Crim Law/Pro

Question 1

Crim Law MEE#2

(1) Were the stop and arrrest valid?

Stop and Arrest based on Probable Cause

Answer 1

The 4th Amendment, which is applicable to the states thorugh the DP Clause of the 14th Amend, broadly prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. And under the SCOTUS’s eclusionary rule, evidence obtained in violation of this constitutional provision usually may not be used in evidence against the person whose rights were violated.

Seizures includes stopping a car and arresting a person. What is required for seizure to be reasonable under the 4th Amnd depends on the circumstances
1. sometimes reasonableness requires a warrant based on probable cause (trustworthy facts or knowledge sufficient for a reasonable person to believe that a crime was committed)
2. Sometimes it is sufficient if an officer has reasonable suspicion (reason to believe that criminal activity is afoot on something less than probable cause but based on articulable facts)

Police officer may stop a car if the officer has probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a traffic violation, and the police officer may constitutionally arrest a person for a traffic violation if state law provides for arrest for the violation

It does not matter that the police officer’s motive for the stop was to investigate something other than the traffic violation.

Question 2

Crim Law MEE#2

(2) Was the seizure of the cocaine valid?

Opening a car and taking evidence from the car

Answer 2

Fourth Amendment requires searches to be reasonable, and to be reasonable searches often must be pursuant to a warrant based on probable cause that evidence will be found in the place searched. However, there are a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement
1. Plain View: a police officer may make a warrantless “seizure” of evidence if the officer is in a place he lawfully is allowed to be and sees in plain view items that he has immediate probable cause to believe are contraband or evidence, instrumentalities, or fruits of a crime
2. Automobile Exception: if a poilce officer has probable cause to believe that an automobile contains seizble items, the officer may search the automobile without a warrant under the exception.

Question 3

Crim Law MEE#2

(3) Did officer’s questioning violate Miranda?

No Miranda Warning Given

Answer 3

Whether officer’s question constituted custodial interrogation by a konwn police officer?

In order to protect the 5th amnd privilige against self-incrimination, a person in police custody must e given certain warrnings (Miranda warnings) before a police officer may conduct a csutodial interrogation.
1. Any statement, question, or conduct by the police designed to elicit an incriminating response will be considered interrogation.
2. A person will be considered in custody if his freedom of action is limited in a significant way. The more the situation resembles a traditional arrest, the more likely custody will be found

Question 4

Crim Law MEE#2

(4) Should Suspect’s confession to Detective be Suppressed

Answer 4

Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine:
1. Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights generally will be excluded from admission into evidence at trial.
2. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the exclusionary effect is applied not only to the unconstituionally obtained evidence, but also to evidence derived from the unconstitutionally obtained evidence.
* This rule does not always apply to Miranda violations.
* If police obain an unwarned confession from a suspect, warn the suspect, and then requestion the suspect in a question first, warn later schme to get around the Miranda requirements, confessions obtained during both interrogations should be suppressed.
* But if the unwarned questioning and the warned questioning do not appear to be part of such a scheme, incriminating statements obtained during the warned questioning session need not be suppressed

Right to Counsel
Under Miranda, if a suspect clearly and unambiguously requests counsel, all questining must stop until the suspect meets with an attorney.
1. However, this rule applies only if the request is clear and unambiguous
2. Police have no duty to seek a clarification of an ambiguous request