Untitled Document

Chapter 16 Extra Credit Hypos Evidence Unconstitutionally ObtainedPrint

Write a concise paragraph responding to each hypo on the reverse or on a separate sheet of paper attached to this one. This must be turned in by May 18. 1. Detective Able arrests Eddie "Grenade Balls" Gravatuli for the murder of a rival, Leonard "Lefty the Fishhook" Cravelo. Prior to booking him, he is taken to the Police Department, where the detective reads Eddie his Miranda rights from a department issued card. Eddie responds that he does not want to talk without an attorney present. 20 minutes later, Detective Able's partner, Detective Baker, who is also working on the case, arrives. He mistakenly believes that Able has not talked with Gavatuli yet and was going to leave it up to him, Baker, to see if Eddie wanted to answer questions. Baker reads him his Miranda rights from a department issued card, and this time, Gravatuli says yes, he would like to give his side of the story, and he gives a complete confession to Detective Baker. Prior to trial, Gravatuli's attorney, Samuel Da Suit, moves to exclude the confesssion for a Miranda violation. Should the judge exclude the confession? Why?

2. After Linda Leadfoot goes through a STOP sign on her way to class, a Turlock Police Officer stops her to issue a citation. Upon checking her driver's license, he finds it is suspended for failure to pay prior tickers, so he orders her out of the car and informs her that he is going to arrest her and book her into jail for the suspended license offense. After she is in custody in the back seat of his patrol car, he searches the interior of her auto, and, in the glove box, finds a plastic baggie which contains a white crystalline substance which he suspects (and is later confirmed) to be methamphetamine. He then arrests her for the felony possession of meth charge as well. At preliminary hearing, her attorney moves to suppress the seizure of the methamphetamine, arguing that the search was illegal. Should the judge suppress (exclude) the evidence (the drugs)? Why?

3. Officer Jones responds to a call of suspicious persons loitering around a closed business late at night looking in the windows and trying door handles. When he arrives at about 11:30 p.m., he finds Herman and his 3 friends in front of a closed flower shop. He decides to detain them for questioning and to pat them down first. When he is patting down Herman, he feels a soft rolled up baggy containing something soft in his front pants pocket. He pulls it out to see what it is and it turns out to be a white powder that he recognizes as cocaine. He immediately arrests Herman. Herman's attorney is now moving to suppress the drug evidence as an illegal search. What arguments could Herman make? Should the judge suppress the evidence (the drugs)?

4. After the Stanislaus Narcotics Oriented Response Team (SNORT) recieves a number of anonymous tips that a certain address is a drug house and people are coming and going at all times of the day or night, they decide to send a pair of officers over to do a "knock and talk", to talk to the residents to see if there is any substance to the rumours. When they arrive, they knock on the door and a middle aged female answers the door. They inform her that they have received some complaints of drug activity and ask if they may come in and look around. the woman steps back and motions toward the inside with her arm. Once inside, they find a huge stash of drugs in one of the bedrooms and other evidence related to drug trafficking. However, it turns out the woman who let them in is the babysitter, who was just watching the young infant present. When the occupants, Mr. and Mrs. Schmak, return home, they are arrested by the SNORT agents. At prelim, the Schmak's attorney moves to suppress the drug evidence. What arguments should the defense and prosecution make? How should the judge rule?