Student Resources

Chapter 3: Authority to Detain and Arrest; Use of Force

Case Study 1:

Sticky-Fingered Sam was up to his old tricks. As Officer Blake patrolled Sometown’s center one Tuesday morning, she observed Sam dash out of the Square L convenience store, clutching his jacket.

Sam loved Square L SnackLs and was known for showing up when they were delivered. While SnackLs were a fairly inexpensive item, Sam had taken enough of them in the last few months to put a dent in the store’s profits. The Square L had gotten sneaky about SnackL deliveries, but Sam must have found out.

Officer Blake heard Mary, everyone’s favorite clerk at the L, holler from inside the store, “Sam! Get back in here and pay for that stuff!” She was short-staffed that morning, though, and had customers, so she did not leave the store to chase after him.

Sam was in such a hurry that he didn’t realize that he was running straight toward Officer Blake. Just before he collided with Officer Blake, Sam looked up.

“Good Morning, Sam,” Officer Blake said “What do you have there in your jacket?”

“Nothing, Officer Blake,” Sam said sheepishly. “Fine day, isn’t it?”

A package of SnackLs started to tumble out of his pocket. Sam grimaced and then said, “Well, I’d best be on my way.”

Sam made a move to run, but Officer Blake caught his arm. “Not so fast, Sam. I’m afraid I am going to have to ask you some questions.” Sam squirmed a little in Officer Blake’s grasp, but eventually he complied. “OK, Officer Blake,” Sam sighed. “What do you want to know?”

Questions:

1. What kind of encounter occurred between Officer Blake and Sam? Why?

2. Does the Fourth Amendment apply in this situation? Why or why not? If yes, then at what point did it come into play?

3. On what grounds did Officer Blake seize Sam? Assuming that this encounter goes further, would it pass constitutional muster?

Case Study 2:

Crime was on the rise in Sometown. Calls to the Sometown Police Department reporting drug-related violence had increased dramatically in recent months, and Sometown’s citizens were getting nervous. The Sometown Police Department responded by increasing patrols in a number of neighborhoods, and officers had been instructed to be on the lookout for anything suspicious.

While on night patrol in the Sometown Heights neighborhood, one of the neighborhoods where crime has gone up the most, Officer Smithwick noticed a group of five young men huddled together on the street, near an abandoned warehouse, talking. She observed that one of them was wearing a crimson jacket, the color associated with one of the local gangs in the area. This activity looked suspicious to Officer Smithwick, and she decided to investigate further.

Officer Smithwick approached the young men, who turned to face her as she got closer. “So what are four nice guys like you doing out so late?” she asked.

The young man in the crimson jacket replied, “Just enjoying the night air, Officer.” His friends laughed and shifted about.

“We’ve been getting a lot of calls to this neighborhood for drug-related assaults. Is there anything you’d care to share?”

The young men shook their heads. The young man wearing the crimson jacket turned to leave. Officer Smithwick grabbed him and held him against the warehouse. “Where do you think you’re going? I think you have information you would like to share, don’t you? Let’s see some identification.”

“I don’t know anything! Let go of me!”

Officer Smithwick did not let go of him. Instead, she searched him and found a knife and drugs in his pockets. Officer Smithwick arrested the young man wearing the crimson jacket.

Questions:

1. What degree of suspicion did Officer Smithwick have for this encounter? What is the response permitted under the Constitution for this degree of suspicion?

2. Officer Smithwick found a weapon and drugs when she searched the young man. Were her actions permissible under the Constitution? Why or why not?

3. What would happen to the evidence that Officer Smithwick discovered on the young man with the crimson jacket?

Case Study 3:

Sometown’s drug-related crime was getting out of hand, and citizens had been in an uproar. Officers of the Sometown Police Department had been instructed to use all lawful means at their disposal to crack down on the problem. Officer Pasquale was out on patrol in Sometown Heights, looking for suspicious activity.

