Untitled Document 2 PDF - Law Exam Questions

Prompt 1. Cole did expect a small amount of privacy because it was a bathroom but he did not have a reasonable amount because it was in a public park. It was not a search but they did not use any special equipment so it was in plain view. If the door had stalls then yes it would be a warrantless sea...

Prompt 1. Cole did expect a small amount of privacy because it was a bathroom but he did not have a reasonable amount because it was in a public park. It was not a search but they did not use any special equipment so it was in plain view. If the door had stalls then yes it would be a warrantless search because it was not in plain view. Probable cause couldn't be used because it was two men entering the bathroom minutes apart. In Wright V. Bella Vista Police department, the court said that someone can not expect a reasonable expectation of privacy when they can be seen by the public area in the restroom. Wright v. Bella Vista Police Dep't, 452 F. Supp. 3d 830, 841 (W.D. Ark. 2020) Prompt 2 Anna was considered an agent of the government when she agreed to wear a wire. When Mike talked to Anna, He assumed the risk when talking to her and letting her into his home. When Mike thought the conversation between the two of them was private, he was just assuming that. On the other hand, she was let in his house by him and she did not conduct a search but she recorded the conversation so her entering was constitutional but her recording was not. Mike did have a higher expectation of privacy within his home so he is right to assume his rights had been violated by an agent of the government. In Osborn V. The U.S. the court said that “ when a homeowner invites a friend or business acquaintance into his home, he opens his house to a friend or acquaintance, not a government spy.” Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323, 346, 87 S. Ct. 439, 442, 17 L. Ed. 2d 394 (1966) Prompt 3 They did not conduct a warrantless search because they did not enter the storage unit until they had permission from the owner and had probable cause for the warrant because the dog alerted them to illegal drugs. The smell was found in an area anyone could have been and the drug dog alerted the officer where the smell was coming from. “Plain smell” was used here, even if it was a drug dog. The drug dog with permission from the owner and with his being in an area other people could have been was constitutional. Prompt 4 Harris was seized when they ordered him to pull over but he did not listen. After that they had probable cause to detain him and conduct a search because he did not listen to authority. Along with evading the police, he would have been charged with driving violations and with the drugs he abandoned. In US v. Sullivan, the court ruled that a person is seized “when a police officer makes a traffic stop, the driver of the car is seized” Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 251, 127 S. Ct. 2400, 2403, 168 L. Ed. 2d 132 (2007) Prompt 1 The officer has reasonable suspicion to stop and search Mitchell for multiple reasons. His training and previous experience led him to believe he had a weapon. That, along with the area and unusual clothing for the weather, he could conclude there was something suspicious going on. In the U.S. v. Hunter, the court stated that “the reputation of an area for criminal activity may be used in determining reasonable suspicion. They also said that also each thing separately may not be illegal separately, looking at all the facts is enough to warrant reasonable suspicion. United States v. Hunter, 291 F.3d 1302, 1306 (11th Cir. 2002) Prompt 2 The officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the car because she was not given more information than “blue car” and the car was in the general area of the car, which was already a high crime area. In, Navarette v. California the officer stopped a truck that matched the description of a vehicle that had been called in prior. The court ruled that the stop was legal because the depiction of the vehicle was probable cause to stop the car. Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014) the blue car is not common. They should have waited for a pretext stop to present itself. Prompt 3 The initial stop is not illegitimate. The wait time while waiting for backup to arrive is also not unreasonable. A Terry stop can extend to passengers if the officer has reasonable suspicion that they may also be armed and pose a threat to the officer. In U.S. v. Callison, an officer, stopped a couple and requested backup to search the vehicle, where they found drugs. They said that it was an unreasonable amount of time for a search because of the amount of time it took for the other officers to arrive. However the court ruled that the unreasonable part was not waiting for back up, but rather the prolonged questions. United States v. Callison, 2 F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2021) Prompt 4 The heroin pills are admissible in court because Grant reaches into his pocket often so Officer Taylor had reasonable suspicion that Grant had something he shouldn't. Along with this, the Officer could reasonably suspect that he might have a weapon so the search was reasonable. The officer, through his years of training and experience, recognized the pills as heroin pills. In Rowell v city of hickory, 2 men were stopped and a police officer searched their vehicle and saw what he identified as “crack” cocaine. The officer stated that he knew it was crack because of previous training and experience so the evidence was admissible in court. Rowell v. City of Hickory, 341 U.S. 912 (4th Cir. 2009) the capsules could not be identified without further investigation so it was not readily available If I were the judge in this scenario, I would be in favor of the defendant because the officer knowingly added information to the affidavit for the warrant. In U.S. v. Leon1 the court ruled in favor of the officer but the officer did not know that the information in the affidavit was false. The warrant did not have probable cause because the officer knowingly put false information so the evidence should be suppressed. Prompt 2 1 104 S.Ct. 3405 The Officer did have probable cause to arrest Mr. O’riley for abuse because both parties were physically harmed. However if he were to have arrested someone it would have been Mrs. Hansan, especially because she admitted to being the “more aggressive” party. In Mahtan V. City of Sunnydale2, the