Criminal Procedure Midterm Review - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 9
About This Presentation
Title:

Criminal Procedure Midterm Review

Description:

All elements outlined above are important, but, of course, the 'Application' ... I had to get George a date with Marisa Tomei to do this, but it was worth it! ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:179
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 10
Provided by: clown4
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Criminal Procedure Midterm Review


1
Criminal Procedure Midterm Review
  • Search and Seizure Flow Chart
  • Hypothetical Fact Pattern Exercise
  • Practice questions
  • Questions and Answers
  • Power point slides available at
  • http//jyates.myweb.uga.edu/

2
Basic Fourth Amendment Analysis
Search by government?
Police good faith? Inevitable Discovery? Independe
nt source?
Search Valid
Warrant Exception? Incident to arrest Auto
search Plain view Consent Stop frisk Hot
pursuit/evanescent evidence
Reasonably expect privacy? Standing?
No?
No?
Was there a warrant?
Was warrant proper and executed correctly?
Search Valid
Search Valid
3
One method of answering hypothetical fact pattern
questions
  • I.R.A.C. Method
  • Issue
  • Rule
  • Application
  • Conclusion
  • All elements outlined above are important, but,
    of course, the Application element is most
    important
  • This could be used for either essay writing
    organization or to clarify your thinking in a
    multiple choice question context

4
PRACTICE MIDTERM EXAMINATION - FACT PATTERN
TYPE QUESTION The state of New York passed a
law prohibiting the use, possession, or sale of
tea leaves and tea products. This includes iced
tea, hot tea, or any other manner that tea might
be ingested or sold. The possession, use, or
sale of tea is a felony punishable for up to five
years in prison. Unfortunately, the use of tea
persists in the city of New York where tea abuse
has reached epidemic proportions. Jerry and his
friend Elaine are quite fond of hot tea as is
Elaines new boyfriend Lloyd Braun. Jerry lives
down the hall from Cosmo Kramer who prefers
iced tea. Jerry and Elaines friend George
dislikes tea but, likes to hang out with tea
users because he wants to be hip. The new
police chief in town, Newman (the former
mailman), has vowed to rid the city of this vile
weed. One day Kramer is sipping iced tea in his
apartment and there is a knock on his door.
Kramer answers the door to find Newman, his
former friend and now tea czar. Newman asks,
Not hiding anything in here are we Kramer? I
know you used to have a certain fascination with
... iced tea! Newman stares the frightened
Kramer in the face and asks, mind if I have a
look around? Kramer, not being very well versed
in his constitutional rights, believes that he
must let the forceful Newman in and replies,
yeah, sure whatever you want, big officer man.
Newman then spies a tall cool glass of iced tea
on Kramers coffee table. He confiscates the
evidence and places Kramer under arrest for
possession of tea. -- So, is the evidence
excludable at trial? Why or why not?
5
Meanwhile, Jerry, Elaine and George are over at
Lloyd Brauns house drinking hot tea. Of course,
George does not partake of the tea, stating that
he had a bad experience in junior high school
with tea. Lloyd has an excellent assortment of
tea leaves which impresses Jerry and Elaine very
much, but irritates George. George believes that
Lloyd Braun is a showoff and a no-talent pretty
boy. Since early childhood his parents always
talked about how great Lloyd Braun is and how he
(George) should be more like him. Sitting there
at the tea table George plots his revenge. He
goes into the kitchen (supposedly to get a drink
of water) and finds an exquisite tin can of tea
with Lloyd Brauns name engraved on it. He
sticks it under his coat and tells the group that
he needs to go home to do something. The next day
he goes to see Newman at the police station and
produces the tea can with Lloyd Brauns name on
it. Newman arrests Lloyd Braun in his apartment
(he has an arrest warrant) and while he is there
notices several pictures of Elaine and Lloyd on
display. This piques Newmans curiosity. Could
it be that she drinks tea also? He goes over to
Elaines apartment and Jerry answers the door.
Hello, Newman, quips the irritated Jerry.
You two wouldnt be drinking tea would you?
inquires Newman. Jerry shakes his head in a
nervous manner. Newman further asks, so ... are
you and Elaine living together, here? Jerry
angrily replies, no Newman, you know that shes
dating Lloyd Braun, and furthermore you know that
I live in your apartment complex. Well, if you
two have nothing to hide, then I guess you wont
mind me looking around the place for tea,
retorts Newman. No, go right ahead says Jerry
since he knows that Lloyd always keeps the tea at
his place. What he didnt know is that Lloyd had
given Elaine a special gift tin can of tea with
Elaines initials on the can. In no time, Newman
finds the tea and arrests Elaine on the spot. --
So, is the evidence against Lloyd Braun
excludable? What about the evidence against
Elaine? If so, on what grounds? If not, then why
not?
6
Jerry now has two friends under arrest for
possession of tea. He meets George at Monks
cafe for lunch to talk about the arrests. George
starts discussing how they shouldnt have gotten
mixed up with Lloyd Braun and that Jerrys use of
tea was probably a bad idea. Jerry replies,
youre crazy, I love tea. I like it hot, iced
... I even like to put it in cakes sometimes.
George somberly looks at Jerry and says Im
sorry my friend, but I had to do it. Whereupon
Newman shows up and exposes the tape recorder
under Georges jacket. Yes! exclaims Newman. I
had to get George a date with Marisa Tomei to do
this, but it was worth it! Jerrys taped
statements are used against him at trial and are
the basis of a subsequent search warrant for his
apartment. The search turns up tea leaves. --
So, is the confession admissible at trial? Are
the tea leaves from the subsequent search of the
apartment admissible? Why or why not?
7
Case based M/C Question
  • According to the Supreme Court opinion in Terry
    v. Ohio
  • A) Police have the authority to detain a person
    briefly for
  • questioning even without probable cause.
  • B) Police cannot stop citizens without probable
    cause to believe that
  • crime is afoot.
  • C) In any instance where the police can stop
    someone, they can
  • also frisk the person.
  • D) Police must have clear and convincing
    evidence that crime is
  • afoot before stopping a citizen.

8
Hypothetical based M/C Question
  • Government agent Fox Mulder approaches a suspect,
    actress Tea Leoni, in a public place and politely
    asks if she is willing to answer some questions.
    This action by Mulder
  • A) must be justified by a warrant
  • B) is the equivalent of an arrest
  • C) is the equivalent of a stop
  • D) is not a seizure

9
Alternative to M/C Answers
(This language will be on the test re M/C
answers) If you feel that the question is
ambiguous or may lead to more than one answer,
then you may answer it with a short essay. You
may do this by (a) clearly denoting the question
that you are answering on the back of the
examination, (b) stating the grounds for the
ambiguity, and (c) fully answering the given
question (a paragraph or more), including
alternative answers for different ways that the
ambiguous portions of the question may be
interpreted.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com