pretrial motions for final Flashcards
People V Kendall, pretrial issue
The pretrial issue in this case revolves around the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of association. It challenges the constitutionality of the Caneville City Ordinance, Chapter 20, also known as the Caneville Control of Illegal Racing Clubs Ordinance.
People V Kendall, prosecution
The prosecution will argue that the ordinance is constitutional because it regulates conduct known to be a clear and present danger to the public order and safety of Caneville.
Additionally, even as symbolic speech, the placing of illegal club logos on vehicles is the equivalent of fighting words that incite an immediate retaliation by other drivers
People V Kendall, defense
The defense will argue that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague because it is not clear what conduct is illegal from the ordinance.
It is also overbroad because it encompasses within its scope otherwise privileged symbolic speech, namely placing decals or logos on one’s vehicle.
Also, the defense will argue that there is no clear and present danger from the placing of logos on vehicles, but rather from drag racing itself and from driving at speeds in excess of speed limits or reckless driving, all of which are already illegal without the Caneville Control of Illegal Racing Clubs Ordinance.
People v Lane, pretrial issue
freedom of speech, song of the defendant and demonstration questioned if or if not constitutionally protected speech
People v Lane, prosecution
peformance of song presented a clear, present, and immediate danger to public welfare. conduct was not protected by first amendment.
People v Lane, defense
leslie had a first amendment right to write lyrics and perform the song as advocation. it did not present a clear, present, and immediate danger to outweigh free speech. incitement to riot statute cannot be applied.
People v Casco, pretrial issue
The pretrial motion challenges the admissibility of the evidence of the money found in Madison Casco’s bag during the canine drug search at Mansfield High School.
People v Casco, prosecution
The prosecution will argue that the canine drug sniff on April 3 did not constitute a search and that even if the canine sniff was a search, it did not violate the student’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches.
People v Casco, defense
The defense will argue that the canine drug sniff was a search of the students and that the search was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment.
People v Price, pretrial issue
The pretrial motion challenges the admissibility of evidence that Syd Price transported a gas can near the Lodge on the night of the fire; this was acquired during the checkpoint traffic stop.
People v Price, prosecution
The prosecution will argue that the checkpoint was not pretextual, and that the gas can was in Officer Benares’ plain view. Public safety was the primary purpose of the checkpoint; criminal detection was only the secondary purpose. This is not forbidden by the case law.
Moreover, the prosecution will argue that the profile was not illegal, but (1) was a legitimate way to deter further vandalism and possible arson, and (2) was based on sufficiently neutral criteria pursuant to guidelines from the Mountainville Police Department.
Consequently, the public interest and non- intrusive means used to advance that interest outweighed the minimal invasiveness of Officer Benares’ inspection of the truck.
People v Price, defense
The defense will argue that the checkpoint stop was unconstitutional and that the detention and inspection of Syd Price’s truck was an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The defense will contend that the checkpoint’s purpose was pretextual, which means that its primary purpose actually was to detect evidence of criminal wrongdoing and not to check licenses and registrations.
To search under the blanket on Syd’s truck, the officer needed probable cause to believe Syd had either violated a traffic law or had done some criminal act. The towel itself meant (1) that Officer Benares had no plain view of the gas can, and (2) that Syd had a reasonable expectation that what was under the blanket was private.
If the purpose was not pretextual, the defense will argue that proper balancing of public interest against the invasiveness of the traffic stop will demonstrate the illegality of the profile used to justify the search of the truck and the seizure of the evidence of the gas can.
People v Martin, pretrial issue
The pretrial motion challenges the constitutionality of Officer Kripke’s interrogation of Beck Martin.
People v Martin, prosecution
The prosecution will argue that under the totality of the circumstances, Martin did not invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege in asking for Aunt Myra. Martin was intelligent, had indicated understanding the Miranda rights Officer Kripke recited, and did not indicate a desire to cease answering questions. Officer Kripke’s continued interrogation was therefore constitutional.
Moreover, if Martin did invoke the privilege, Martin subsequently waived the privilege in answering Kripke’s question whether Martin and Marcus were friends.
People v Martin, defense
The defense will argue that under the totality of the circumstances, Martin’s request to see Aunt Myra was an invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege. Like the suspect asking to see his parents in Burton, Martin’s request for Aunt Myra was the “normal reaction of a youthful suspect.” Martin had no prior experience with law enforcement authorities and had not heard Miranda rights read directly before this incident.
Therefore, the request for Aunt Myra was an indication that Martin wanted the questioning to cease, and Kripke’s continued questions were unconstitutional.