man was wrongfully arrested on a domestic abuse call, even though he made the call about his wife. In both cases we see an inequality when it comes to arrest in domestic violence cases. The arrest was lawful Prompt 3 If I were the judge, I would agree with the defendant because warrants are needed to enter any persons home unless it were an extenuating circumstance, such as the offender being a threat to the public. However, it was not a large amount of drugs so it was a misdemeanor and not a felony. In Welsh V. Wisconsin3, the police also entered the home a misdemeanor, who also posed no threat to the public. The court ruled that because the offender had no threat to the public, they needed a warrant to enter his home. Prompt 4 The arrest was lawful under Atwater V. Lago Vista4 because this case said that if an officer has probable cause, he can arrest an individual, even for a minor offense. In this case, the minor offense was eating a fry. The officer did not violate the defendant's 4th amendment rights during this arrest so the arrest was lawful under Atwater V. Lago Vista. Prompt 1 The entry into Harris’s home was lawful because they had a warrant and probable cause. However, the use of force, battering ram and grenade was not because they are big weapons that are supposed to be used for immediate risks and Harris did not pose one. Although the entry was lawful, the methods used to enter were not justifiable. The Knock and announce not being used was also not justifiable because there was not an immediate risk due to the fact that they only assumed he had weapons. In Wilson v. Arkansas5 established the need for knock and announce unless there is a risk of harm or the possibility of destruction of evidence, which is based here on stereotypes. They did not have a no knock announce warrant Prompt 2 The finding of the gun was valid even though the jacket was not near him during the arrest and he was already handcuffed because it was in reach of him. New York v. Belton6 established that an officer can search within the reach of the driver, which is where the jacket was in this situation. prompt 3 The girlfriend had actual authority because she lived there and shared the space. The officers did not exceed the scope of the search because they searched where they were told to. The 2 23-cv-03193-PCP 3 104 S.Ct. 2091 4 121 S.Ct. 1536 5 514 U.S. 927 (1995) 6 453 U.S. 454 (1981) search warrant was valid due to confession, the permission of the warrant given by someone with actual authority of the property and what was found during the search that was done with consent. U.S. v. Matlock7 decided that permission to search a property could be given by someone using the space communally, which is what is seen in this case by the girlfriend who lives at the home. Prompt 4 The automobile exception to the warrant requirement for a private aircraft can be applied here because they have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. The aircraft met the two requirements of probable cause and mobility, so they did not need a warrant to search the plane. In U.S. v. Johns8, it was established that airplanes can be included in the automobile exception to the warrant requirement because it is readily mobile. Prompt 1 In this case, the officer was in the right. Not only was the substance in plain view, but most dorm agreements state that searches can be done at any time. The search was not unlawful. In Medlock v. Trustees of indiana University9 The court ruled that if an officer is somewhere legally , the illegal objects in plain view can be seized. Prompt 2 The neighborhood protection zone went against the 4th amendment when it stopped people from entering the neighborhood. It involved questioning without probable cause. In Indianapolis V. Edmond10, the court ruled that a search or seizure is usually unreasonable if it is not done by suspicion of a specific person. In this case, we see everyone being stopped and questioned repeatedly. Prompt 3 The implementation so this new policy is to help keep the borders safe. The searches are legal during international flights because the intrusion outweighs the risk to the public. In U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte11, the court ruled that the exceptions to the 4th amendment is at borders, even if it is not the physical border. These airports fly internationally, so random searches are legal. Prompt 4 The searches are legal because it is done in the interest of keeping children safe. These searches are reasonable and within scope, so it is legal. In New Jersey V. T.L.O.12 the court ruled that school officials did not need warrants and probable cause to conduct a search but it must be reasonable and in scope of the search. rompt 1: Removing the requirement to recite miranda warning during custodial interrogations would be unwise for many reasons. For one, not everyone watches the same shows and has access to the same media shows, so not everyone would know or even be familiar with the Miranda 7 415 U.S. 164 (1974) 8 469 U.S. 478 (1985) 9 738 F.3d 867 10 121 S.Ct. 447 11 96 S.Ct. 3074 12 105 S.Ct. 733 warnings. Along with that, not all the Miranda warnings on the media and television are the actual warning or the same. If they remove the Miranda warning, they would also not recite them to people who don't speak English, where they would not be likely to know the Miranda warning. Prompt 2: The searching of Johnson's phone and using his face to unlock it was unconstitutional. Riley V. California13 held that the searching of a phone was unconstitutional without a warrant. Along with this, another court ruled that a warrant must be given in order to use biometric information to get testimonial communication14. Prompt 3: If I were the judge in the scenario, I would rule that the statement could be used as evidence due to the fact that the question was asked for the safety of the officer and the public's safety. The question falls under the public's safety exception of Miranda. U.S. V. Liddell ruled that the public safety to Miranda applied to questions asked after the initial arrest15. Prompt 4: North Carolina V. Butler16 ruled that Miranda rights can be waived if the suspect seems to have a reasonable understanding of the Miranda warnings. Mitchell said that she knew her rights and wanted to waive them, thereby not even allowing her rights to be said to her and stating a few of the rights to show her understanding of them. 13 573 U.S. 373 14 470 F.Supp.3d 715 15 517 F.3d 1007 16 99 S.Ct. 175