Reference no: EM131104832

QUESTION 1
What impact did the Court's ruling in Illinois v. Gates have on the Aguilar-Spinelli test? Explain the Court's rationale for holding as they did.

QUESTION 2
What rationale is provided for allowing police officers to base a finding of probable cause on hearsay? What dangers could you see in allowing hearsay as a basis for establishing probable cause?

QUESTION 3
According to Chimel v. California, a warrantless search conducted under the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement has three purposes. What are the three purposes?

QUESTION 4
Define probable cause.

QUESTION 5
Explain how an individual might benefit from giving the police consent to search.

QUESTION 6
Explain why special-needs searches generally do not require a warrant or probable cause.

QUESTION 7
What do the courts require in order for a person to effectively withdraw his or her consent to search?

QUESTION 8
If a person is held in custody and subjected to an interrogation, the person must be advised of what three rights in clear and unequivocal terms?
QUESTION 9
Explain the test that the Court uses in determining if an interrogation was custodial.

QUESTION 10
Explain the public safety exception to Miranda. How does the Court's definition of this exception impact an officer's ability to determine if the exception applies to a specific situation?

QUESTION 11
What test did the Court adopt in determining the admissibility of identification evidence under the due process test?

QUESTION 12
What are the three stages of eye witness identification?

QUESTION 13
On August 28, 2012, a Guadalupe County justice of the peace signed an arrest warrant authorizing the arrest of Alvin Valadez Jr. for the offense of engaging in organized criminal activity. The warrant was supported by a complaint asserting Valadez and five other individuals committed the offense of engaging in organized criminal activity with the underlying offense being the aggravated assault of Roberto Machado Herrera Jr.

Seguin Police Department Detective Clinton Halbardier signed the five-page complaint based on his investigation and that of the Seguin Police Department. In his application, Detective Halbardier reported he relied on statements provided by four unnamed informants who directly witnessed the assault in question or were privy to certain circumstantial evidence relating to the assault. Detective Halbardier further averred that he believed these witnesses to be credible and the magistrate could rely on them. He cited interviews with the victim, previous investigations of the listed suspects, and Seguin Police Department offense reports and supplemental reports.

Detective Halbardier's complaint asserted that on August 26, 2012, Herrera was approached by five or six men who questioned him about his gang affiliation. After Herrera informed the group he was part of the "Orejones," the group asserted they were the "EME" or the "Merecido," common names for the Mexican Mafia. The group further instructed Herrera that he should deny being a member of the Orejones because he was in Merecido territory. As Herrera exited his vehicle, one of the individuals waived his arm and Herrera was attacked from behind with a knife. Herrera was stabbed and beaten.

Detective Halbardier averred that all six suspects, including Valadez, were confirmed to be active gang members. The officer outlined Valadez's affiliation as "a documented Mexican Mafia gang member" and a "lieutenant with the Mexican Mafia," based on national and state database information searches.

Detective Halbardier also relied on the statements of four witnesses who asked to be unnamed in the complaint for "personal safety and security reasons." Two of the witnesses were gainfully employed, had previously provided credible information, and had acquaintances involved in the Mexican Mafia. The third witness was present during the assault and his statement corroborated Herrera's statements, and the final witness had no criminal history. Two of the four witnesses reported being threatened not to tell officers about the assault. Additionally, several of the informants reported the assault stemmed from suspicions that Herrera stole drugs from Valadez. Detective Halbardier's complaint concluded, considering all of the known facts and the current information provided by the witnesses, [Valadez] has been named multiple times in the past as the leader of the Mexican Mafia in Seguin. [Valadez] is acting in concert with the other suspects in trying to threaten witnesses not to give their testimony to police and to help avoid prosecution for the aggravated assault on the victim.

A Guadalupe County justice of the peace issued the arrest warrant that same day, authorizing the arrest of Valadez for the offense of engaging in organized criminal activity. After locating and securing Valadez, Guadalupe County Sheriff's Office Investigator David Camacho executed the arrest warrant and conducted a search incident to arrest. During the search, Investigator Camacho discovered four balloons of heroin in Valadez's pocket.

1. Do you believe there was sufficient probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant? What factors have to be addressed in order for the affidavit to be valid?

2. Pretrial hearing - Motion to Suppress. Which argument do you agree with? Explain your answer.
Argument #1: Valadez contends that because the State failed to demonstrate the arrest warrant was supported by a complaint demonstrating probable cause to arrest on the charge of engaging in organized criminal activity, the trial court erred in denying Valadez's motion to suppress. Valadez argues that the warrant was devoid of the facts necessary to support a magistrate's independent judgment that probable cause existed that either Valadez, "or any other named suspects, acted with the intent to establish maintain or participate in the profits of a combination or a criminal street gang."

Argument #2: The State counters that the arrest warrant was supported by probable cause for the offense because the issuing magistrate could reasonably infer that Valadez had conspired with other members of the Mexican Mafia to commit an aggravated assault against Herrera.

QUESTION 14

Four Buffalo police officers assigned to an FBI career criminal task force were patrolling the city in an unmarked car on June 11, 2002, in search of Kenneth Foster-Brown, a fugitive wanted for dealing drugs. All four officers had on previous occasions encountered Foster-Brown, a black man who was 5′8″ tall and at the time weighed 145 pounds. Defendant-appellant Swindle, also a black man, is 6′1″ tall and in June 2002 weighed 215 pounds.