As he was turning from Broadway onto State Street, Officer Pasquale noticed a black luxury sedan with tinted windows driving down the street. Such a car was out of place in the neighborhood, and so Officer Pasquale decided to follow it. The car was going the speed limit, and the taillights were functioning. Officer Pasquale kept his distance, as he was hoping that the driver would make a mistake.

At the intersection of State and Vine, the light turned red. While the car Officer Pasquale was following slowed down, it did not come to a complete stop before turning right. Officer Pasquale switched on his siren and pulled the car over.

When he got to the driver’s window to ask for license and registration, he heard the male driver and the female passenger arguing about what to do. The driver lowered the window.

“Please step out of the car, Sir. You, too, Ma’am.”

The couple stepped out of the car, and the driver asked what the problem was.

“You ran a red light, Sir. Do you have any weapons on you or in the vehicle?”

The driver’s eyes widened. “Of course not, Officer.” The driver was wearing tight-fitting jeans and a tee shirt, and it did not appear as though he had a weapon on him. The passenger, who was wearing a summer dress, similarly did not appear to be armed. Officer Pasquale did not smell alcohol.

“Where are you headed? We don’t usually see cars like this in Sometown Heights.”

The driver answered that they were lost and were looking for an address uptown. Officer Pasquale then asked both the driver and the passenger for identification and shined the flashlight in the car. He did not see anything, and so he ordered them both to remain outside the vehicle while he ran their licenses. Both checked out. As he did not see anything else suspicious, Officer Pasquale let the couple go on their way.

Questions:

1. What kind of a stop was this? Why?  

2. Did Officer Pasquale’s actions satisfy constitutional requirements? Why or why not? What Supreme Court decision factors into your answer?

3. In this situation, would Officer Pasquale have had grounds to pat down the driver and the passenger for weapons or drugs? Why or why not?

Case Study 4:

Sometown’s Police Department’s Officer Brown believed he had probable cause to arrest Wanda Weasel for assaulting Samantha Jones. He prepared the following affidavit to present to Judge Jetson so that she could issue a warrant for Wanda Weasel’s arrest:

Comes now Chester Brown, being first duly sworn and upon oath, does state:

I am a police officer with the Sometown Police Department in Arthur County. The date of this Affidavit in Support of an Application for an Arrest Warrant is October 19, 2014. I have been employed as a Sometown Police Officer for the past two years. During this period, I have participated in more than 35 arrests for assault and battery.

On October 17, 2014, we received a call from the hospital, saying that Samantha Jones, a neighbor of Wanda Weasel’s, who lives at 1234 Vine Avenue, Apartment 4A, claimed that Wanda Weasel had punched her in the nose, resulting in it being broken, and had kicked her several times between 1:15 and 1:30 p.m. that day. I went and interviewed Samantha Jones at the hospital and verified her injuries.

I knocked on some doors at 1234 Vine Avenue, and Jack Straw, who lives in Apartment 3A, said that he witnessed the altercation between Weasel and Jones. He says that Jones had asked Weasel to take better care of her trash. Weasel had been taking it out the day after trash day, and it was attracting rodents. At that point, Weasel became very angry and punched Jones in the nose. He stated that Weasel then proceeded to kick Jones several times before running down the stairs and out into the street.

Two other neighbors, who wish to remain anonymous, stated that they had seen the altercation between Weasel and Jones. Neither of them knew what precipitated it, but they both claim that Ms. Jones did not fight back. They said that Wanda Weasel had left the premises shortly after the altercation and had not returned.

I ran a criminal records check and learned that Wanda Weasel has one conviction for assault (1993). The criminal records show that Wanda Weasel is 45 years old, is 6’3’, and weighs 200 pounds.

In interviewing the neighbors, I verified that Wanda Weasel lives at 1234 Vine Avenue, Apartment 3B.

As a result of this information, it is my belief that Wanda Weasel assaulted Samantha Jones on October 17, 2014.

/s/ Chester Brown

Affiant

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of October, 2010.

