2023 Criminal Procedure Final Exam (AQA) PDF

Final Exam Criminal Procedure Fall 2023 - Professor Bregant Instructions: ❖ You may use any non-intelligent, non-human resource on this exam (including the internet, but excluding ChatGPT or similar AI bots); it is open-book /...

Final Exam Criminal Procedure Fall 2023 - Professor Bregant Instructions: ❖ You may use any non-intelligent, non-human resource on this exam (including the internet, but excluding ChatGPT or similar AI bots); it is open-book / open-note, but your final work product must be entirely your own. ❖ Assume that each question takes place in a U.S. state, and all relevant facts have been included in the question. If you think you need information that has not been provided, note what that information is and how it might change your analysis. (In other words, if you tell me “it depends,” also tell me what it depends on.) ❖ You should use ONLY your exam ID when writing and uploading your responses -- to maintain grading anonymity, do NOT use your name. ❖ This exam has 10 multiple choice questions and one essay question. ❖ For the multiple choice questions, you should choose the BEST answer. ❖ You may write very short explanations for up to FOUR of the multiple choice questions. If you get the answer wrong, I will read your explanation and determine whether you will get partial credit. Put your explanations in the document that you upload with your essay response, and be sure to indicate which of the multiple choice questions they go with. General advice: ❖ You should discuss all of the most relevant arguments in your favor, even if one of the issues would be dispositive. For example, if the question raises issues X, Y, and Z, you should still discuss Y and Z even if winning on X would be enough to win the motion. ❖ Remember that I am not grading your writing style, but I do need to be able to understand what you mean if I’m going to give you credit. ❖ Case names, other than Miranda and Terry, are not necessary, though they can be helpful shorthand for your arguments. ❖ Read the facts of each question carefully! These issues are often highly fact-specific, so be sure you don’t miss any of the facts. Good luck! 1  Part One: Multiple Choice (5 points each) Question 1 Henry was lawfully arrested without a warrant on suspicion of bank robbery. He was not given Miranda warnings, but was immediately transported to the police station where he and six other men were placed in a lineup. Each man was required to read the lines the robber had spoken: “Don’t make any trouble! Put all the loot in the bag!” After they had all read the lines, a bank teller who had been working during the robbery identified Henry as the robber. Before trial, Henry’s lawyer moved to suppress the teller’s identification of Henry, arguing that the lineup violated Henry’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. At a hearing on the motion to suppress, the bank teller testified that she had identified Henry based on his voice, because she hadn’t gotten a very good look at him. Should the defendant’s motion be granted? A. Yes, because the police violated Henry’s right against self-incrimination when they made him read the statements. B. Yes, because the police did not offer to contact an attorney for Henry or inform him of his right to remain silent. C. No, because Henry voluntarily read the lines aloud during the lineup. D. No, because Henry had not been indicted or arraigned prior to the lineup. 2 Question 2 Police officers received a tip that Maggie was selling illegal drugs from her ground-floor apartment. They began a stakeout of the apartment. The stakeout revealed many people visiting Maggie's apartment for short periods of time. One night, Mark exited Maggie's apartment and started walking away quickly. The officers grabbed Mark, wrestled him to the ground when he struggled, and searched him. They found a bag of heroin in his pocket. After finding the drugs on Mark, the officers knocked on Maggie's door. Maggie answered and gave the officers permission to enter the apartment. Inside, they saw several bags of heroin on the living room table. Maggie has been charged with possessing the heroin on the table. She filed a motion to suppress the heroin evidence, arguing it was obtained by an illegal search. Should Maggie's motion be granted? A. No, because the tip and drugs found on Mark provided probable cause. B. No, because Maggie consented to the entry. C. Yes, because entering the apartment was the fruit of illegally searching Mark. D. Yes, because Maggie was not informed she could refuse consent. 