Study and Draft

StudyandOpinion.docx

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Study and Draft

Under what circumstances do you believe the state should provide/pay for a defendant’s/suspect's with an attorney? If the state appoints an attorney who is incompetent, should the case be dismissed with or without prejudice? (150 WORDS)

Below you will read scenarios in which actions by law enforcement agents come into legal question. Respond in writing to the questions following each scenario. Be as complete as you can in your responses. Use actual language of the laws, tests, elements, and doctrines you discuss.

A. Johnson is arrested for drunk driving and failing to pay child support. He agrees to share information with the police to avoid prosecution. Having been personally involved in every aspect of an ongoing stolen paycheck operation, Johnson explained the intimate details to the police of what he saw and did with DeGraw, a co-criminal. Based on his statements alone, the officers seek a search warrant for the co-criminal's premises where Johnson stated he saw many of the stolen checks the day before.

In response to their warrant request, what laws, tests, principles, or doctrines might the court use to make a decision on the request? What would be their ruling and their ultimate rationale for that ruling?

B. Marsh checked a suitcase at the airline counter and got onto an airplane. Before the suitcase was placed on the airplane, it was sniffed by a drug detection dog. The dog indicated that drugs were located inside which established probable cause to search the suitcase. With this knowledge, two DEA agents entered the airplane, approached Marsh, identified themselves, and asked him if they could look in the suitcase he had checked at the counter. Marsh stated, "I'm not traveling with a suitcase." Because the plane wasn't scheduled to take off for an hour (and Marsh didn't think he would miss the plane), Marsh voluntarily agreed to accompany the agents to the suitcase, was shown the suitcase, and was asked again if they could open it. Again, Marsh denied ever seeing the suitcase. The agents opened the suitcase and discovered contraband inside.

If Marsh made a motion to suppress the suitcase evidence, what laws, tests, principles, or doctrines might the court use to make a ruling? What would be their ruling and their ultimate rationale for that ruling? Might there be dissenting opinions?

C. Perry is a paid police informant and has provided reliable information to officers on seven out of seven occasions. On January 7, 2000, Perry personally witnessed four personal-use drug transactions take place in Joe Clark's apartment. On November 28, 2000, Perry tells the officer about these observations. The officer applies for a search warrant for drugs based solely on this information.

D. G. Police approach the home of Adams, whom they reasonably suspect is involved in a larceny. Adams is not there, but his wife is home. The officers explain they are looking for Adams and would like to talk to him about his clothing he was wearing the day before. Adams' wife states, "Those things are right here. I took them out of his duffel bag. Here they are" and hands them to the officer. The officers accepted the items.

If Adams made a motion to suppress the clothing evidence, what laws, tests, principles, or doctrines might the court use to make a ruling? What would be their ruling and their ultimate rationale for that ruling? Might there be dissenting opinions?

E. An officer receives a report from the dispatcher about an armed robbery in the area, along with a description of the vehicle and the three men believed to have committed the crime. Spotting a vehicle matching the description, with three male occupants inside, the officer stops the vehicle to investigate. She directs the three occupants from the vehicle, and examines the vehicle for weapons. Under the front passenger seat, the officer finds a sawed-off shotgun and some ski masks. All three men are then arrested.

If three men made a motion to suppress the evidence seized from the vehicle, what laws, tests, principles, or doctrines might the court use to make a ruling? What would be their ruling and their ultimate rationale for that ruling? Might there be dissenting opinions?

F. Jones is a Park Ranger with the National Park Service. He sees Marco driving inside a national park. Based on reasonable suspicion that Marco has committed a federal felony (larceny), Jones gives chase and pulls Marco over. Jones directs Marco out of his car and after repeating the direction several times, Marco complies. Marco then is belligerent and argumentative, wanders about, keeps turning his side to Officer Jones and repeatedly reaches into the pocket that Jones can't see even after being told to keep still and keep his hands out of his pocket. Jones then places Marco into handcuffs, frisks him, places Marco into the rear of the police car, and frisks the passenger compartment and trunk for weapons. In the trunk Jones finds drugs in plain view that are offered against Marco at trial.

If Marco made a motion to suppress the drugs seized from the trunk, what laws, tests, principles, or doctrines might the court use to make a ruling? What would be their ruling and their ultimate rationale for that ruling? Might there be dissenting opinions?

