DRNC

CRJ 551 DRNC Scenario (for Module 8)

This Scenario is aligned with the following course objectives:

2. Explain supervisory liability under the U.S. Constitution and relevant statutes.

3. Summarize the exclusionary rule’s effect on criminal prosecutions and civil liability.

4. Compare police power, authority, and responsibility with limits on police authority.

6. Determine general police authority to detain, including consensual encounters, investigative

detention, and stop-and-frisk.

7. Define lawful arrest; determine situations of lawful arrest with and without a warrant.

12. Explain the circumstances under which a search may be conducted without a warrant.

Background

The following story is a fictional account of an incident related to the mythical Democratic-Republican

National Convention (DRNC) event in Miami, Florida. The story is loosely based on an amalgamation of

real-life occurrences leading up to the Free Trade Area of the Americas conference in Miami, Florida, in

2003. The names of all the characters in the story are fictional.

As you read the story, keep in mind what ethical and legal issues are likely to arise. At the end of the

story, you will be asked to respond to several questions related to this scenario.

Case Study – Greenpeace v. Miami-Dade County

One month had elapsed since the conclusion of the DRNC event in Miami-Dade County. By most

accounts, the event went well. There were only a few reports of vandalism with only minor damage to

some storefront businesses in Downtown Miami. The most severe injury associated with the event

occurred as the result of an accidental car crash near the entrance to the Port of Miami. The driver of a

cargo truck lost control of his rig as he turned onto Port Boulevard and the truck jackknifed. The driver

sustained a broken leg as a result. No other serious injuries, accidental or intentional, were reported

throughout the week of the event. The Miami-Dade Police reported only 25 event-related arrests

during the entire week. By comparison, there were 234 reported arrests during the FTAA event in 2003.

As expected, there were several citizen complaints filed against the Miami-Dade Police officers during

the event. The MDPD Police Legal Bureau had anticipated that complaints and lawsuits would be filed,

and they were ready to defend against myriad litigations. This was the pattern that had occurred in all

previous events such as this one, starting with the WTO civil disturbances in Seattle in 1999 and

continuing with a number of similar special events over the years. Indeed, the filing of civil lawsuits

against the police after these events had become part of the protest groups’ playbook. Just like the

police planned for the before, during, and after of these large scale special events, so did the opposition.

Political influencer groups such as Root Cause, Amnesty International, and Greenpeace (to name just a

few) consider civil litigation after the event to be an important tactic at their disposal. The post-event

litigation is viewed as a continuation of a never-ending political struggle against the establishment

authorities. One of those civil suits was filed by the ACLU on behalf of the organization Greenpeace.

The case was filed as Greenpeace v. Miami-Dade County. Also named in the lawsuit were Major Louis

Warren (Incident Commander for the DNRC special event) and Captain Earl Bishop (Commander of Task

Force 5).

The Circumstances Leading Up to the Case

On the fourth day of the DRNC event, there was an AFL-CIO/Teamsters rally that was scheduled to

occur at the Amphitheater within the secured Bayfront Park area (refer to the map attachment titled

DRNC Area of Operations PowerPoint). The event planners had reluctantly agreed to open the

Amphitheater for a one-hour “pep rally” for up to a thousand participants. Months earlier, police

planners, including Major Warren and Captain Bishop had argued against this move because the

Amphitheater was located within the fenced-in secure exclusionary zone that had been designated

months before. Allowing a crowd of 1,000 participants to enter the middle of the exclusionary zone was

thought to be an unnecessarily risky move. Once inside the exclusionary zone, such a large number of

protestors could be difficult to control. Their proximity to the main venue at the American Airlines

Arena and to the sole entrance into the Port of Miami was also a concern. This was a critical choke point

where the slightest disruption by protestors could lead to considerable chaos in the entire area.