/s/ Robyn Hitchcock

Clerk, Associate Division

Circuit Court of Arthur County

Questions:

1. Would this affidavit be sufficient for Judge Jetson to issue an arrest warrant for Wanda Weasel? Why or why not? What are the elements required for a warrant to be issued?

2.  If Jack Straw had not been willing to have his name used, would Officer Brown’s affidavit have been sufficient? Why or why not? If Wanda Weasel had robbed Samantha Jones’s home when Jones wasn’t home, would it have been sufficient? Why or why not?

3. The affidavit mentions that Wanda Weasel has fled the scene. Now, assume that Officer Brown finds out that she is holing up at our friend Sticky-Fingered Sam’s apartment. What will Officer Brown need to arrest Wanda? Why?

Case Study 5:

Sometown Police Officer Rockwell was patrolling downtown last Saturday night. It was right around the time the bars shut down for the evening, so he was on the lookout for possible drunk drivers. As he turned from Congress Street and onto Prospect Street, he spotted an armed man attempting to wrestle a young woman into an alleyway. Officer Rockwell stopped his car, and jumped out.

“Stop! Police! Drop your weapon!” he yelled to the man. The suspect, surprised, let go of the woman and ran into the alleyway.

Officer Rockwell checked quickly to make sure that the young woman was not harmed and then told her to stay there, as he ran after the suspect. He radioed for backup as he ran. He caught up to the suspect as he was attempting to climb a chain link fence.

“Hold it right there!” shouted Officer Rockwell. He jumped up and grabbed the suspect’s leg, as the suspect attempted to get over the fence. The suspect fell off the fence, and his gun fell on the pavement with him. Officer Rockwell kicked the gun away, as he blocked a punch from the suspect. The suspect came at him again, this time hitting Officer Rockwell in the stomach. The suspect then went for his gun, but Officer Rockwell landed a kick to his chest and then punched him in the face. As the suspect reeled from the force of the blow, Officer Rockwell slammed him against the fence, and the suspect stopped struggling. Officer Rockwell, however, proceeded to beat him with his nightstick until the suspect was unconscious. Then he placed him under arrest.

Questions:

1. What are the Fourth Amendment restrictions on the use of force?

2. Was Officer Rockwell’s use of force justified? Why or why not?

3. The beating by Officer Rockwell caused the suspect to lapse into a coma. A week later, the suspect died of his injuries. What happens to Officer Rockwell?

Chapter 4: Search and Seizure

Case Study 1:

While executing a search warrant to search Sam’s home for a stolen piano, Officer Blake saw a plastic bag containing marijuana on top of a desk in the living room. She seized the bag and decided to look inside the desk drawers to see if there was more. She found three additional bags of marijuana in the top drawer and seized them also.

Questions:

1. Was the first bag of marijuana properly seized?  Explain.

2.  Were the three bags of marijuana in the top drawer of the desk lawfully seized? Explain.

Case Study 2:

Sam was on a Greyhound bus that pulled into a rest stop. After all of the passengers had exited the bus to buy refreshments, stretch their legs, and do other things, Officer Green boarded the bus with Buff, a trained drug detection dog, and performed a drug sweep. The sweep consisted of removing all bags located in overhead compartments, placing them on the seat below, and having Buff sniff them. Buff alerted to a maroon bag. Officer Green put all the bags back in the overhead compartments before the passengers returned to the bus and, after they reboarded, inquired whether any of them owned a maroon bag. When no one claimed the maroon bag, Officer Green removed it from the bus, opened it, and examined the contents. On discovering 24 grams of crack cocaine, along with a driver’s license with Sam’s picture on it, the officer reboarded the bus and arrested Sam. At his trial for possession of cocaine, Sam moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds that it was obtained through an illegal search and seizure.

Questions:

1. Did Officer Green’s removal of Sam’s bag from the overhead compartment and putting it on the seat below constitute a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?

