Reference no: EM133485641

Case: In 2014, Robert and Marion were living together but were not married. They worked at the Greasy Spoon Diner and Poker Parlor (Diner). Robert was a waiter, and Marion was a cashier. During 2014 they conspired and developed an identity theft scheme, using customer credit card information they acquired while working at the diner. They discussed all of their planning and conspired in the privacy of their own home to commit the fraudulent crime. In 2014 they were able to purchase over $30,000 of goods and services using the stolen credit card information.

In January 2015, Robert and Marion were lawfully married.

In February 2015, they invited Flo, another cashier at the Diner to join their scheme by taking a shift or two of online purchasing. They were unaware that Flo was an undercover police officer. Flo went to their home where Robert and Marion demonstrated on their computer how they were able to decipher passwords and user ID's using special software on their computer to use to make online purchases. The demonstration and communications all took place in the privacy of the bedroom in Robert and Marion's home. When Flo left she attached a GPS device to Marion's vehicle.

Flo's police department monitored the movement of Marion's vehicle, which was detected to have travelled to an address of a covert software business which developed software programs to identify user ID's and passwords from credit card numbers. Based upon this information, as well as the discussions Flo had with Robert and Marion, and Flo's observations at their home, a judge issued a warrant to search the home of Robert and Marion and to seize computer equipment, receipts, credit card slips, and other things and documents related to the identity theft scheme. Pursuant to the warrant, the police searched their home, seized the computer and slips of paper with credit card information, and also seized an illegal sawed-off shotgun they found under a bed in the bedroom.

Robert and Marion were arrested and given their proper Miranda rights. Marion invoked her rights to counsel and to remain silent, but Robert voluntarily confessed to everything. Robert agreed to testify against Marion as part of a plea bargain to receive probation, instead of jail time.

Defense Motions

The defense made four motions prior to trial:

A motion to the court to prevent Robert from taking the stand to testify against Marion at trial.
A motion to exclude anything that Marion and Robert said to each other about their scheme and anything that Robert saw Marion do in furtherance of their scheme either before or after their marriage.
A motion to exclude anything that Flo observed or heard Robert and Marion say when she was at their home.
A motion to suppress all of the evidence seized from the home of Robert and Marion.

Question: How would you rule on the defense motion to suppress the evidence seized from the home of Robert and Marion? Please analyze and explain the laws of criminal evidence that apply to and support your ruling based on the facts in the scenario. In analyzing the seized evidence, in addition to any other laws of evidence discussed in your answer, please make sure you discuss the laws of criminal evidence relating to lawful searches and seizures and any exceptions to the seizure of evidence not included in the warrant.