CASE ANALYSIS 1 Student name Case Analysis Mod 3 Professor Vivaldi CASE ANALYSIS 2 Case Analysis and Fact Patterns Case #1 Kurt v. Saint Leo Police Department Main Issue: There are several main issues in this case. The main issue is the arrest that was made by a Saint Leo Police Officer. The Officer's arrest of Kurt was based on an event that took place before the event was considered a violation of law. The issued arrest warrant led to the discovery of marijuana in the plaintiff's home. Relevant Legal Concepts: The events in this case describe a violation of the ex post facto law, \"laws that make acts criminal that were not criminal at the time they were committed\" (Schubert, 2009, p. 308). Kurt was arrested for a noise violation that had occurred prior to the noise violation law being enacted. There was also an illegal search and seizure that took place before the arrest. \"A valid search warrant must be specific and sufficiently descriptive. An officer conducting a search is prohibited from going outside the limits set by the warrant\" (Schubert, 2009, p. 340). In this case the officer has gone outside the limits of the arrest warrant by entering the home and entering the refrigerator. (NOTE: Must have excerpts from text here) Relevant Case Law: In the case Weeks v. United States \"we adopted the federal exclusionary rule for evidence that was unlawfully seized from a home without a warrant in violation of the fourth Amendment\" (Schubert, 2009, p. 344). This illustrates the inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence. (NOTE: Same here) In this case the police officer has violated the ex post facto clause, unlawfully entered and searched the plaintiff's home and falsely arrested the plaintiff. It is unlawful for the court to issue a warrant for the plaintiff's arrest because the ex post fact clause states that a person cannot be charged for a crime that was not technically a crime at the time of commission. Due to the arrest warrant being invalid the officer had no right to enter the plaintiff's home; the warrant was also only for the plaintiff and did not prescribe the search of the refrigerator as there was no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff was hiding in the refrigerator. Therefore the marijuana was unlawfully discovered and not authorized to be a criminal charge. Ruling: The ruling in this case should reflect the disregard for the law by both the court that issued the warrant and the police officer. The officer not only violated the law but also violated the Saint Leo Police Department's code of ethics by searching for a drink in the plaintiff's home. The court should be held legally liable and the officer should be held legally and civilly liable. All charges should be dropped. Case #2 State v. Summer Main Issue: The main issue in this case is what charges if any should Anna and Summer face for their attempted bank robbery. CASE ANALYSIS 3 Relevant Legal Concepts: In this case both Anna and Summer demonstrated their intent or mens rea to commit the crime of robbery. Anna's intent is shown by the fact that she entered the bank with the duffel bag and mask as planned and when she reached the counter had then decided not to commit the robbery, however she mistakenly grabbed the wrong bag on her way out of the bank which contained $100,000. Summer's intent is shown by her decision to take Ana to another bank and then wait outside for her to complete the robbery. Relevant Case Law: In the case State v. Gordon the defendant stated that he did not have intent to retain possession of the vehicle he took which would make him innocent of the charge of robbery. \"The wrongdoer must intend: (1) an advantageous relationship between himself and the property wrongfully taken, and (2) that such relationship be permanent rather than temporary.\" (Shubert, 2009, p. 316). It is this example that demonstrates Ana and Summer's intent to take money from the bank for their own use. Ruling: Ana and Summer both demonstrated their intent to commit robbery by going to the bank with the bag, mask and getaway vehicle. Even though Ana did not actually rob her intended target, the bank, she still committed robbery because she came out of the bank with property that she did not go into the bank with and in the process of obtaining this property she had the real intent to rob the bank and leave with money. In my opinion both of the girls should be charged with robbery. Due to the facts stated above I believe that a judge would agree with the reasoning presented and proceed with the same charges. Case #3 Jason v. City Municipality Main Issue: The main issue in this case is whether the police officer had legal authority to enter the plaintiff's home. Relevant Legal Concepts: This case refers to search and seizure concepts as well as the exclusionary rule. (Shubert, 2009) The police officer assumed that just because she saw a monkey in the plaintiff's home it was the stolen monkey. She did not have sufficient probable cause to enter the home. The officer thought that she was using proper \"knock and announce\" procedures however those procedures apply to arrest warrants not vague suspicion. The officer also did not provide sufficient time for the plaintiff to answer the door. Relevant Case Law: In the case Hudson v. Michigan the court affirmed that a knock and announce \"is not necessary when \"circumstances present a threat of physical violence,\" or if there is \"reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given\" (Schubert, 