Constitutional Law

 

 

 

In the state of Denial, the Capital City Police have been watching gang activity between two local gangs, the Drips and the Scruds. The Scruds are mad at the Drips because they believe that the Drips have been encroaching on the Scruds’ territory and selling drugs in the Scruds’ neighborhood. Members of the gangs take the first letter of the gang’s affiliation for their “gang name.” For example, the leader of the Drips is assumed the name Dripster, while the leader of the Scrips took on the name Stupido. Officers Do-Right and Justice have been assigned to the case and have been following members of both gangs closely over the past several weeks.

Dripster (the leader of the Drips) has been driving around in a Black Chevrolet Blazer that is registered to his girlfriend. Do-Right and Justice have placed a tracking device on the vehicle so that they can follow the gang leader at a safe distance without him noticing them. Using the tracking device, they have followed him to a party being held at a house owned by the girlfriend of a fellow Drip, Dufus.

The officers decide to use a new device that they have obtained from the police department called the Bloodhound, which can sniff out certain smells from a distance. Using the Bloodhound, the officers have determined that inside the house are the following substances: marijuana, creatine (which is commonly used to cut cocaine), and lye (which can be used in making methamphetamine). Based upon the information they have obtained from the Bloodhound, they call a magistrate and obtain a search warrant for Dufus’ house.

After backup arrives, Officers Do-Right and Justice lead the way to the house, where they break through the front door of the house without first knocking and announcing their presence. Inside the house, they find Dripster sitting at the kitchen table in front of a scale and a white powdery substance, which is later determined to be to be cocaine. They also find Dufus in a back room surrounded by boxes of electronics and a pile of cash that they later determine to be $50,000. With Dufus are two low-level Drips, Dummy and Duncecap, who are armed with automatic assault rifles and loaded handguns.

When the officers rush into the room where Dufus, Dummy, and Duncecap are, Duncecap immediately throws up his hands and tells the officers, “I’ll tell you everything I know! Just don’t arrest me!” Dufus turns to his accomplices and says, “If either of you says a word, you are dead meat.” Duncecap immediately stops talking and claims he “doesn’t know anything about anything.”

As Do-Right is escorting Dripster to his cruiser after he has arrested him, a carload of Scruds drives by slowly. The Scruds’ leader, Stupido, leans out of his window and yells to Dripster, “I told you to keep your business off our turf!” Dripster, thinking Stupido is the reason that the cops raided the house, grabs Do-Right’s gun and opens fire towards Stupido’s car. Dripster misses Stupido and his car, but he shoots and injures a 12-year-old girl, Innocent, who is watching the arrests in her front yard across the street. Innocent survives but is paralyzed. At the same time, Stupido, realizing that Dripster is shooting at him, grabs his own weapon from the car and shoots at his arch-enemy but misses him.

Officers are able to safely transport Dripster, Dufus, Dummy, and Duncecap to the police station and have also arrested Stupido. They search Stupido’s car at the scene and find the gun he used to shoot at Dripster. Ballistics shows that the gun was used in a previous armed robbery of a party store. Stupido is charged with the robbery.

At the police station, Officer Justice, who is questioning Dummy without first reading Miranda warnings, tells Dummy that if he tells him everything he knows about the rivalry between the Drips and the Scruds and agrees to testify against the members of both gangs, the police will charge him with only possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor. Dummy takes the deal.

Stupido was interrogated at the police station regarding the armed robbery and told that he had been named as the robber by an eyewitness. He asked for his lawyer three times, but his lawyer, who arrived at the police station while Stupido was being interrogated, was twice denied entry to the interrogation. After three hours of interrogation, Stupido confesses to the armed robbery.