2. Did exposing Sam’s bag to an examination by Buff constitute a search?

3.  Did Officer Green’s removal of Sam’s bag from the bus when no one claimed it constitute a seizure?

4.  Did Officer Green’s subsequent opening of Sam’s bag and examining the contents constitute a search?

Case Study 3:

Sometown’s drug-related crime was getting out of hand, and citizens had been in an uproar. Officers of the Sometown Police Department had been instructed to use all lawful means at their disposal to crack down on the problem. Officer Pasquale was out on patrol in Sometown Heights, looking for suspicious activity.

As he was turning from Broadway onto State Street, Officer Pasquale noticed a black luxury sedan with tinted windows driving down the street. Such a car was out of place in the neighborhood, and so Officer Pasquale decided to follow it. The car was going the speed limit, and the taillights were functioning. Officer Pasquale kept his distance, as he was hoping that the driver would make a mistake.

At the intersection of State and Vine, the light turned red. While the car Officer Pasquale was following slowed down, it did not come to a complete stop before turning right. Officer Pasquale switched on his siren and pulled the car over.

When he got to the driver’s window to ask for license and registration, he heard the male driver and the female passenger arguing about what to do. The driver lowered the window.

“Please step out of the car, Sir. You, too, Ma’am.”

The couple stepped out of the car, and the driver asked what the problem was.

“You ran a red light, Sir. Do you have any weapons on you or in the vehicle?”

The driver’s eyes widened. “Of course not, Officer.” The driver was wearing tight-fitting jeans and a tee shirt, and it did not appear as though he had a weapon on him. The passenger, who was wearing a summer dress, similarly did not appear to be armed. Officer Pasquale did not smell alcohol.

“Where are you headed? We don’t usually see cars like this in Sometown Heights.”

The driver answered that they were lost and were looking for an address uptown. Officer Pasquale then asked both the driver and the passenger for identification and shined the flashlight in the car. He did not see anything, and so he ordered them both to remain outside the vehicle while he ran their licenses. Both checked out. As he did not see anything else suspicious, Officer Pasquale let the couple go on their way.

Questions:

1. What kind of a stop was this? Why?  

2. Did Officer Pasquale’s actions satisfy constitutional requirements? Why or why not? What Supreme Court decision factors into your answer?

3. In this situation, would Officer Pasquale have had grounds to pat down the driver and the passenger for weapons or drugs? Why or why not?

Case Study 4:

Sometown’s Police Department’s Officer Brown believed he had probable cause to arrest Wanda Weasel for assaulting Samantha Jones. He prepared the following affidavit to present to Judge Jetson so that she could issue a warrant for Wanda Weasel’s arrest:

Comes now Chester Brown, being first duly sworn and upon oath, does state:

I am a police officer with the Sometown Police Department in Arthur County. The date of this Affidavit in Support of an Application for an Arrest Warrant is October 19, 2014. I have been employed as a Sometown Police Officer for the past two years. During this period, I have participated in more than 35 arrests for assault and battery.

On October 17, 2014, we received a call from the hospital, saying that Samantha Jones, a neighbor of Wanda Weasel’s, who lives at 1234 Vine Avenue, Apartment 4A, claimed that Wanda Weasel had punched her in the nose, resulting in it being broken, and had kicked her several times between 1:15 and 1:30 p.m. that day. I went and interviewed Samantha Jones at the hospital and verified her injuries.

I knocked on some doors at 1234 Vine Avenue, and Jack Straw, who lives in Apartment 3A, said that he witnessed the altercation between Weasel and Jones. He says that Jones had asked Weasel to take better care of her trash. Weasel had been taking it out the day after trash day, and it was attracting rodents. At that point, Weasel became very angry and punched Jones in the nose. He stated that Weasel then proceeded to kick Jones several times before running down the stairs and out into the street.

Two other neighbors, who wish to remain anonymous, stated that they had seen the altercation between Weasel and Jones. Neither of them knew what precipitated it, but they both claim that Ms. Jones did not fight back. They said that Wanda Weasel had left the premises shortly after the altercation and had not returned.

