I have exam about Constitutional criminal right in criminal justice major

Page 4 of 8

of the vehicle. Deputy Keith asked for the three passengers' identification. Defendant was determined to be the individual sitting in the driver's seat. Deputy Keith asked the occupants to step out of the vehicle and explained that he was going to search for more open containers. Deputy Keith began searching the vehicle for open containers. In the center console, which was large enough to house an open container, Deputy Keith smelled the odor of marijuana and observed a metal "socket" that was fashioned into a pipe. The socket smelled of marijuana and appeared to have marijuana residue in the "pipe." In a back-pack in the back seat, Deputy Keith found three plastic bags that were determined to contain marijuana. The rear-seated passenger stated it was his back-pack. Deputy Keith asked Defendant about the socket that was found in the center console between the driver's and passenger seats. Defendant stated he did not know it was there and insisted that he had not smoked any marijuana. At this time, Defendant was not under arrest nor was he handcuffed. Within a short time, two other officers arrived. Because Defendant was in the driver's seat, Defendant was asked to perform some field sobriety tests. The officer that conducted the field sobriety tests on Defendant, Deputy Todd Orton, was a certified Drug Recognition Expert. After the conclusion of the field sobriety tests, Deputy Orton believed Defendant was possibly under the influence of marijuana; however, it was felt that he was not impaired to the point that he could not safely operate a motor vehicle. Deputy Orton informed Deputy Keith of his belief that the Defendant was possibly under the influence of marijuana but that he was not impaired to the point that he could not safely operate a motor vehicle. Deputy Keith then told Defendant that he "knew he had smoked marijuana." This was not phrased in the form of a question or was the deputy confronting the Defendant or "in his face." No evidence was attained that was anything more than a statement casually made to Defendant. Up to this point, Defendant had maintained a lack of knowledge of the marijuana or the pipe. However, Defendant then told Deputy Keith that he had only taken a couple of hits of marijuana while at that location. He stated that both he and the back seated passenger had smoked out of a pipe. Deputy Keith was surprised when Defendant stated he had smoked marijuana while at that location. Deputy Keith testified that he did not expect Defendant to say anything in response. Defendant, along with the other occupants of the vehicle, was never arrested, never handcuffed and was merely given a citation. Defendant was then allowed to drive the vehicle away from the location with his friends as passengers. Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress statements he made at the time of his citation, claiming that Deputy Keith had subjected him to custodial interrogation without informing him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966) Assuming you are the trial judge, how would you rule on the motion to suppress? (15 points) Here are the facts for question 2:

On a dark and stormy night . . . officers got a call about a gunshot in the area of 400 West and 1000 South in Orem. Three separate calls to dispatch described a Apopping sound@ like a handgun within a few minutes of 6 a.m. followed by yelling, loud crying and screeching tires. Officer B. Ludhaund arrived at the scene and found copious amounts of what appeared to be blood in a parking lot but no people. Upon careful examination with a very bright flashlight, the

Page 5 of 8

officer spotted fresh black tire marks. As the officer was studying the ground, he looked up and realized that he was in a junior high school parking lot and that the kids would start arriving within a couple of hours. He put orange cones and yellow tape all around the red pools and detailed the newest rookie to park and watch the scene.

A few hours later, at 9 a.m., Charles Goodnight appeared at the Fourth District Court in

Orem for a pre-trial conference on a pending misdemeanor theft charge against him. He had an appointed attorney, Cynthia, who was in the courtroom where she was responsible for around 30 cases that morning. Officer Ludhaund entered the courtroom because he had a subpoena for a traffic trial at 9:30. He was hoping to get Cynthia and the prosecutor, Wilbur, to continue the trial so he could get back to the junior high and help out the rookie. While he was waiting he looked carefully at Charles and noticed that his shoes were caked and streaked with either very red mud or blood. He was disheveled in appearance and seemed extremely nervous. What really intrigued Ludhaund, however, was that he had a shoulder holster on under his jacket. Knowing no weapons were allowed in the courtroom Ludhaund checked with security at the front door and discovered that Charles had not checked a firearm. He returned to the courtroom and, with the bailiff, approached Charles. Charles saw them coming and jumped up shouting ALeave me alone! Discrimination! You all hate me!@

Ludhaund and the bailiff tackled him as Judge Backlund calmly looked up and said,

ACan=t we please have some order in this courtroom? Wilbur, I want you to pursue a disorderly charge against that man.@ Charles was dragged from the courtroom to the Orem Police Department where he was handcuffed to a chair in an interrogation room.

30 minutes later Attorney George T. Imhoff appeared at the front counter of the Orem

Police Department and announced that he had been retained by the sister of Charles Goodnight, Shezariel, to represent Goodnight on the disorderly conduct charge so he wouldn=t be held in jail. The officer at the counter thought Mr. Imhoff had unfairly gotten a guy he had arrested a year before out of a charge so he was rude to Imhoff and told him to just go see the judge about a writ but ALittle Charley@ would have to be on his own for a bit.

