Chapter 7 – State v. Ellis
- List all the actions taken by the resident assistants and the Central State Police Department officers that invaded Ellis’s Fourth Amendment right of privacy in his dorm room.
-The police were in Elis’s room during the college dormitory regular inspection
-The campus police did not carry the search, but they were present during the search and confiscated the contrabands material; thus, it can be said the resident assistants were agents of the campus police.
-The individual needs search one has an element that the search is not done for criminal prosecution; therefore, there was no cause to notify the police.
- Explain why the Court’s interrogation of resident assistants’ actions was consistent with reasonable Fourth Amendment searches, but the police officers’ actions were unreasonable. Do you agree? Defend your answer.
– I agree. The resident’s assistants’ actions were consistent as they were private agents acting per the university policy and have a duty to maintain a conducive environment for learning while the campus police are state agents who are not permitted by the fourth amendment to carry out special needs searches
- Interrogate Ellis’s Fourth Amendment privacy ideal from his standpoint. Back up your answer.
-Ellis had made a plea that the evidence to be suppressed as it was found during a school search and the University should have handled it rather than the drugs handed over to the campus police for criminal prosecution. One of the issue to be cognizant of is the search can result in criminal characteristic as a result of the evidence obtained, in this case, Ellis was found with marijuana which is illegal.
- As they relate to the special needs/privacy ideal, should it matter whether the resident assistants, campus police, or city police conducted the search? Defend your answer.
-It should matter. The fourth amendment on special needs searches stipulates that the search should be carried out by a private person who in Ellis’s case is the resident assistant, but if the campus police or the city police could have carried out the search it would have been a violation of his right to privacy
Chapter 8 – Miranda v. Arizona
- According to SCOTUS, what do the words “custody” and “interrogation” mean?
Custody is the intentional deprivation of one’s liberty of action in any way. Interrogation is the process of police questioning suspects in their custody.
- Why is custodial interrogation “inherently coercive,” according to the majority?
-Custodial interrogation is considered inherently coercive as the suspects are held in strange and hostile surroundings and are denied communication to their loved ones. Also, the interrogators are expert in the field of interrogation; therefore use every means including tricks and lie to make the suspect confess involuntarily.
- Identify and explain the criteria for waiving the right against self-incrimination in custodial interrogation.
-One of the criteria for waiving the right against self-incrimination is the provision of information without a lawyer.
- On what grounds do the dissenters disagree with the majority’s decision? What interests are in conflict, according to the Court?
-Dissenters and majority agree on the ground of non-violations of the right against self-incrimination and the duty of the police to protect its citizens. They disagree on the use of coercion in obtaining evidence, and some argued that the police are compelled to get confessions out of the suspects as some cases need the confessions to proceed,
- How do the majority and the dissent explain the balance of interests established by the Constitution?
The majority share the opinion that an accused enjoys the right entirely against self-incrimination is absolute, and the police violate this right when they coerce or duress information out of a suspect. The dissenting opinion believe the police acts can be justified: firstly the police have a duty to protect the public, and individual cases cannot do without confession. The Constitution creates a balance of interests through the Miranda by the police obtaining the information through a subtle way, creating a conducive environment for the suspect to speak through the bright-line rules.
- Which is more consistent with the relevant criminal procedures ideals regarding the law of police interrogation, the majority’s bright-line rule, requiring warnings, or the dissent’s due process test, weighing the totality of circumstances on a case-by-case basis? Defend your answer.
The majority’s bright-line rules are more consistent. This because they provide the basis every suspect must be informed of his or her rights. The rules also restrict the police from using coercion to obtain information from a suspect
Chapter 9 – Perry v. New Hampshire
- Was the show-up accidental? Explain your answer.
The show up was accidental. The eye witness did not intentionally meet with Perry, but she had seen him committing the crime from her window but could not identify him from the photos. The second witness was able to identify him
.
