior and she admitted she had been at the bar. They asked if she owned a handgun, and she admitted that she did. They then asked her where the gun was and she directed them to the handgun which they seized. Ballistics tests of the gun indicated it was the gun that had killed the victim. Joan was charged in the death of the victim, and she tried to suppress the incriminating statements she made to police in her bedroom because the officers did not read her the Miranda warnings before questioning her.

Should the incriminating statements made by Joan be used her against her at her trial? Why or why not? Discuss relevant case law.

Path: pWords:0

4 points

QUESTION 24

John Johnson was a murder suspect held by police and repeatedly interrogated over a four-day period. On the third day, the local police chief told Johnson that there was a mob of about 65 people waiting outside of the jail to "get him." The chief told Johnson that he would try to keep the mob away if he would confess to the crime. As such, Johnson confessed. Neither law enforcement, nor any members of the mob physically harmed John. Should the confession be used against Johnson? Why or why not? Which case discussed in class supports your answer? Do you agree with the outcome of that case? Why or why not?

Path: pWords:0

4 points

QUESTION 25

Oakland PD officers receive information leading them to believe that Sally Sweet is selling drugs from her home. An officer from Oakland PD watched the home and noticed a number of vehicles making brief stops at her house late at night and early in the morning. The officer began to believe that Sally was indeed involved in trafficking drugs. The officer did not have enough for a warrant at the time, so he asked the local trash collector to pick up the trash Sally left out on the curb in front of her house (outside the curtilage of her home). This trash was kept separate from the trash of Sally’s neighbors. The evidence found in the trash was enough to help the officer secure a search warrant of Sally’s home. The search of her home yielded cocaine and marijuana. Would a court likely find that the actions of the officer lawful? In other words, was the officer allowed to look through Sally’s trash the way he did? Why or why not? Include relevant case law in your answer.

Path: pWords:0

5 points

QUESTION 26

On the first night of class, we briefly discussed the core constitutional provisions that would be relevant to our course. Which amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishment?