Topic: Criminal Procedure & Evidence Final
Source:

Ingram, J.L. (2009). Criminal Procedure: Theory and Practice. Pearson Education. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

You can use other sources but they need to be annotated on the reference page

CJ265: Criminal Procedure & Evidence
Module 8: The Appellate Process
Final Exam
Write your essays in a Word Document. Each essay should be 250-500 words in length.
You need not cite formal case citations. The essays should be edited for the mechanics of writing such as; clarity, punctuation, capitalization, tenses etc.
You will be graded not only on the content of the essays but writing mechanics as well.
Place all five essays in the same WORD document (do not submit five separate documents) and place the file in the Dropbox.
1.    Jeff is an under-employed 20-something who sporadically works for Luis’s Landscaping Service. His employer provides no health insurance. Jeff is deeply religious, and sometimes hears voices directing the path that he should follow in life. Jeff lives with his mother, Inga. She receives a small Social Security pension. She, too, has no health insurance coverage. Inga desperately needs a surgical procedure to save her life, or at least to ease her constant suffering. A few days ago, Jeff robbed a grocery store. Inga had been begging Jeff to help her get the operation. The robbery went well, from Jeff’s perspective, until a security guard became involved. After an exchange of gunfire with a security guard, Jeff got away.His gunshots seriously wounded the security guard. Later, while watching the evening news on television, Jeff became despondent over the injuries he had inflicted on the convenience store guard and went to confession at his parish. The priest suggested that the honest thing to do would be to return the money, turn himself over to the police, and make a full confession to them- just as he had confessed to the priest. The priest suggested prayer for his mother’s health. Jeff returned to back to the grocery store and returned all of the money. He asked the new guard to phone the police. When the police arrived, Jeff made a complete confession and inquired how the injured store guard was doing in the hospital. The police officer did not interrupt Jeff, either to ask any questions or to offer any Miranda warning. The officer just listened intently after placing Jeff’s hand in cuffs behind his back. The officer quickly captured the essence of the confession in his notebook.

Prior to the pending trial, Jeff’s attorney filed a motion to suppress the confession, alleging that it had been taken involuntarily by police. At the subsequent hearing, evidence revealed that Jeff had a history of mental problems and had been treated for them in the past. There was some testimony about how Jeff sometimes heard voices. The judge found that Jeff was competent and able to assist in his defense.

Did Jeff make a free and voluntary confession to the officer sufficient so that the admission of the confession by a trial court should not violate Jeff’s rights against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment? Analyze and discuss the legal issues and come to a definite conclusion concerning whether the confession was voluntarily and freely given and should be admitted or was involuntarily obtained and must be excluded.
2.    Sheriff Buford Bustem was on patrol in an unmarked patrol car. He exercised his prerogative as sheriff to work in civilian clothes, though he was wearing a gun and handcuffs on his belt and had sheriff’s badge clipped to his belt just in front of the holster. While driving past Goober’s Gas N Goodies just pad midnight, he noticed a shadow-like male figure dart around the corner and into an alley. Sheriff Bustem thought that the man was holding some kind of pry bar or other tool in his hand. Goober’s closed at 10 p.m. Sheriff Bustem stopped and got out of the cruiser.The man ran. Sheriff Bustem quickly gave chase but lost the figure in the darkness. He was able to tell that the man was wearing a large red headband and was clothed in some kind of athletic clothing.

A couple of hours later, Sheriff Bustem spotted a figure who appeared to be the same man who had eluded him earlier. The man was looking through the window of a different gas station. Sheriff Bustem quietly approached his man and forcefully announced, Halt! Sheriff’s Office! What are you doing?

The subject in the red headband turned around to face Sheriff Bustem and tried to run away. Sheriff Bustem blocked his escape and again asked him what he was doing. The man held a bicycle air pump that Sheriff Bustem made him place on the ground. The man stated, Who are you? You’re not a cop, you got no uniform.

When Sheriff Bustem asked the man for his name and inquired what he was doing looking around the gas station at that hour, the man replied that he was merely out to take a bicycle ride on a nice summer night, and that he did not have to give any name to an officer. At this point, Sheriff Bustem asked the man to move directly under a streetlight in order to get a better view of him. You’re not armed are you? Sheriff Bustem asked.The subject remained uncooperative and refused to answer. Sheriff Bustem told the man that state law required that a person has who has been lawfully detained for any reason must offer some evidence of identity. The subject asserted that he had a right of privacy not to give his name to anyone.

Sheriff Bustem spun the subject around and conducted a frisk of the man’s clothing, complete with a search of the inner portions of the man’s bike shorts. Upon feeling a soft bulge in one of the subject’s pockets, Sheriff Bustem reached inside the pocket and removed a soft, clear packet, which later proved to contain powdered cocaine. Sheriff Bustem arrested the subject and took him to the jail.

