1. Cokie Robertson was arrested and charged with possession and trafficking of cocaine after a warrantless search of her house that was nevertheless supported by credible eye-witness evidence provided to the police by neighbors. During the search, officers demanded Cokie give them the combination to his safe where important financial information of his customers was stored. Later, independently obtained information led to the same evidence of wrongdoing. Prior to and immediately after his arrest, Cokie makes several statements to police. Discuss what constitutional arguments Cokie's attorneys and the government might have in their favor. Assuming the search and evidence was obtained legally, why or why shouldn't the government offer Cokie a plea offer? Would it make any difference if Cokie is a first time offender or hardened criminal? What if Cokie legitimately didn't know cocaine was in her house, what arguments pro and con exist for her and the government? Discuss and include any information not given that could alter your analysis.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Cokie Robertsons attorneys may argue that the search of her house violated her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures beca... View the full answer