3 Question 3 State troopers lawfully stopped Suzie on a turnpike for exceeding the speed limit by four miles per hour. One trooper approached the car to warn the driver to drive within the speed limit. The other trooper remained in the patrol car and ran a computer check of the car’s license number. The computer check indicated that there was an outstanding warrant for the Suzie’s arrest for unpaid traffic tickets. The troopers then arrested Suzie based on the warrant, and they proceeded to search the driver. During the search, they discovered a package of methamphetamine in one of the driver’s pockets. Later, it was learned that the driver had paid the outstanding traffic tickets 10 days earlier and that the warrant had been quashed, but the clerk of the court had failed to update the computer, which continued to list the warrant as outstanding. Suzie was charged with unlawful possession of methamphetamine. Her attorney has filed a motion to suppress the use of the methamphetamine as evidence. Should the motion be granted? A. No, because the troopers could reasonably rely on the computer report and the search was incident to arrest. B. No, because troopers may lawfully search a driver incident to a valid traffic stop. C. Yes, because there was no arrest for the traffic violation and no lawful arrest could be made on the basis of the warrant. D. Yes, because there was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver possessed drugs. 4 Question 4 Sarah, a computer expert, decided to dedicate herself to exposing people who traffic in child pornography. She posted sexually explicit photos on her website. Each photo file contained a Trojan horse program that would let Sarah access the computer of anyone who downloaded the photo. Mike downloaded one of Sarah's photos onto his personal computer. Using the Trojan horse program, Sarah entered Mike's computer and found a file with pornographic photos of a child. She copied the file and gave it to the FBI. An FBI agent told Sarah they needed more than one photo for a successful case and offered her a reward for more photos leading to Mike's conviction. Sarah entered Mike's computer again and found hundreds of child pornography photos, which she also turned over. Mike was charged with multiple counts of violating child pornography laws. He moved to suppress the photos Sarah took from his computer, based on the 4th Amendment and a state law prohibiting electronic communication interception without consent. The parties agree Sarah violated the interception law when downloading Mike's photos. How should the court rule on Mike's motion to suppress? A. Deny the motion for all photos. B. Grant the motion for all photos, because Sarah lacked probable cause. C. Grant the motion for all photos, because Sarah violated the state interception law. D. Grant the motion, but only for the second set of photos. 5 Question 5 A valid warrant was issued for Carmen Sandiego’s arrest. When they went to Carmen’s last recorded address, they found the windows and doors were boarded up with plywood, and the lawn had not been mowed for a long time. A neighbor confirmed that the house belonged to Carmen Sandiego but said that Carmen had not been there for several months. The officers knocked repeatedly on the front door and shouted, “Police! Open up!” Receiving no response, they tore the plywood off the door, smashed through the door with a sledgehammer, and entered the house. They found no one inside, but they did find an illegal sawed-off shotgun. When she returned to the house a few weeks later, Carmen was charged with unlawful possession of the shotgun. Carmen has moved to suppress the use of the shotgun as evidence at her trial. Should the court grant the motion? A. No, because the officers acted in good faith under the authority of a valid warrant. B. No, because Carmen had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the house since she had abandoned it. C. Yes, because the officers entered the house by means of excessive force. D. Yes, because the officers had no reason to believe that Carmen was in the house. 6 Question 6 Officer Jones had probable cause to believe that Annie had participated in a jewelry store robbery. Two days after the robbery, Annie checked into a local hotel. When Annie left her room for the evening, the hotel manager opened Annie’s hotel room door so Officer Jones could enter and look around. Officer Jones did not find any of the stolen jewelry, but saw Annie’s diary open on the bed. The diary contained an entry about Annie robbing the jewelry store. Annie was charged with the robbery. She moved to suppress the diary. Should the court suppress the diary? A. Yes, because Officer Jones had no warrant. B. Yes, because admitting the diary would violate Anne's privilege against self-incrimination. C. No, because the hotel manager had actual authority to allow Officer Jones into the room. D. No, because Officer Jones reasonably relied on the hotel manager having apparent authority to allow entry. 7 Question 7 U.S. Customs officials received an anonymous tip that heroin would be found inside a red package being mailed from a particular foreign country to Jason’s address in the United States. Following this tip, customs officers intercepted and opened the package, finding heroin inside. They resealed the package with the heroin still inside and notified the FBI, who watched as the package was delivered to Jason’s house. The FBI then got a warrant to search Jason’s house for the package. About two hours after delivery, FBI agents executed the search warrant. When Jason answered the door, he was arrested. The agents found the unopened package in an upstairs bedroom closet. After seizing the package, the agents searched the rest of Jason’s house, finding a machine gun in a footlocker in the basement. Jason was charged with illegally possessing the machine gun. He moved to suppress using the gun as evidence. Should the court grant Jason's motion to suppress the machine gun? A. Yes, because the search exceeded the scope authorized by the warrant. B. Yes, because the initial customs search lacked probable cause. C. No, because the agents had probable cause to arrest Jason. D. No, because drug dealers are often armed, so searching was necessary. 