Meanwhile, in the interrogation room, Officer Ludhaund knew nothing about Imhoff and

was speaking to Charles. The first thing he did was to ask him about the shoulder holster. AWhy do you have an empty holster, where is the gun?@

Charles sullenly replied, AIt=s just a pellet gun and it=s in the bushes by the front door of

the school.@ Ludhaund immediately spoke to the rookie on his radio who reported after a moment that

he=d found a pellet gun that looked like a handgun in the bushes as described. Ludhaund then said, ASo, who=d you shoot?@

AI thought I was here cause I stole that stuff and then yelled in court!@

Page 6 of 8

ANah, I=d have yelled, too. Judge Backlund=ll get over that. But, anyway, you do have the right to remain silent because what you say can be used in court. You can have an attorney help you if you want and if you can=t afford one, we=ll appoint one to represent you. If you decide to answer questions you can stop at any time. Do you understand that?@

AYes, I want to talk to Bob before I say anything else.@ AWho=s Bob?@ AHe=s my probation officer.@ ANo. Who=d you shoot?@ AOk, I=ll talk! I shot that damn dog, ok? Now I want a lawyer!@ Ludhaund put Charles in a cell where, eventually, both Cynthia and Mr. Imhoff were

allowed to interview him. Back at the school after checking with a few neighbors Ludhaund found a severely injured Golden Retriever a few houses away from the school which appeared to have puncture wounds, possibly from a pellet gun, in its neck. Charles is now charged under a new Utah statute with felony wounding of an animal, disorderly conduct in the courtroom and the theft charge. Mr. Imhoff now seeks to suppress the weapon and the statements made to Ludhaund under the fifth and sixth amendments. Using the cases and principles from our studies, explain why the evidence should or should not be suppressed. You should identify the principle issue under each of the two amendments and give me a separate IFLACBor at least an ILAC (without re-stating all the facts) for each. ESSAY SECTION IIB( two questions, 25 points each)

View any one of the movies listed below. Popcorn is optional. Companions are allowed so long as you are not unreasonably distracted. In the first paragraph briefly summarize the plot and principal characters of the movie. Then, using such facts or circumstances from the movie as you wish or need, select and discuss any two (in separate IFLAC essays) of the following principles as we discussed in this course Feel free, if necessary, to Aimagine@ or suggest plot, character or dialogue changes to enhance your ability to apply what we have studied (I=m not a movie critic and don=t care if you accurately describe the movie!). Demonstrate a basic understanding of the doctrines as you state a legal issue then marshal the relevant facts, present applicable legal principles, analyze the facts with the law and come to a conclusion.

Keep in mind that I=m not really interested in the moviesBwhat I want to see is your proficiency with the issues we have studied during this semester. To that end, if you select a relatively simple principle to write about I will expect a much more competent and complete answer than if you take on one of the more complex concepts. Either way, however, your task is to demonstrate to me that you have learned to write well, think well, and analyze thoroughly.

Page 7 of 8

Going through the mechanics, getting an IFLAC on paper and turning it in on time is worthy of a C. Showing me that you really get it and thoroughly wrestling with the facts is the way to earn an A.

Choose any two of the following principles (A through M) to analyze and discuss in your essay although your two issues must come from different amendments. .

(First Amendment)

A. Establishment of Religion

B. Public Forum/Regulation of Speech

(Second Amendment)

C. Right to Bear Arms

(Fourth Amendment)

D Search warrants including the determination of probable cause and credibility of informants.

E Warrantless searches including the doctrines of inventory search and

inevitable discovery. F Plain View and/or plain smell doctrine

G Warrantless arrest and detention including the Utah doctrine of level 1,2

and 3 detentions

H Electronic surveillance including bugs, wiretap, tracker devices and pen register/trap and trace equipment.

I Exclusionary Rule including the good faith exception

(Fifth Amendment)

J Interrogation (don=t confuse the Fifth Amendment rule with the Sixth

Amendment approach!)

(Sixth Amendment)

L Interrogation (See J, above! Keep them straight!)

M Pre-trial identification

Page 8 of 8

Suggested Movies: Minority Report; Rush Hour, Beverly Hills Cop (I, II or III); Dirty Harry (or any of the ADirty Harry@ sequels); In the Line of Fire; Bullitt; To Kill a Mockingbird; The Thomas Crown Affair (original or remake); Ransom; Enemy of the State; Fargo; Lethal Weapon (1,2,3,4 or whatever); The French Connection; The Blue Knight; The Bourne Identity or The Bourne Supremacy (assume all the action occurred in the USA); After the Sunset (again, assume the action occurred in the USA); or any other cop/robber genre movie.

If nothing else, you will now understand why judges and criminal lawyers have a hard time watching and enjoying most of these movies!

It has been a genuine pleasure to spend this term with you. Thank you for coming and for your diligent work!