G. Brown is suspected of being involved in a conspiracy to traffic narcotics. Agents learn that Brown has a houseboat docked at a lake 147 miles from his home. While Brown has not been on the boat for more than two years, he has kept up the mooring fees and registration of the vessel. The agents reasonably suspect that evidence of the narcotics conspiracy will be found on the boat. Once the boat is located, three agents board the boat to conduct a search. While no evidence of narcotics trafficking is found, the agents do find evidence of an unrelated murder in the cabin.

If Brown made a motion to suppress the murder evidence, what laws, tests, principles, or doctrines might the court use to make a ruling? What would be their ruling and their ultimate rationale for that ruling? Might there be dissenting opinions?

H. A federal agent is having dinner in a restaurant located in a federal park (an area of exclusive jurisdiction), when the manager, whom the agent knows, approaches him. The manager states that two young men have just left the restaurant without paying for their dinners (a federal misdemeanor), and asks the agent to arrest them before they can escape. The agent quickly leaves the restaurant and, based upon a detailed physical description given by the manager, is able to locate the two suspects walking down the sidewalk approximately two blocks from the restaurant and arrests them both.

If the suspects make a complaint for unlawful arrest, what laws, tests, principles, or doctrines might the court use to make a ruling? What would be their ruling and their ultimate rationale for that ruling? Might there be dissenting opinions?

I. Two federal agents have been investigating Thomas and have reasonable suspicion to believe that he is selling false identification documents out of the trunk of his vehicle. Upon seeing him parked in a public parking lot, they approach him, identify themselves as federal agents, and ask him to place his hands on top of the vehicle. During the frisk that follows, one of the officers feels what he reasonably believes is a handgun. He retrieves the item and confirms that the object is a .22 caliber pistol. Knowing that Thomas was previously convicted of a felony (theft), the agent places him under arrest for being a felon-in-possession. A search of the vehicle incident to the arrest turns up a bag of false identification documents under the back seat of Thomas' vehicle.

At his trial on weapons and false identification documents, Thomas makes a motion to suppress all of the evidence recovered by the agents. What laws, tests, principles, or doctrines might the court use to make a ruling? What would be their ruling and their ultimate rationale for that ruling? Might there be dissenting opinions?

H. Federal agents have an arrest warrant for Moore for failure to appear. At approximately 12:00 a.m. one night, the agents approach Moore's home, reasonably believing that he is inside. As they open the unlocked door and enter, all of the agents clearly announce, "Federal agents!" Immediately inside the door, Moore is found sitting on a sofa in the living room. On coffee table in front of him, the agents see a white powdery substance (later determined to be cocaine), scales, small baggies, and other pieces of drug paraphernalia. Moore is arrested, and is charged with possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia.

Moore's attorney's argue the agents violated Title 18 U.S.C. § 3109 and the evidence should be suppressed. What laws, tests, principles, or doctrines might the court use to make a ruling? What would be their ruling and their ultimate rationale for that ruling? Might there be dissenting opinions?

J. Federal agents develop probable cause that Gibson's garage contains a large quantity of counterfeit social security checks. They also have reason to suspect that, earlier in the morning, their confidential informant told Gibson that they were about to apply for a search warrant, and that Gibson indicated he would destroy the evidence after he returns home from an out-of-town visit. The agents approach Gibson's home and are certain he has not yet arrived and no one is at home. After discussing their options, the agents force their way through the garage door and into the home. During the subsequent search, they seize hundreds of counterfeit social security checks. Approximately ninety minutes later, Gibson returns home and is placed under arrest.

At his trial, he makes a motion to suppress the evidence discovered during the warrantless search of his home. What laws, tests, principles, or doctrines might the court use to make a ruling? What would be their ruling and their ultimate rationale for that ruling? Might there be dissenting opinions?

K. Federal agents obtain a valid premises search warrant to look for pornographic materials in Black's home. When the warrant is executed, the agents properly knock, announce their identity and purpose, and demand admittance. Black opens the door and the agents enter. Immediately, the agents notice that four other people are inside the house. One of the individuals is recognized as Black's live-in girlfriend, Courtney. The other three persons are unknown. Without hesitating, the agents order all five people to stand and face the wall, where a frisk is conducted for the safety of the officers. During the frisk of Courtney, one agent discovers what is immediately apparent to him to be crack cocaine. He reaches in, retrieves the item, and confirms that it is cocaine. Courtney is arrested.

At her trial for narcotics possession, Courtney makes a motion to suppress the cocaine. What laws, tests, principles, or doctrines might the court use to make a ruling? What would be their ruling and their ultimate rationale for that ruling? Might there be dissenting opinions?