8 Question 8 In Hypoville, several armed bank robberies were committed near closing time by a masked man wearing a white hooded sweatshirt and blue sweatpants. Police saw Xavier, a man wearing a similar white hooded sweatshirt and blue sweatpants, pacing nervously outside a bank before closing. The police stopped Xavier and frisked his clothes but found no weapons and no mask. They asked what he was doing there and pointed out his clothes matched the robber’s. After pausing, Xavier confessed to the robberies. The police had not given Xavier any Miranda warnings. After being charged, Xavier moved to suppress his confession. The parties agreed, and the court properly found, that the police had reasonable suspicion but not probable cause before Xavier confessed. Should Xavier's motion to suppress be granted? A. Yes, because the confession came after a 4th Amendment violation, despite no Miranda violation. B. Yes, because the confession came after a Miranda violation, despite no 4th Amendment violation. C. Yes, because the confession came after both 4th Amendment and Miranda violations. D. No, because there was neither a 4th Amendment nor a Miranda violation. 9 Question 9 The police arrested David for the murder of a store clerk and took him to the police station, where they gave him Miranda warnings. The following conversation then took place: INTERROGATOR (I): Do you understand your rights and will you give them up to talk to us? DAVID (D): Yes. I: Did you kill the clerk? D: No. I: Where were you when the clerk was killed? D: Maybe I should talk to a lawyer. I: Are you sure? D: I'm not sure. I: Why would you want a lawyer? D: Because I killed the clerk. It was an accident, and I need a lawyer to defend me. Then they stopped the questions. Later, David was formally charged with the clerk’s murder. He moved to suppress his statement admitting to the killing, arguing it violated his Miranda rights. Should David's motion be granted? A. No, because although David seemed to ask for counsel, asking why he wanted one did not constitute custodial interrogation. B. No, because David did not clearly ask for counsel, and he had properly waived his rights before talking. C. Yes, because while David did not clearly ask for counsel, he had not properly waived his rights. D. Yes, because David asked for counsel, and asking why was custodial interrogation. 10 Question 10 Officer Eve had a hunch, but not probable cause, that Frank was a drug dealer. While Eve was on highway patrol one day, her radar clocked Frank’s car going 68 mph where the limit was 65 mph. Eve usually didn’t stop cars under 5 mph over, but she decided to stop Frank’s car hoping to find evidence of drugs. After stopping Frank's car for speeding, Eve said she'd write a ticket and ordered Frank and his passenger, Damien, to step out. When Damien stepped out, Eve saw he’d been sitting on a bag of marijuana. Eve arrested Frank and Damien for marijuana possession. At their joint trial, Frank and Damien claim their 4th Amendment rights were violated because Eve (1) stopped them as a pretext, not to write a ticket, and (2) ordered Damien out without reason to think he was dangerous. Are Frank and Damien correct? A. No, both the stop and order to get out of the car were constitutional. B. No as to the stop, but yes on ordering Damien out. C. Yes on the stop, but no on ordering Damien out. D. Yes, both the stop and order violated their constitutional rights. 11  Part Two: Essay (50 points) Police responded to a call reporting gunshots at Julie Green’s house. When they arrived, they could see a man lying unconscious on the floor in her kitchen, apparently having been shot in the back. The front door was unlocked, so the officers entered Julie’s house and called for an ambulance. While they waited, Officer Jimenez walked through the house to check for other victims. In the living room, he found baggies of white powder on a table and seized them. Lab tests later confirmed that the powder was cocaine. No other people were found in the house. After the unconscious man, whose ID revealed that he was a local drug lord named Victor “Vic” Steele, had been taken away by the ambulance, police searched the house for a gun, but they did not find one. In an upstairs bedroom, Officer Jimenez opened a dresser drawer and found a large bag of marijuana. He seized it. Meanwhile, on the other side of town, Officer Everline was on routine patrol with his K-9 partner, Skippy the Drug Dog, when he spotted an orange Toyota Camry with a broken tail light. Officer Everline pulled the