Can the cocaine be admitted into evidence and used at trial against the man? Provide a complete legal analysis of the stop and frisk, as well as the ensuing search.
3.    During his high school years, Euclid was widely known to student as a dealer in marijuana and methamphetamine. His reputation followed him as he began to attend Pythagoras University where he studied quantum geometry theory. Euclid did have one arrest in high school for possession of marijuana, but his attorney was able to get the case dismissed for lack of evidence. Euclid had no other criminal record. Police noticed that college students tended to make short visits to his apartment and especially around examination time. Police also observed that Euclid made frequent visits to some of the dormitories but he never stayed for long.; Detective Archimedes noticed Euclid’s car parked in a Menelaus’s Alexandrian Pizza restaurant parking lot. Detective Archimedes walked over to the window where he smelled the faint odor of recently burnt marijuana. The car’s ash tray was closed. One high school student at Euclid’s former high school did tell Detective Archimedes that a year ago he purchased some marijuana from Euclid in a city park and he had heard that college students bought methamphetamine from Euclid to help them cram for final examinations. Detective Archimedes sees Euclid coming out of the restaurant carrying a marinated anchovy pizza.
Does Detective Archimedes have probable cause to arrest Euclid for a drug crime?; Argue the merits of the position in favor of probable cause and the position against probable cause to arrest. Determine which position has the better view.
4.    Francesco Petrarca and his live-in woman friend, Lucrezia di Lorenzo de’ Medici, shared a rent-subsidized apartment, since it was all that they could reasonably afford. Francesco worked at a store at the local mall on reduced hours. Lucrezia did not work and did not contribute cash to the household. To make the rent each month, Francesco dealt in heroin and cocaine. An informant, wanting to take over Francesco’s customers and eliminate the competition, notified police that Francesco was selling illegal drugs out of his apartment.

The police initiated a stake out which allowed them to notice the strange schedule Francesco followed. The police watched Francesco’s activities for several days. Each night, the police noticed that Francesco. On some occasions, people would walk right up to Francesco and Lucrezia’s apartment and make a brief visit and leave, carrying small parcels. There was no reason to believe that Francesco and Lucrezia were selling Amway or Avon products. After careful analysis, the police believed that probable cause was a close call and believed that they had only a hunch that drug dealing was occurring at Francesco’s apartment. They wanted to get a look inside the apartment, but did not have a legal method of entry.

One day, when Francesco was at the mall, the officers decided to just ask Lucrezia if they could look around the place. Officer Niccolo Machiavelli and Officer Michaelangelo Buonarroti approached the front door and, after ringing the bell, asked Lucrezia if they could look around. They told Lucrezia that they were investigating drug sales in the apartment complex and just wanted to be sure that none of the sales were coming from their apartment. Lucrezia and Francesco had engaged a terrible fight just last night and Homer had hit Lucrezia in the face. The next morning, Francesco told her that their relationship was finished and he told her to leave since he was paying the rent and Lucrezia was not contributing anything. Francesco stormed out but he told Lucrezia to be gone when he got back and to leave her front door key on the espresso machine when she left for the last time.

Still angry over the break-up of her relationship, Lucrezia felt that having the police look around would serve Francesco right. Lucrezia appeared eager to tell her story to the officers. Lucrezia told the officers that they could take a look at anything in the apartment and acted as if she still lived there and that she still shared the apartment with her boyfriend, Francesco.

One officer asked, You really live here? Sure, Lucrezia told him, thinking to herself, What a lie! Officers Machiavelli and Buonarroti looked around in the kitchen, the living room, the bathroom and the den. In the bathroom, Officer Machiavelli discovered a small mirror with a couple of lines of white powder. Subsequent laboratory analysis indicated that the powder was cocaine. Officer Machiavelli then went into the rear room of the apartment where he encountered a lock on a spare bedroom door. Officer Machiavelli asked Lucrezia where the key was kept. She told him, Franceso has a key on the top of the door frame molding. I don’t know what is in that room since Franceso never let me see what goes on in that back room. Then she left the apartment key on the espresso machine and walked out the door for the last time. The police never saw her again. After unlocking the room and entering it, the officers discovered a drug lab containing small quantities of heroin, cocaine, and marijuana.

Can the drug evidence be admitted to prosecute Francesco? Will the evidence found in the bathroom be treated differently from the evidence found in the locked room? Evaluate the legal principles that apply to your decision, relate these legal principles to the actual facts of the case, and come to a definite conclusion.
5.    Defendant Archibald Leach was traveling by interstate bus from California to Chicago, getting his kicks on Route 66. During a scheduled stop in Needles, California, all of the passengers left the bus. Police took a drug detector dog through the bus and the dog alerted to luggage in the belly of the bus that had a tag bearing defendant’s name. After the passengers got back on the bus to resume their trip, one officer used a ruse by dressing as a bus company employee and telling the bus passengers that there was a problem with the bus air condition system and that they would have to switch to a different bus. This was a trick intended to cause all passengers to identify their luggage in the move to a different bus.

Leach identified his luggage as the one to which the drug dog alerted. Upon more thought, the defendant finally told police that the suitcase was not his. When no one claimed the suitcase, police determined that the luggage must be considered abandoned property. Police ed it to find about eight ounces of marijuana and a large quantity of LSD.. With the identification tag and other evidence that the luggage belonged to defendant Leach, a federal prosecutor successfully procured a drug conviction of possession with intent to distribute. Leach appealed to the court of appeals.

Did Archibald Leach voluntarily abandon his luggage so that he no longer had any expectation of privacy in its contents? Did any illegal police conduct cause Archibald Leach to involuntarily abandon his luggage? Evaluate the legal principles that apply to your decision, relate these legal principles to the actual facts of the case, and come to a definite conclusion.