I ran a criminal records check and learned that Wanda Weasel has one conviction for assault (1993). The criminal records show that Wanda Weasel is 45 years old, is 6’3’, and weighs 200 pounds.

In interviewing the neighbors, I verified that Wanda Weasel lives at 1234 Vine Avenue, Apartment 3B.

As a result of this information, it is my belief that Wanda Weasel assaulted Samantha Jones on October 17, 2014.

/s/ Chester Brown

Affiant

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of October, 2010.

/s/ Robyn Hitchcock

Clerk, Associate Division

Circuit Court of Arthur County

Questions:

1. Would this affidavit be sufficient for Judge Jetson to issue an arrest warrant for Wanda Weasel? Why or why not? What are the elements required for a warrant to be issued?

2. If Jack Straw had not been willing to have his name used, would Officer Brown’s affidavit have been sufficient? Why or why not? If Wanda Weasel had robbed Samantha Jones’s home when Jones wasn’t home, would it have been sufficient? Why or why not?

3. The affidavit mentions that Wanda Weasel has fled the scene. Now, assume that Officer Brown finds out that she is holing up at our friend Sticky-Fingered Sam’s apartment. What will Officer Brown need to arrest Wanda? Why?

Case Study 5:

Sometown Police Officer Rockwell was patrolling downtown last Saturday night. It was right around the time the bars shut down for the evening, so he was on the lookout for possible drunk drivers. As he turned from Congress Street and onto Prospect Street, he spotted an armed man attempting to wrestle a young woman into an alleyway. Officer Rockwell stopped his car, and jumped out.

“Stop! Police! Drop your weapon!” he yelled to the man. The suspect, surprised, let go of the woman and ran into the alleyway.

Officer Rockwell checked quickly to make sure that the young woman was not harmed and then told her to stay there, as he ran after the suspect. He radioed for backup as he ran. He caught up to the suspect as he was attempting to climb a chain link fence.

“Hold it right there!” shouted Officer Rockwell. He jumped up and grabbed the suspect’s leg, as the suspect attempted to get over the fence. The suspect fell off the fence, and his gun fell on the pavement with him. Officer Rockwell kicked the gun away, as he blocked a punch from the suspect. The suspect came at him again, this time hitting Officer Rockwell in the stomach. The suspect then went for his gun, but Officer Rockwell landed a kick to his chest and then punched him in the face. As the suspect reeled from the force of the blow, Officer Rockwell slammed him against the fence, and the suspect stopped struggling. Officer Rockwell, however, proceeded to beat him with his nightstick until the suspect was unconscious. Then he placed him under arrest.

Questions:

1. What are the Fourth Amendment restrictions on the use of force?

2. Was Officer Rockwell’s use of force justified? Why or why not?

3. The beating by Officer Rockwell caused the suspect to lapse into a coma. A week later, the suspect died of his injuries. What happens to Officer Rockwell?

Chapter 5: Laws Governing Police Surveillance

Case Study 1:

Janie Smith headed up a criminal ring in Sometown. This ring had been responsible for the rise in drug-related activity and prostitution in the town, and yet because Smith ran a tight and efficient operation, police have no evidence tying her directly to any crimes. Every time the police thought they had gotten close to Janie, she slipped through their grasp; that is, until police caught up to Cynthia Stout. Police in Coppertown had caught Stout with enough cocaine to put her away for 20 years. However, Stout offered to give them Janie Smith in exchange for a lighter sentence, and so she began to work with the Sometown Police Department.

Stout agreed to become a police informant and wear a state-of-the-art tiny video camera to her meetings with Smith about an upcoming drug shipment. The police planned to use the video to obtain an arrest warrant and charge Janie Smith with drug trafficking. Stout’s meeting was to be held in the private offices of a local business owner who had ties to the underworld. Stout went to the meeting, and there Smith described how representatives of the ring planned to meet a truck that would come in to an abandoned warehouse along the Winding River, on the outskirts of Sometown. The truck would contain 20 kilos of cocaine, along with some marijuana. Smith instructed Stout to meet up with her associate after the drop was made.