Another reason why the police planners opposed the idea of allowing a rally at the Amphitheater was

that they considered it as being unnecessary. The police planners had already designated a “First

Amendment Zone” directly north of the American Airlines Arena. This First Amendment Zone was ideal

in that it was only 300 feet from the AA arena, thus allowing the protestors a nearby area where they

had direct line-of-sight to the main venue. In this location the protestors were near enough to see and

been seen by the many TV cameras covering the event. The First Amendment Zone was set up in the

City’s Bicentennial Park, which had adequate restroom facilities and shade. It was an ideal location to

stage a protest, while at the same time, it was separated from the AA arena by a deep-water cut-in. This

300 foot separation between the First Amendment Zone and the AA arena provided a safe buffer zone

that kept the convention attendees separate and safe from the protestors.

Despite the advice of Major Warren and other police planners, the policy makers at the political level

decided to press the issue and allow for a one-hour event at the Amphitheater within the exclusionary

zone. As a concession, the police planners were at least able to get the policy makers to agree to make

this a ticketed event, where only people with the proper tickets and credentials would be allowed to

enter. This allowed the police and security guards to make all participants in the rally be subject to a

limited search as a condition of entry into the venue. This was a compromise that all parties (including

the AFL-CIO and Teamsters) agreed to, but not everyone was in complete agreement with the idea of

allowing potential protestors inside the exclusionary zone.

On the day of the AFL-CIO/Teamster rally at the Bayfront Park Amphitheater, there were very few

incidents of note. Approximately one-thousand ticketed participants passed through entry gates

without any problems. Similar to a ticketed sporting event or concert, the people going inside the venue

had provided tacit consent to a limited body and package search as a condition of entry. This was an

acceptable practice used at football games, concerts, and theme parks such as Disney World and

Universal Studios.

Despite the mostly uneventful rally, there was one incident which proved problematic, and eventually

led to the lawsuit by Greenpeace against Miami-Dade Police. Earlier that day there had been several

reports of protestors hanging banners from the Metro-rail station in Overtown. There was another

report of a small group of protestors chaining themselves to each other with contraptions called

“Sleeping Dragons.” Arrests were made in both incidents.

As the rally at the Amphitheater commenced, there were still about a hundred people standing in line

waiting to get in. Security guards at the entry gate called for Miami-Dade Police to respond, as a minor

disturbance had broken out. Two males wearing Greenpeace t-shirts were attempting to gain entry into

the rally. Both of them had entry tickets on their possession and were wearing school-type backpacks.

When the security guards asked them to open the backpacks so that they could inspect the contents

inside, the two gentlemen from Greenpeace refused. At that point, the guards advised the two

gentlemen that they would not be allowed into the venue unless they agreed to the search. For a few

brief moments, the two Greenpeace protestors became irate and argued with the security guards.

Meanwhile, the people in line waiting to get into the event were becoming increasingly impatient since

the rally had already commenced. After a brief argument, the two Greenpeace protestors decided to

walk away as they saw two Miami-Dade Police officers walking toward the entry gate.

Moments later, the security guard who had called for the police pointed out the two Greenpeace

protestors to the two police officers. The guard stated, “officers… those two guys who are leaving… I

think they may have something in their backpacks that they don’t want me to see.”

The two officers followed the two Greenpeace protestors and were able to catch up to them as they

walked away at a brisk pace. The officers ordered the two protestors to stop and they did. One officer

asked the Greenpeace protestors, “What’s in the backpack?”

One of the protestors said, “nothing… just my personal items.”

The officer grabbed hold of one of the backpacks and pulled it off the back of the protestor. Without

asking permission, the officer opened the backpack and pulled out several items. Inside the bag were

two spray paint cans, a can of pepper spray, a cell phone, 20’ of rope, a pair of leather gloves, a first-aid

kit, a pair of handcuffs, and a pocket knife. The second bag also contained many of the same items, but

had a slingshot and ball bearings in it too. Both Greenpeace protestors were placed under arrest for

carrying concealed weapons. The items inside both backpacks were impounded as evidence.

