Criminal Procedure 10th Edition Joel Samaha - Solutions

Summarize the reasons why SCOTUS decided that the Iowa statute was unconstitutional according to its reasonableness interrogation. Do you agree? Explain.
Identify the criminal procedure ideals that SCOTUS interrogated to determine the reasonableness of the “arrest incident to citation.”
Summarize the reasons for Iowa’s claim that the search incident to a citation is reasonable. Do you agree? Explain.
According to Justice Alito’s interrogation, what “two facts” could SCOTUS’s decision in Chimel “hardly have failed to appreciate” about the criminal procedure ideal of balancing officer safety and suspects’ right against unreasonable searches?
According to Justice Scalia, when is a vehicle search incident to arrest reasonable?
What does Justice O’Connor mean when she writes that “lower court decisions seem now to treat the ability to search a vehicle incident to the arrest of a recent occupant as a police entitlement rather than as an exception justified by the twin rationales of Chimel”?
According to Justice Stevens, why will SCOTUS’s decision in Gant not endanger officer safety?
According to Justice Stevens, when is the search of a vehicle incident to a recent passenger’s arrest reasonable?
List the facts relevant to interrogating whether the application of the balancing ideal to the search of Rodney Gant’s car was a lawful search “incident”to Gant’s car.
Does Justice White, in his dissent, have the better argument in the case?Summarize his argument and then interrogate it for criminal procedure ideals
If you were interrogating the phrase, would you have included the whole house within the scope of the rule? Explain your answer, including what criminal procedure ideals you consider paramount in formulating your definition.
How does SCOTUS define the area“within [a suspect’s] immediate control”?
Describe the search that followed Chimel’s arrest.
In your opinion, was Stephen Young“innocent”? Defend your answer.
Summarize the court’s interrogating and in applying of the individual privacy/public safety ideals balance.
List all the facts and circumstances relevant to interrogating whether law enforcement officers violated Young’s ideal of privacy in his home.
Assume you’re the judge on remand.Decide the case and give your reasons.
Assume you’re the prosecutor when the case is remanded. Argue that the facts of the case fit into one or more of the exceptions. Or think of other exceptions the Court might accept.
Identify the three exceptions to the knock-and-announce rule Justice Thomas referred to in the excerpt from the Court’s opinion. What do they all have in common? Do you agree that they should be exceptions? Explain.
Did the officers satisfy the knock-and-announce rule? List the facts that might indicate that the officers satisfied the requirement.
What does the history Justice Thomas relates have to do with whether the Fourth Amendment requires officers to “knock and announce”?
Which side has the better arguments regarding the proportionality ideal?Defend your answer.
Summarize the dissent’s arguments against the bright-line rule.
According to the majority, what are the exceptions to the bright-line rule?
Summarize the majority’s arguments supporting the bright-line rule.
According to the majority opinion, what is the bright-line rule regarding arrests for fine-only offenses?
List all the actions taken by booking officers after Officer Turek turned her over to them.
List all of Officer Turek’s actions leading up to, during, and following Gail Atwater’s arrest.
Who has the better argument regarding the proportionality ideal? Defend your answer.
Summarize the dissent’s arguments that the force was unreasonable.
Summarize the majority’s arguments that the force was unreasonable.
List all facts and circumstances relevant to deciding whether the officers used excessive force, namely disproportionate to the ideal of proportionality.
The Los Angeles Police Department changed from a “bite and hold” to “find and bark” policy in 1992. Researchers (Hutson and others 1997) reported the effects of the change of policy by collecting information about dog-bite patients in police custody from 1988 to 1995. Consider the results
Label each of the actions as either“objectively reasonable” or “objectively unreasonable.” Defend your answer.
Summarize the court’s arguments to support its decision.
List the objective basis for each of the actions.
List in chronological order all the actions taken by Officers William Roth, Dennis Warosh, and K-9 team member Kevin Anderson in charge of “Arco.”
If you were applying the tests to the facts of this case, what decision would you reach? Defend your answer.
Why did the Court change the standard? Which test do you favor? Explain your answer.
How does the Court’s standard differ from the test that the Court of Appeals applied in the case?
State the standard that the Court adopted for determining whether the use of force violated the Fourth Amendment.
List all the specific uses of force by the officers.
Will this rule embolden criminals? Did SCOTUS tilt the ideal criminal procedure balance too far toward process and societal interests and too far away from the interest in results? Defend your answer.
Professor Uviller asks the following questions:Would the rule in this case permit an officer to shoot a drunk driver swerving erratically down the road headed toward a town? A person wanted for a series of violent crimes but not presently armed who flees from the police? How would you answer
Professor H. Richard Uviller (1986), a longtime student of police power and the Constitution, commented on the decision in Tennessee v. Garner:It is embarrassing for a law professor to be blindsided in his own territory. But the truth is, I didn’t see it coming. It had never occurred to me that a
Should the Fourth Amendment apply to the manner of arrest? Defend your answer.
Does the Court give clear guidelines in regard to what constitutes probable cause to arrest? Explain.
Which decision—the majority or dissent—best upholds the criminal procedure balancing ideal? Defend your answer.
Identify which were firsthand, hearsay, or a combination of the two.
List all the facts and circumstances supporting the conclusion there was probable cause to arrest Draper.