During their patrol, the officers saw a black Pontiac Bonneville, a model of car that Foster-Brown had previously been seen "near" but had never been known to drive. The officers saw the car come to a halt in front of a known drug house that Foster-Brown had supplied in the past. The officers stopped their car and watched as a black man got out of the Bonneville, entered the house, left a short time later and drove away. The officers were unable to tell whether the man was Foster-Brown. In fact, the man in the Bonneville was Swindle. Thinking that he might be Foster-Brown, the officers followed in their car. Within a minute, by activating their police strobe light, they ordered Swindle to pull over.

Swindle disobeyed the officers' order to stop and kept driving. As he did, he violated two traffic laws by crossing a double yellow lane divider and driving the wrong way on a one-way street. Swindle also reached into the visor above the driver's seat, attempted to throw something out of the window and ultimately succeeded in throwing a plastic bag out of the car. The bag was found to contain 33 smaller bags of crack cocaine. Swindle eventually pulled over and fled on foot. The police apprehended him in a yard and placed him under arrest. He was charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

Swindle moved to suppress the drugs on the ground that they were the fruit of an illegal seizure. A magistrate judge held a hearing at which one of the arresting officers and Swindle testified. According to the officer, the man who entered the drug house was a "dark skinned black male, approximately six foot tall, wearing a white muscle shirt, T shirt." The officer admitted that he knew Foster-Brown to be a "5′8″, 150 pound[ ] ·black male." The officer also conceded that when Swindle was ordered to pull over, Swindle "had violated no Vehicle and Traffic law at that time." Moreover, when asked whether he had seen Swindle "do anything illegal in any way, shape or form that day," the officer answered:  "Not prior to activating the courtesy light." Further, the officer was asked "what was·your reason, the sole reason you activated your emergency light at that point?" He answered:  "To ascertain if, in fact, Mr. Swindle was, in fact, Kenneth Foster Brown." Swindle testified that he was 24 years old, 6′1″ tall and weighed 215 pounds on June 11. The government did not rebut or attempt to discredit this testimony.

1. Was there reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot to allow Swindle's vehicle to be stopped?

2. Did Swindle abandon the drugs before or after being seized? Is this important? Explain.

3. Were the drugs illegally seized in violation of the 14th Amendment?

QUESTION 15
Officers Nowell and Ashe responded to a dispatcher's report that an anonymous informant had observed a "subject" with a gun at 1009 West Seventh Street in Wilmington, Delaware. The dispatcher did not indicate the tip's reliability. Officers Nowell and Ashe responded to the call in a marked police vehicle. As the pair proceeded down West Seventh Street, they observed the silhouettes of five people standing on the front porch of a house. Turning on a spotlight, Officer Ashe confirmed that the address of the house was 1009, and that two females and three males were on the porch. Waterman was standing in the middle of the group, near the front door to the residence. Getting out of the police cruiser, Officer Ashe positioned herself 8-10 feet from the residence, while Officer Nowell approached the house. Ashe did not observe any weapons but ordered the individuals on the porch to place their hands in the air for safety reasons. All complied except Waterman, who kept his hands in his jacket pockets. The District Court found the following events ensued:

From her vantage point, Ashe had an unobstructed view of defendant. Ashe did not see a weapon in defendant's hands;  however, based on her training, Ashe suspected that defendant might have been armed because he had moved his hands toward his waistband. Ashe and Nowell drew their firearms as Ashe repeatedly commanded defendant to put his hands in the air. Defendant did not comply;  he moved one of his hands behind his back and turned the doorknob of the front door. The door didn't open. Ashe thought the door was locked. Ashe continued, unsuccessfully, to order defendant to show his hands. Ashe and Nowell maintained their weapons in a drawn position, aimed at the individuals standing on the porch.

Just then, Deborah Waters opened the door and stepped onto the porch. As Deborah Waters exited, defendant entered the residence. Nowell, standing near the porch, thrust his leg into the doorway to prevent the door from being shut.

1. Was Waterman seized on the porch by the officers?

2. Can the gun and drugs found inside the residence be used as evidence? Explain.

QUESTION 16
After dark one New Year's Eve, a man pulled his car alongside a couple's car while they waited in a McDonald's drive-through. He lingered for over 30 seconds while looking right at the couple and grinning. The wife did not think this conduct was normal. When the couple pulled forward, the man drove in front of them, grinning and staring for another 15 to 20 seconds. Next, he circled around the restaurant and pulled up behind their car to the left side, all but blocking them in. Again, he stared and grinned at them. The couple, feeling threatened and intimidated, feared a robbery was in progress or that the man was stalking or sizing them up. The husband called 911 as the man drove off to the adjacent Wal-Mart parking lot and pulled alongside two parked cars. The husband relayed what he and his wife had seen and told the dispatcher that the man's behavior was suspicious. As instructed, the couple provided contact information and remained at the scene.

The dispatched officer knew only the description of the vehicle, that it was circling Wal-Mart, and that a citizen had reported it as a suspicious vehicle. When the officer approached the car and the driver opened the window, he noticed a strong smell of alcoholic beverage and, ultimately, arrested Derichsweiler for DWI. (STOP)

1. Does reasonable suspicion require articulation of a specific crime?

2. Was the arrest legal?

3. What will be required of the officer to show why be believed the defendant could be legally arrested?