- Summarize the majority opinions arguments supporting its decision that the Manson two-prong test does not apply to the show-up.
Manson prong test comprises of two elements: whether the police used an unnecessarily suggestive procedure showcasing the defendant as guilty and reliability of the identification process.
- Summarize Justice Sotomayor’s arguments that the Manson test should apply.
Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion was that not only the act of suggestion that creates a problem of due process but the effect of an act of suggestion on the reliability of a resulting identification. Perry had alleged that the photos used of him were negatively suggestive and placed him at a disadvantage and for this reason, the Manson test should apply.
- In your opinion should the Manson two-prong test apply to the show-up? Back up your answer with arguments from the facts and SCOTUS opinion(s).
The Manson two-prongs test should not apply. The show up was carried out according to the Due Process Clause as Justice Thomas puts it. The due process does not require a preliminary questioning of the reliability of eye witness identification since it was not done under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances organized by the police, therefore, no need for the application of Manson two-prong test.
- How does SCOTUS address the innocence and evidence-based decision-making ideals? Explain your answer.
SCOTUS addresses innocence and evidence-based decision-making ideal
Chapter 10 – Hudson v. Michigan
- List the relevant facts regarding the police entry into Booker T. Hudson home.
– The police entry was carried out by six police officers who had a warrant to search the petitioner’s house for drugs and firearms.
– Several police officers shouted “police, search warrant” waited for three seconds before entering the premises.
– The police, during their search, found cocaine and a loaded firearm.
- Summarize the majority’s reasons for creating the “knock-and-announce” exception.
The majority’s reasons for creating the “knock and announce” rule that stated that the police need announce their presence and wait for a reasonable time before entering is that the evidence obtained if the police do not comply to this provision is that the evidence is subject to suppression. Hudson had applied for the Court to suppress the evidence obtained during his search as the police did not observe the knock and announce rule.
- Summarize the dissent’s reasons for opposing the “knock-and-announce” exception.
The dissenting decisions were premised on the fact that the evidence cannot be suppressed on the mere fact that the police did not take reasonable time before entering the petitioner’s house. It was further noted that the search was carried out with a warrant and the evidence obtained with a warrant there admissible in Court.
- Summarize Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion. What is the significance of his opinion? Explain.
He stated that a violation of the knock- and announce rule does not require a court to exclude seized evidence. He further observed that the police have a tendency to disobey the provisions of the law and if this persists, he will denounce his position and exclude evidence seized if the knock and announce rule has not complied.
5.In your opinion, who has the better argument? Defend your answer.
The dissenters have a better argument as it is entirely reasonable that the evidence is not excluded on the basis that the police did not adhere to yet other factors considered were adhered to. The police had a warrant for the search in confiscated evidence which was the purpose of the search.
Chapter 11 – Dwares v. City of New York
- List all the facts relevant to deciding whether NYPD officers allowed Kreitman to beat Steven Dwares.
-In an interview, Kreitman confirmed that police officers told skinheads that unless they got ultimately out of control, the police would not interfere with their assaults or arrest them.
-Dwares states that the defendant police officers were present during his assault and did not take any action to intervene.
- Summarize the Court’s arguments applying the state-created-danger rule to the facts of this case.
-The Court’s arguments applying the state-created-danger rule to the facts of this case say that the officers did not assist in causing harm to the victims, so they are in the clear.
- Do you believe it should be the federal courts’ “business” to decide when police officers are liable when private people beat up other individuals? If you do, who should make these decisions? State courts? Legislatures? Special panels of experts? Explain your answer.
– The legislature should decide when police officers are liable when private people beat up other individuals. Moreover, they should be liable because an officer’s job is to protect and maintain the peace upon their community.
Chapter 12 – Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez
- Summarize the majority opinion’s arguments supporting its conclusion that Gonzalez has no constitutional right to have the Castle Rock police enforce the restraining order against her husband.