car over and asked the driver for her identification. She provided a license with the name “Jessica Rabbit.” Glancing through the windows into the car, he saw that it was messy and looked as though things had been tossed in hurriedly. In his experience, drug users commonly have messy cars, so he decided to walk Skippy around the car. At the rear passenger door, Skippy sat down. Officer Everline told the driver that Skippy had just “alerted,” indicating that there were drugs present (you can assume that sitting down is indeed how Skippy normally “alerts”), and that it would go easier for her if she just told him where the drugs were. “Jessica” did not answer. Finding her silence suspicious, Officer Everline then ordered her out of the car and told her that he was going to frisk her and then search the car. Before conducting the frisk, he handcuffed “Jessica” and asked if she was carrying any weapons or had anything on her that could injure him. She responded that she was carrying a gun in a concealed shoulder holster under her jacket (concealed carry of this sort was legal under state law). The officer removed a 9mm handgun from the shoulder holster. He then began a search of the car. In the glove compartment, Officer Everline found a small tin box containing nearly $350 in cash. He also found a box of 9mm ammunition under the front passenger seat. He found no drugs or anything else of interest. As he was preparing a written warning for the broken tail light, however, he heard a call go out over the radio for all officers to be on the lookout for Julie Green, along with a description of Julie and the license plate number of her orange Toyota Camry. On the basis of the alert, Officer Everline arrested “Jessica” on suspicion of attempted murder and providing false identification to a police 12 officer and transported her to the police station. He did not advise the suspect of her Miranda rights, and he did not attempt to question her. Back at the station, Officer Jimenez went to question “Jessica Rabbit.” He told her that she matched the physical description of Julie Green, whom they had learned was already under indictment for possession and distribution of cocaine. He then asked, “If we run your fingerprints through the system, are they going to come back as a match to Julie Green?” The suspect shrugged but did not respond. He then asked, “And if we run ballistics on your gun, are we going to find that it matches the slugs that doctors just pulled out of Vic Steele at the hospital?” Again, the suspect shrugged and said, “I have nothing to say to you.” Officer Jimenez took the suspect back to the holding cells. Half an hour later, police were told that Vic Steele had died at the hospital. A homicide detective, Detective Poulet, took the suspect to a different interrogation room on the same floor. He read her Miranda rights and asked if she wanted to speak to him, but she only shrugged. Detective Poulet then put graphic photos of the shooting victim and his wounds down on the table in front of her. The following conversation then took place: DETECTIVE POULET (DP): Someone really shot this guy to hell, Julie. SUSPECT (S): I’m not Julie, my name is Jessica. Why are you showing those to me? Take them away. DP: Look at them, Julie. Someone shot Vic Steele 4 times in the back. What do you suppose that does to a human body? S: (no response) DP: It’s a miracle he lived, the doctors said. S: He’s alive? DP: Yeah, didn’t we tell you? Doc says he’ll be awake and talking within the hour. So if you want to tell me your side of the story first, Julie, this is your chance. S: Can I still have a lawyer? DP: Of course you can have a lawyer. That’s your right. But you know, it will take at least a couple of hours to find a lawyer for you, and by the time he gets here, Vic will have told us everything. S: … DP: What’s it going to be, Julie? S: …fine, I’ll tell you everything. But I only shot him because he was going to kill me! The suspect admitted that she was Julie Green, and that she had shot Vic Steele. She claimed it was self-defense, after Vic had tried to rob her after buying cocaine from her. She was then charged with the murder of Vic Steele. 13 Before her murder trial, her attorney moves to suppress: (1) the 9mm handgun seized by Officer Everline during the traffic stop; (2) the box of 9mm ammunition and the $350 in cash found by Officer Everline; (3) Officer Everline’s testimony that Julie had acted “suspiciously” when she refused to speak to him during the traffic stop; and (4) Julie’s statements to Detective Poulet. Before her trial for possession and distribution of cocaine, her attorney moves to suppress: (1) the cocaine and marijuana found in Julie’s house during the warrantless searches conducted by Officer Jimenez; and (2) the statements made by Julie to Detective Poulet. Using the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment arguments that we have learned in class, analyze the strengths and weaknesses of Julie’s motions to suppress. What are the strongest arguments her attorney will make, and how is the government likely to respond? Should the motions be granted? 14