The arresting officers placed the two Greenpeace protestors into the caged backseat of one of the police

cars and transported them to the temporary booking facility nearby. While en-route to the booking

facility, the officers raised a Homeland Security Task Force detective on the radio and asked him to meet

them there. A protocol had been established whereby all prisoners would be interrogated by Homeland

Security investigators prior to being booked into the jail.

Upon arrival at the booking facility, the two prisoners were separated into different holding cells. This is

a standard procedure for interrogating subjects. The reason for separating the prisoners is to keep them

from corroborating their stories, and so that the interrogating detective can try to get them in a

contradiction that can later be used against them.

The Homeland Security detective interrogated the first prisoner in one room, while the two arresting

officers sat in another room with the second subject as they filled out their A-Forms (arrest affidavits)

and property reports. At no time were Miranda warnings read to either of the two subjects in custody.

Later it was earned that the detective had wrongly assumed that the two arresting officers had read the

subjects their Miranda warnings. Since the two officers had not interrogated the subjects, they had not

seen any reason for reading the warnings. They had assumed that the interrogating detective would

read the Miranda warnings at the appropriate time. Regardless of who was at fault, the Miranda

warnings were not read to either subject.

During the course of the interrogations, the Homeland Security detective learned from one of the

subjects that there were at least two other Greenpeace protestors who were planning on chaining

themselves to the outer Amphitheater fence with handcuffs in an attempt to disrupt the event and

attract television media coverage. According to the account of one of the arrested protestors, the

second pair of protestors was also supposed to be wearing Greenpeace t-shirts and had backpacks filled

with handcuffs, slingshots, and pepper spray just like they had.

Upon learning of the plan of the other Greenpeace protestors to handcuff themselves to the exterior

fence of the Amphitheater, the Homeland Security detective radioed a BOLO (Be On the Look Out) for

the two subjects matching the description provided by one of the arrested protestors. Within minutes,

other officers in the area spotted the second pair of Greenpeace protestors as they mingled with the

large crowd that was gathering outside the Amphitheater as the rally was going on inside. Based on the

description and the account provided by one of the arrested protestors, the officers stopped and seized

the backpack from the two new protestors. Thinking they had sufficient probable cause, the officers

searched the two backpacks and found a number of items such as handcuffs, pepper spray, slingshots,

ball bearings, and pocket knives. Based on the information provided by one of the first two arrestees,

and the search and seizure of the weapons inside the two new backpacks, the second pair of protestors

was arrested and charged with Carrying Concealed Weapons.

Post-Arrest

A month later, lawyers for the four defendants (the Greenpeace protestors) filed a motion in the County

Court, Criminal Misdemeanor Division to suppress the stops and the evidence recovered in the packs.

 

Written Exercise Instructions

For this assignment, you are to play the role of the Miami-Dade County Court, Criminal Misdemeanors

Division judge who is hearing the motion to suppress on behalf of the four defendants. Your job is to

write an opinion finding whether the physical evidence and testimonial evidence is admissible at trial (or

not), and to state the law that supports your ruling. Your ruling will be divided in two sections: one for

the two protesters who were first arrested, and a second ruling for the second two who were arrested.

You are to include in your ruling all of the legal issues you identify. These legal issues have been covered

in the course material. You are not required to cite cases by name (you may if you wish), but cite the

legal theories that are relevant to resolving the motions to suppress. The minimum length is 1,200 words.

You are to double-space the paper and use APA format. You are to include the Saint Leo core value of

personal development within the ruling as it pertains to officer conduct.

Written exercise grades are weighted as follows (total 80 points):

a. Organization of paper: 20 points

b. Mechanics and writing process (spelling, grammar, clarity of thought, writing): 20 points

c. Correct statements of the law: 20 points

d. Core value integration: 20 points

Resources (click the links below)

DRNC Area of Operations PowerPoint (PDF file)

Related scenario from CRJ-550