Now, assume you’re a judge. Based on your view of the law, write an opinion that you believe properly applies the balancing ideal, supporting your decision whether the government actions in this case were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Assume, first, you’re a prosecutor and, then, a defense lawyer. Relying on the facts and opinion in Terry v. Ohio, argue, first, that the detention and searches of Montoya de Hernandez live up to the balancing ideal and pass the reasonableness test and, then, that they don’t live up to the
Compare the duration, location, and subjective invasiveness of Montoya de Hernandez’s detention with that of John Terry in Terry v. Ohio.
Identify the government interests the invasions of Montoya de Hernandez’s liberty and privacy were intended to protect.
Which argument do you support?Defend your answer.
Summarize the dissent’s arguments that the checkpoint did not satisfy the balancing test.
Summarize the majority’s arguments that the checkpoint satisfied the threeprong balancing test.
Describe the details of the checkpoint.
In your opinion, was the checkpoint reasonable? Defend your answer.
Summarize the dissent’s arguments why the checkpoint did satisfy the three elements of a reasonable checkpoint.
Summarize the majority’s arguments for ruling why the checkpoint did not satisfy the three elements of a reasonable checkpoint.
State the primary and secondary purpose of the checkpoints.
List the details of the drug interdiction checkpoint.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “highly publicized local law enforcement efforts such as random roadblocks” are “Orwellian intrusions into individual privacy.”What does the ACLU mean? Do you agree? Explain
How would you identify and balance the interests at stake in the DWI checkpoints? Are the checkpoints effective?Explain.
What does Justice Brennan mean when he says that the degree of the intrusion begins, not ends, the inquiry about whether DWI checkpoints are reasonable seizures?
What does he have to say about the need for and effectiveness of DWI checkpoints?
What does Justice Stevens mean when he says that he and the majority disagree over the meaning of freedom?
What interests does the Court balance in reaching its result?
According to the Court, why are they reasonable seizures?
According to the Court, why are DWI checkpoints Fourth Amendment seizures?
The Arizona Court of Appeals recognized that, initially, Johnson was lawfully detained incident to the legitimate stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger. But, that court concluded, once Officer Trevizo undertook to question Johnson on a matter unrelated to the traffic stop (i.e.,
Summarize the Court’s arguments for deciding that Officer Maria Trevizo’s frisk of Lemon Johnson was reasonable.
List all the facts and circumstances relevant to deciding whether the frisk was reasonable.
How do the dissenting justices answer the majority’s arguments in (7)? Which side better approaches the balancing ideal of protecting innocents and officer safety? Defend your answer.
Describe the empirical evidence the majority’s opinion was based on. In view of the dissenting justices’ criticism of the statistics, how much weight do they carry in your opinion?
Summarize the arguments the majority gave to back up its bright-line rule.
State the Court’s bright-line rule governing officers’ power to order passengers out of cars they’ve stopped.
State specifically the objective basis for ordering Wilson out of the car.
In your opinion, did the government’s interest outweigh the degree of invasion against Wilson? In your answer, consider both the majority and dissenting opinions.
Identify the government’s interest that was furthered by ordering Wilson out of the car.
List the specific invasions Jerry Lee Wilson experienced after the vehicle he was a passenger in was stopped.
Consider Figures 4.2 and 4.3. “Stops and Arrests, NYPD” and “Facts Supporting Reasonable Suspicion, NYPD,” respectively.Do they apply empirical-based decision making? Explain your answer. What, if any, policies would you recommend on the basis of these numbers? Is there anything else
List and summarize the empirical evidence Justice Stevens includes in his dissenting opinion. Does his opinion live up to the empirical-based decision-making ideal? Explain your answer. Assuming the evidence is reliable, does it have anything to do with whether Nolan’s stop and frisk of Wardlow
Is reasonable suspicion enough of a safeguard to the right of all people, innocent and guilty, to come and go as they please? Defend your answer.
Even if one had more than the other, did they both have reasonable suspicion? Defend your answer.
Compare the facts Nolan possessed with those possessed by Officer McFadden in Terry v. Ohio. In your opinion, which officer had more articulable facts?
List the Court’s reasons for concluding these facts added up to reasonable suspicion.
Identify the “articulable” facts Officer Nolan relied on to stop Wardlow.
In your opinion, is the majority, dissent, or neither more consistent with the balancing ideal? Defend your answer.
Summarize the dissent’s decision that the stop lacked reasonable suspicion to back it up.
Summarize the majority’s decision that reasonable suspicion supported the stop.
List all the facts and circumstances relevant to deciding whether the CHP officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Lorenzo Prado Navarette and JoséPrado Navarette.
Do you believe that the majority or the dissent or neither has successfully applied the balancing and sorting ideals of criminal procedure to this case?Explain your answer.
Summarize the dissent’s arguments that the statute doesn’t meet the constitutional requirement of reasonableness.
Summarize the majority opinion’s argument supporting its holding that the statute meets the constitutional requirement of reasonableness.
List all the facts relevant to deciding whether the stop and identify law is “reasonable.”
State the elements of the Nevada “stop and identify” statute.
Do you agree more with the majority or the dissent? Explain your answer.
Summarize the dissent’s arguments for disagreeing with the majority opinion.

Showing 200 - 300 of 833

Criminal Procedure 10th Edition Joel Samaha - Solutions

Step by Step Answers