Sometown police used this information to intercept the drug shipment and then to arrest Janie Smith on drug trafficking charges as she was attempting to flee Sometown.

Questions:

1. The incriminating statements made by Janie Smith were spoken in a private office of a local business owner, a space protected by the Fourth Amendment. Why was the evidence allowed at Janie Smith’s trial?

2. What kind of authorization would the police have had to obtain in order to record the conversation between Janie Smith and her gang, had it not been for Cynthia Stout’s cooperation?

Case Study 2:

Joe Staples is well-known in Sometown for his marijuana. Several students from Sometown High School have recently been arrested for marijuana possession, but none of them have been willing to identify their source. Officers at the Sometown Police Department have had their eye on Staples for years, but they just have not been able to catch him in the act. They strongly suspect that Staples has been growing marijuana in the back of his house, using heat lamps. However, they have been unable to gather enough evidence for a search warrant for his home. After the drug busts involving Sometown High School students, the police decide to get serious about catching him.

It just so happened that the department had recently acquired a thermal detector to crack down on homegrown marijuana operations. The police decided that it was time to try it out. Late in the evening, police officers sneaked into a wooded area behind Staples’s property and installed the detector. For several days, officers monitored the heat signature coming from Staples’s home and determined that the heat coming from his home could only be coming from a marijuana- growing operation. Now it was just a matter of catching Joe Staples leaving his home.

Unfortunately, Joe Staples was a bit of a homebody, and he did not leave his house very often. A few people came and left his house, but the police let them go, not wanting to alert Staples to their plans to arrest him. Finally, Staples left the house. As soon as he was down the driveway and onto the sidewalk, the police arrested him for an illegal marijuana-growing operation.

Questions:

1. What is the Fourth Amendment requirement for the thermal detecting devices, and were the police justified in using one to monitor Joe Staples’s marijuana-growing operation? Did the fact that the police set up their equipment off of his property influence whether this surveillance was constitutional?

2. What Supreme Court decision comes into play in this situation, and what was the Court’s reasoning?

3. Joe Staples’s lawyer demands that all charges against his client be dropped. What is the result, and why?

Case Study 3:

Jeffrey Winkle conducted his business over the Internet—including his criminal business. Winkle had made a small fortune as an online entrepreneur and, as a hobby, he fancied himself a collector of rare antiquities. He had an impressive collection in his home, where he threw lavish parties for important friends.

To finance this hobby, Winkle traded in black-market antiquities. His friends soon had fine collections of their own, though most of them could not display them as proudly as he did. Winkle took orders from his contacts via e-mail and then sent messages in return when he obtained certain items to see if they might be interested. He used coded language, of course, but the overall gist of his communications was clear. Once an agreement was reached on price, payment and shipping details were arranged. Winkle avoided the telephone, and there was no paper trail linking him to his deals.

The authorities had suspected him for a couple of years of dealing in rare artifacts illegally, but they were unable to trace anything directly back to him. He was careful with shipping methods and worked with a network of couriers to make sure that his name was in no way connected with the shipments. However, after arresting one of his important friends on a cocaine charge, an officer found a printout of an e-mail from Winkle that appeared to be a description of a rare artifact and a price in his wallet. When questioned about the paper, the important friend gave some incriminating testimony about Winkle’s online operation. The important friend did not know if Winkle came about these objects legally or not, but he did know that Winkle wanted everything kept quiet.

This gave the authorities an idea. They would search Winkle’s e-mail records to see if they could get enough evidence to prosecute him. His love of collecting, they surmised, might have made him an e-mail saver.

Questions:

1. What law governs e-mail after it arrives at its destination? How does this law compare with other laws concerning communications?

2. How does this law compare with other laws concerning communications?

3. The authorities realize that they do not have much to go on for their investigation of Winkle, so they seek out e-mails older than 180 days. Would they be able to obtain those e-mails?