-The District Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that no law permitted her to sue the police department for failure to enforce a restraining order. It was not their obligation.
- Summarize the dissent’s arguments supporting its conclusion that Gonzalez does have a constitutional right to have the Castle Rock police enforce the restraining order against her husband.
-Gonzales had a “protected property interest in the enforcement of the terms of her restraining order,” which the police had violated.
- Do you think the Colorado “mandatory” enforcement statute intended to take away the Castle Rock Police Department’s discretion in enforcing the restraining order? Defend your answer.
No. It intended to ensure the police department’s adherence to the restraining order
- 4. How important is it that Colorado was one of a number of states enacting mandatory enforcement of restraining orders in domestic abuse cases because of the widespread non -enforcement of restraining orders in domestic violence cases? It is essential that Colorado enacted mandatory enforcement of restraining orders in domestic abuse cases to provide a platform for the aggrieved parties and offer them redress.
Chapter 13 – North Carolina v. Alford
- Did Henry Alford knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty?
Henry knowingly pleaded guilty to the second account of murder, although it was involuntary.
- Consider the dissent’s comment that Henry Alford was “so gripped by fear of the death penalty” that his decision was “the product of duress.” Should defendants ever be allowed to plead guilty if they believe they are innocent? Why or why not? Back up your answer with arguments from the majority and dissenting opinions.
No. This is because of the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. The majority argued that there should be voluntariness of the defendant to plead guilty or innocent and should not be forced by circumstances or evidence to plead guilty. The dissenting opinion refers that if the defendant wishes to plead guilty, he is free although he should be aware of the consequences, Alford’s case.
- Do Alford pleas promote the accuracy and sorting criminal procedure?
Alford’s pleas promote accuracy in sorting criminal procedure, especially in cases where the only evidence present is the defendant’s confession.
Chapter 14 – Lockyer, Attorney General of California v. Andrade
- How does the majority know that the three-strikes law is not cruel and unusual?
Scotus stated that it was not cruel ton sentence Leandro 50 years in prison for shoplifting videos worth $150 under California’s three-strikes law.
- How does the dissent know that it is cruel and unusual?. It is justifiable for the Court to impose a 50-year sentence for a second minor felony committed after the first one.
- Are their opinions purely subjective, or are they based on some standards? If so,
what are the standards? The opinions are based on the state court decision. Andrade’s sentence implicates factors relevant in both Rummel and Solem.
- Should the California legislature or the U.S. Supreme Court decide whether punishments are cruel and unusual? Explain your answer. The U.S Supreme Court should decide because they are the ones who have to interpret the law made by the legislature. The punishment should be reasonable and rehabilitative.
- Do you believe 25 years to life is “grossly disproportionate” to Leandro Andrade’s crime? How do you know whether it is or isn’t? Yes, it is “grossly disproportionate” because the fine does not fit the crime, especially if his prior felony was struck out of the second sentencing.
Chapter 15 – U.S. v. M. Farah and Others
- List all the facts and circumstances relevant to prove there was probable cause to issue the search and arrest warrants.
–
–
–
- In your opinion, do you believe there was probable cause to deny bail to each of the defendants? Back up your answer with details from the affidavit and the relevant text in Chapter 12.
There was reasonable cause to deny bail. This is because when the defendants are out of police custody, they are prone to the commission of crimes as well as the nature and seriousness of the crime does not allow for cash bail.
- Do the defendants have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their tweets, texts, and emails? Back up your answer with details from relevant sections of Chapter 1, and sections in this chapter.
The defendants have an unreasonable expectation of privacy on electronic surveillance as they are being accused of terrorism. The government has a duty to protect its citizen, and this includes the right to invade the privacy of its citizens
- In your opinion, should it matter where each of the defendants was born? Defend your answer.
The defendants’ place of birth is of considerable significance as it depicts the beliefs and affiliations of the defendants. It is not discriminatory when their place of birth affects their current actions both in their state and outside their state.