Dripster is convicted of attempted murder of Innocent and sentenced to death. He is also convicted of possession with intent to sell marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine. He is additionally convicted of possession of stolen property (the electronics) and unregistered firearms. Stupido is convicted of the armed robbery and attempting to murder Dripster. Dufus and Duncecap are also convicted of possession with intent to sell marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine; possession of stolen property (the electronics); and for unregistered firearms. Dummy is convicted of misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

The cases are all combined as People v. Dripster, Dummy & Stupido , et al. The following points have been appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. You are an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and this case has come before the Court. The Chief Justice has assigned you to write a majority opinion resolving the case. In your paper,

Write an opinion (an analysis of the questions below that will serve as the reasoning and the ruling of the Supreme Court) that resolves the case based upon previous cases from the United States Supreme Court, other federal and state courts, and other scholarly sources.
Explain your opinion on each of the following points:
Evaluate whether all the evidence from the house should have been suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree, because the placing of a tracking device on the Blazer driven by Dripster without a warrant and without probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment.
Assess whether all the evidence from the house should have been suppressed because the use of the Bloodhound device without a warrant and without probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment.
Determine whether all evidence from the house should have been suppressed because the warrant issued by the magistrate was based upon information obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Rule on whether all evidence from the house should have been suppressed because the police officers did not knock and announce; the warrant was not a no-knock warrant.
Conclude whether the gun used by Stupido should have been suppressed because the officers had no right to search his car at the scene.
Examine whether Dummy’s conviction for marijuana possession should be overturned, because he was not read Miranda warnings before making a deal.
Evaluates whether Stupido’s confession should have been suppressed, because his lawyer was not allowed to see him.
Explain the validity of Dripster’s death sentence for shooting and paralyzing Innocent violates the Eighth Amendment.

 

Sample Solution

Case Name: People v. Dripster, Dummy & Stupido, et al.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Justice: Associate Justice Bard

Issue: Whether the evidence obtained in the search of Dufus’ house should be suppressed.

Facts:

  • Officers Do-Right and Justice placed a tracking device on Dripster’s car without a warrant or probable cause.
  • Using the tracking device, they followed Dripster to a party being held at Dufus’ house.
  • The officers used a Bloodhound device to sniff for drugs at Dufus’ house.
  • Based on the information from the Bloodhound, the officers obtained a search warrant for Dufus’ house.
  • The officers broke into Dufus’ house without knocking or announcing their presence.
  • Inside the house, they found Dripster, Dufus, Dummy, and Duncecap.
  • They also found cocaine, marijuana, creatine, and lye.
  • Stupido was arrested at the scene.
  • Dummy was questioned without being read his Miranda rights and agreed to testify against the other defendants in exchange for being charged with only misdemeanor possession of marijuana.
  • Stupido was interrogated without being allowed to see his lawyer and confessed to the armed robbery.

Arguments:

  • The prosecution argues that the evidence should not be suppressed because the officers had probable cause to believe that the house contained drugs. They argue that the tracking device and the Bloodhound device both gave them probable cause.
  • The defense argues that the evidence should be suppressed because the officers violated Dripster’s Fourth Amendment rights by placing the tracking device on his car without a warrant or probable cause. They also argue that the warrant was invalid because it was based on information obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Analysis:

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrantless search is presumed to be unreasonable, but there are exceptions to this rule. One exception is the “plain view” doctrine, which allows the police to seize evidence that is in plain view without a warrant.

In this case, the tracking device and the Bloodhound device did not allow the officers to see the evidence in plain view. Therefore, the officers needed a warrant to search the house.

The prosecution argues that the warrant was valid because it was based on probable cause. However, the probable cause must be based on information that is obtained in a lawful manner. In this case, the probable cause was based on information obtained from the tracking device and the Bloodhound device, which were both obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Therefore, the warrant was invalid and the evidence should be suppressed.

Conclusion:

The evidence obtained in the search of Dufus’ house should be suppressed.

Dissenting Opinion:

Justice Smith dissents. She argues that the tracking device and the Bloodhound device did not violate the Fourth Amendment because they did not involve a physical intrusion into Dripster’s property. She also argues that the warrant was valid because it was based on probable cause, even though the probable cause was obtained from information that was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Significance:

This case is significant because it clarifies the law on the use of tracking devices and scent-detection devices by the police. The Court’s decision makes it clear that these devices can only be used if they do not involve a physical intrusion into a person’s property. The Court’s decision also makes it clear that a warrant is required for a search based on information obtained from these devices.

 

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.