2009, p. 344). In this case it is not reasonable for the officer to believe that there are any circumstances that would present a threat or that any evidence would be destroyed if she did not knock and announce. CASE ANALYSIS 4 Ruling: The police officer in this case did not have an arrest warrant or reasonable suspicion to enter the plaintiff's home. Even though she knocked and announced herself she did not provide sufficient time for the plaintiff to open the door. She did not have any reason to believe that the plaintiff was a threat or that he would destroy evidence due to the fact that she was not aware of any potential evidence in the home. Because she did not have the legal authority to enter the home she cannot charge the plaintiff for the drugs found in his possession. Those drugs were discovered during an illegal search and seizure. The plaintiff should be acquitted of the charges brought upon him and the officer should be held legally responsible for violating the plaintiff's fourth Amendment. She should also be held civilly liable for any damage she may have caused to his door upon the illegal entry into the home. CASE ANALYSIS 5 References Shubert, F. (2009). Introduction to law. Mason, OH: Cengage . All cases cited throughout the narrative must also be cited here. CRM 123 - Case Analysis 3 Fact Patterns For each fact pattern, specify the essential legal issue(s) involved, describe the legal concepts from the text, decide which side should win, and explain your reasoning and how you used the legal concepts to arrive at your decision. See the Case Analysis Instructions for further information about completing this assignment. 1. Kurt is a disk jockey and loves to play his radio as a stress reliever. He likes to relax listening to his music. Last week at about midnight, he was blasting Black Eyed Peas on his radio. His neighbor, Ima Complain, yelled at him to turn off the music, and he impolitely told her \"mind your own business, old lady.\" The next day, Mrs. Complain told her son, Officer Vidal, who happened to work for the Saint Leo Police Department. Soon thereafter, the county passed an ordinance prohibiting loud noises after 10:00 PM. That very day, Officer Vidal called the judge, told him how Kurt was disrespectful to his mom and got an arrest warrant. Officer Vidal went to Kurt's apartment to arrest him. Kurt wasn't home, but had left the door unlocked. Since it was a hot day, Officer Vidal decided to wait for Kurt in the air-conditioned living room. While waiting, he got thirsty and went to the refrigerator to get a drink. In the fridge he found a bag of marijuana and a bong on the counter. When Kurt came home a few minutes later, he was arrested. In addition to being charged with violating the noise ordinance, Kurt has also been charged with possession of illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. 2. State v. Ana; State v. Summer Ana needed a car. She had just gotten a job at the nearby mall and did not have a way to get there. Since she needed a few thousand dollars for the car she really wanted, she decided to rob the nearby bank. She grabbed her Halloween mask, a duffel bag to hold all the money, prepared a quick note on a scrap of paper, and headed to the bus stop. On her way there, she passed her friend Summer and asked her for a ride to the bank. Summer agreed to take her. While driving, Ana told Summer her plans, and Summer told Ana that the nearby bank did not have much money, but the one near the airport had loads of cash. Summer offered to drive her to that one, and said she would wait outside to help Ana get away. Ana went inside wearing the mask, duffel bag in hand, and patiently waited in line for her turn. When she got to the front of the line and stepped up to the teller's window, Ana realized she had misplaced the note demanding the money. Flustered, she ran out of the bank, mistakenly grabbing the duffel bag of the person next to her. When she got back to Summer's car, she opened the bag and discovered it held $100,000 and a gun. Just at that moment, the police arrived, having been alerted by the teller that someone was in the bank wearing a scary mask. The police arrested Summer and Ana. In your analysis, discuss what charges Summer and Ana should face. What charges did you consider and then rule out for both Summer and Ana? Discuss why you ruled these out, and whether a judge would agree with your decisions. 3. A monkey has been stolen from the zoo! The police have no leads as to who stole the monkey. Leah is a new officer with the police department. While on routine patrol, she drives past the home of Jason. Through the huge window, she sees a monkey jumping on the table! What good luck, she'll surely make a good impression with the chief! Using proper knock and announce procedure, Leah enters Jason's home to arrest him. She notices that it is really hot and bright inside, and a quick walk around the house reveals thirty marijuana plants that she could not see from outside. Excellent...two crimes she has solved! Jason is charged with stealing the monkey and possession of marijuana with intent to sell. Jason's attorney moves to dismiss all charges, and provides the judge evidence proving that Jason's monkey is not the stolen one the police were looking for, but one he bought last year. In your analysis, discuss how the judge should rule. Which charges, if any, should be dismissed and why? Discuss whether Leah's actions were proper. Which legal concepts have you considered