Chapter 12 Problems
Problem 12.1
a) Yes, the police had probable cause to arrest Rickie because they had a reliable source that gave them the information.
b) No, the police didn’t need a warrant because the reliable source’s information can be verified.
c) No, the cops shouldn’t be able to arrest the boy under those circumstances because they had no probable cause. The circumstances that would have allowed them to make the arrest or search the boy is if the tip was specific, the tip came from a reliable source, or if they obtained a warrant.
d)
Problem 12.2
a) If I was Officer Ramos in this situation, I would follow the car and then look at the security footage. If I was Lonnie I would have stopped the car immediately and try to explain to the office my situation.
b) Yes, if Officer Ramos chases Lonnie, she does have probable cause to arrest him because she saw him speeding away from the scene of the crime.
c) Officer Ramos would probably act mean and harsh, while Lonnie and Melissa would act scared and nervous.
d) As Officer Ramos I would let the victims know there situation but still arrest them. As Lonnie and Melissa I would try to explain the situation to the officers and get them to look over the security footage.
e) Lonnie and Melissa can give their confession and try to explain what happened to the officer if they were mistakenly arrested for burglary. If Officer Ramos mistreats them, then Lonnie and Melissa may use the abuse in court to help their case.
Problem 12.3
a) No, Officer Turek did not have probably cause to believe Gail Atwater had violated the Texas seat belt law, and then stop them.
b) Definitely disagree with the way the officer handled the situation. What would have made a difference is if she would have gotten a fine to teach Gail a lesson instead of scaring her children.
c) Given the circumstances, the seizure was not reasonable.
d) The court should decide this case by looking at past court cases that dealt with this type of situation. Eventually they should abolish the Texas law because it violates the exclusionary rule in seizing evidence in an unlawful search.
Problem 12.4
a) Yes, the search is in violation of the fourth amendment so the items seized cannot be used in court because they didn’t have probable cause or a reasonable suspicion to search Dell.
b) Yes, the search is in violation of the fourth amendment because the police didn’t have a reason to ask or a warrant to search.
c) No, the evidence cannot be used in court because the evidence was obtained illegally.
d) No, it does not violate the fourth amendment because Terry voluntary have consent to the officers to search his bags.
e) Yes, it does violate the 4th amendment because the police had no warrant to search and the items were not in sight.
f) No, it does not violate the fourth amendment because the roommate gave the police permission to search the apartment.
Problem 12.5 –opinion based questions
a) Citizens’ complaints about the police are handles by making reports in my community.
b) No, we do not have a problem with police brutality in our community.
c) We believe that the 2000 congressional bill is a good thing because it eliminates the possibility of police brutality all over the United States. Steps that would work best to improve local police-citizen relations are to have meeting where both can interact and tell each other their views on certain subjects.
Problem 12.6
a) Role-play
b) If McGee tells the police what he knows then the police should follow what he says and go to Johnson’s house for questioning.
c) Yes the police should get a search warrant so that they can enter his house. If they go without a warrant they do not have probably cause to arrest him because the source wasn’t said to be reliable.
d) If the police decide to search Johnson’s house they should knock and announce themselves first, in order to make the search legal.
e) If the police enter the house and find the stolen goods then they can arrest Johnson. If the police have a warrant they can check the entire house and if they don’t have a warrant they can only seize what is in plain view. Role-play.
Problem 12.7
a) This case is similar to the Oregon case in the aspect that random drug tests were given to students. It differs because the students at Tecumseh High School had signed and consented to the searches and they would receive any legal repercussions. This case is similar to do with the New Jersey v. TLO case because searches were conducted based off reasonable suspicion. This differs because once again the students at Tecumseh High School consented to the searches.
b) The most convincing argument for the students would be that a sense of privacy was violated by these random searches.
c) The most convincing argument for the school would be that the students consented to these searches.
d) This case should be decided by giving the school the case because it all comes down to the fact that the students consented to these drug tests and also no legal repercussions were taken if tested positive.
e) If the case was in favor for the school that would not mean they could test everyone at the school. The school should keep the same policy it has in order to keep their athletics and extracurricular department as top notch as possible.
Problem 12.8
a) Race was inappropriately used in this situation because the wiretapping of just telephones at mosques is completely stereotyping and alienating that race/religion.
b) Race was used inappropriately in this situation because arresting the young African American in an area of high African American crime is not fair or reasonable. Racism was used instead if racial profiling.
c) Racial profiling was used as appropriately as can be used in this situation because information about possible robbers was given and the officer profiled the suspects.
d) Racial profiling was used appropriately in this situation by using the woman’s country’s history with the US as possible suspicion.
Problem 12.9
a) Debouche’s proposal seems the most likely to actually help the problem because it takes away the advantage from the police officer and the citizen creating a fair trial to judge the situation
Problem 12.10
a) Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping an 18-year old girl on her way home from work. He was arrested and wrote a note confessing to the crime while being interrogated. He appealed his case on the grounds that he was not read his rights and wouldn’t have confessed in the first place if he had read his rights.
b) I do think his confession should be used as evidence in court because either way he confessed his crime.
c) Yes I do think police should tell their suspects their rights before questioning.
d) I believe some would still confess and some wouldn’t confess after being read their rights.
Problem 12.11
a) The issue the appeals court will have to decide on this case would be whether or not reading Blaine his rights affects his confession
b) Arguments that can be made for Blaine would be that false information was used on him and that his rights were never read. The state could say that the detective was using a tactic and Blaine confessed.
c) Yes Blaine was in custodial interrogation when he was confessing
d) This case should be given to Blaine for not being read his rights and the usage of false information towards him.