criminal justice and civil law
Before non-personnel enter public buildings in the State of Grace, security officers routinely
require them to walk through a metal detector. In addition, all bags, including women’s purses, are
subject to an external scan designed to detect the presence of weapons. Concerned that the scan is not
sufficiently sensitive to detect a well-hidden weapon, security officers in many buildings have taken to
removing the contests of all bags as part of the screening process. After numerous complaints from
women objecting to the public exposure of private items in their purses, the Grace legislature enacted
a law permitting an invasive search of bags only where the initial scan suggested the presence of a
The month after the law went into effect, Alice went to the state courthouse in the hope of watching a
high-profile trial taking place that day. When she entered, security officers scanned her purse and, after
doing so, required her to empty its contents for further inspection. “Why?” Alice asked. “Did you see
something suspicious on the scan?” “No,” the guard replied. “We just thought you looked kinda
shifty.” “No problem,” Alice replied. “People look through my purse all the time. I do not care. There
is nothing personal in there. Knock yourself out.” The guards then searched the purse thoroughly,
finding a razor blade in a side pocket. They seized it, and charged Alice with attempting to carry a
concealed weapon into a public building. If Alice claims that the search of her purse violated her
Fourth Amendment rights, she will likely:
Prevail, because the guard did not believe that the purse contained a weapon.
Prevail, because the legislature has recognized women’s privacy rights in their purses.
Fail, because the guard found a razor blade inside the purse.
Fail, because Alice did not care if the guards search her purse.
Questions 2-3 below are based on the following fact situation.
Pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, Defendant was arrested in a public place for the murder of his wife.
Before putting him in the police car, the police searched Defendant’s entire person and found one
ounce of heroin, which he had concealed in a flat plastic envelope under his belt.
At Defendant’s motion to suppress the heroin, the court should rule that:
The search was invalid, since the police did not have a search warrant.
The search was invalid, since incident to a lawful arrest, the police may only search
a suspect’s person for weapons or evidence of the crime.
The search was valid, since Defendant’s arrest was proper.
The search was valid, because evidence of a crime was, in fact, discovered.
None of the above.
Assume that, in the above situation, the police arrested Defendant without a warrant,
although they had (1) time to obtain one, and (2) probable cause to believe Defendant was his
wife’s murderer. In challenging the validity of his arrest and the heroin found on his person.
Succeed, because an arrest without a warrant is an unreasonable seizure under
the Fourth Amendment.
Succeed, because the police must always obtain a warrant if there is sufficient time to
Fail, because the police had probable cause to make the arrest.
Fail, because even without probable cause, the subsequent disco very of heroin
would have been sufficient justification for the arrest.
Mark carefully plots a course of action to embezzle $100,000.00 from his employer, Sue.
He is fired before he ever gets a chance to put the plan in action. In cleaning out his desk, Sue finds
his plans. Mark is:
Guilty of a crime because he intended to carry it out.
Guilty of a crime because he had a “guilty mind”.
Not guilty because he did not act on his plan.
Not guilty because he is no longer employed by Sue.
Which of the following is correct with respect to a grand jury?
The grand jury decides guilt or innocence of the defendant.
The grand jury always hears testimony from the defendant.
The grand jury can issue an indictment it if finds sufficient evidence to justify a trial
on the charges alleged.
None of the above.
Detective received information from informant, who had given reliable information many
times in the past. Specifically, Informant said that, two days before, he had visited Harry’s
apartment with Bill and saw Harry sell Bill some heroin. Detective knew that Informant, Harry, and
friends. Thereafter, Detective put this information into affidavit form, appeared before a magistrate,
and secured a search warrant for Harry’s apartment. The search turned up a supply of heroin. Harry’s
motion to suppress introduction of the heroin into evidence probably will be:
Granted, because a search warrant cannot validly be issued solely on the basis of
an informant’s information.
Granted, because the information supplied to Detective concerned an occurrence
too remote in time to justify a finding of probable cause.
Denied, because there was reasonable cause to believe a crime had been committed.
Denied, because there was probable cause to issue the warrant.
None of the above.
Questions 7 – 11 below are based on the following fact situation.
The police received an anonymous telephone call that Paul was engaged in illegal gambling
operations consisting of betting on professional sporting events. The informant did not say how he
knew any of this information. Officers Laverne and Shirley went to Paul’s place of business (Joe’s
Restaurant, where Paul worked as a waiter) and were given permission to speak to him. They advised
Paul that they had full knowledge of his involvement in illegal gambling operations, and that he would
probably be sent to jail as a consequence of these activities.
When Paul responded, “I’ve got nothing to say to you gals,” he was told that he should
consider himself under arrest. Before Paul was advised of his Miranda rights, Officer Shirley told
Paul, “Confession is good for the soul,” and asked Paul if he would like to make a statement about his
illegal activities. Paul hesitated, but then informed the officers that he did “take” bets on sporting
events. He then voluntarily led the officers back to the garage adjacent to his home, where he showed
them notebooks in which were written names of bettors, the amounts of money they had wagered, and
the corresponding events.
The police also searched Paul’s person, and found a pocket notebook which revealed bets that
had been placed with Paul that day. The police then advised Paul that they were too busy to him to the
station house for booking then, but that they were confiscating the notebook as evidence. Paul did not
protest this action. About two weeks later, Paul was subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury
investigating illegal gambling. He appeared with an attorney whom he had retained, but was advised
that he was not entitled to have counsel present. In a rage, Paul walked out. He has refused to return
until his lawyer is allowed to be with him, even though he has been warned that he could be cited for
In the grand jury proceedings, Paul’s confession as to his involvement in illegal gambling is:
Admissible, because a Miranda rights violation does not result in suppression.
Inadmissible, because it was given after Paul was improperly arrested.
Inadmissible, because it was obtained in violation of Paul’s Miranda rights.
II and III.
Can Paul be compelled to appear as a witness at the grand jury proceedings?
No, because the police initially lacked probable cause to arrest him.
No, because he was not given Miranda warnings.
Yes, despite the lack of Miranda warnings.
Yes, but only if the grand jury has reason to believe that Paul was involved
in gambling operations, without reference to Paul’s confession.
Which of the following statements is correct:
Paul had an absolute right to have counsel present at the grand jury proceedings.
There is no right to have counsel present at grand jury proceedings.
Paul had no right to have counsel present at the grand jury proceedings if
evidence obtained from his was inadmissible in a criminal case.
Paul had a right to have counsel present because he was arrested in
connection with the purpose of the grand jury proceedings.
As a consequence of Paul’s refusal to answer any questions, which of the following
Paul could be convicted of perjury.
Paul could be convicted of contempt.
Paul cannot be convicted of any crime because the evidence obtained from his
is inadmissible in a criminal case.
None of the above.