Chapter 6: Interrogation and Confessions

Case Study 1:

Police were dispatched to an apartment “to assist an elderly woman who was hurt.” When they arrived, they found an elderly woman in the kitchen lying in a pool of blood. They check her pulse. She was dead. They immediately began a sweep of the apartment. With their guns drawn, they searched each room for other victims or suspects. Officer Compton found the deceased woman’s son Tom in a bedroom, lying face down on the floor behind the bed. He was covered in blood and holding a knife that appeared to be impaled in his armpit. Compton ordered Tom to drop the knife which he did and then asked him, “What happened here?” Tom responded, “I killed my mother. She had it coming.” Tom was charged with murder. He moved to suppress his statement under the Miranda rule. 

Questions:

1.Did Officer Compton’s question “what happened here?” constitute a custodial interrogation?

Case Study 2:

Thelma Stump’s home was burglarized last night. The thief had good taste. Only her finest jewelry was taken. Sticky-Fingered Sam had been in Thelma’s home, washing her windows and doing odd jobs several days before the burglary. Acting on a hunch that Sam was responsible, police went to his apartment, informed him of the burglary, and asked for permission to come in and talk. Sam replied that he knew nothing about the burglary and had nothing to say. Several hours later the police returned and falsely told Sam that his image had been captured on Thelma Stump’s video surveillance camera on the night of the burglary and that they had a warrant for his arrest. Sam went silent for a few minutes and then said: “Okay! I did it. I don’t know why I did. Ms. Thelma’s jewelry is just so beautiful. I just couldn’t help myself.”  Sam’s lawyer has moved to suppress his confession.

Questions:

1. Was Sam’s confession involuntary?

2. Was Sam’s confession subject to suppression under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule?

3. Was Sam’s unwarned confession subject to suppression under the Miranda rule?

Case Study 3:

Harold Kamke was arrested for murder, transported to the police station, and taken to the interview room. Miranda warnings were administered. Kamke stated that he understood his rights and was willing to speak, but after answering two questions, he said: “I’m scared to talk to you without a lawyer. I’m going to get myself in worse trouble. I need a lawyer.” At this point, the questioning ceased and Kamke was taken to the county jail. The next morning, the same officers came to the jail, told Kamke they would like to speak to him, advised him of his Miranda rights, and asked him if he was willing to discuss the case. Kamke stated that he had changed his mind and that he no longer wanted a lawyer. He signed a written waiver and confessed. He has now moved to suppress his confession, claiming it was procured in violation of his Miranda rights. 

Questions:

Is Kamke’s confession admissible? 

Case Study 4:

A prosecutor with the district attorney’s office determined there was enough evidence to seek an indictment against Kyle Butler for the murder of Dorothy Flowers and convened a grand jury. The grand jury returned an indictment and a warrant was issued for Butler’s arrest. The police went to Butler’s home and informed him that he had been indicted for the murder of Dorothy Flowers, that they had a warrant for his arrest, and that they needed to ask him some questions. Butler seemed hesitant to discuss the case at first, but it slowly emerged over the next few hours that Flowers was Butler’s supervisor and that he was enraged at her for firing him. “She took everything from me,” Butler said. “I was determined to make her sorry.” Police continued to question Butler about the morning Flowers was found brutally murdered in her apartment. They asked Butler about his whereabouts. At first he said he was at the gym, but when pressed to provide the name of a witness who could verify his story, he admitted that he had been in Flowers’s neighborhood, having breakfast. The police pressed him further, and Butler finally blurted out. “I did it! OK. I killed the vile woman! She deserved it! She ruined my life, and I made her pay.” The officers then arrested Butler and read him his Miranda rights. Butler’s attorney has filed a suppression motion.

Questions:

1. What is the constitutional basis for his motion?

2. Did police violate the Sixth Amendment when they questioned Butler about the murder without obtaining a waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel?

3.  Would it have been necessary for police to administer warnings and obtain a waiver had police interviewed Butler in home before he was indicted?

4.  Butler’s confession cannot be used to prove the prosecution’s case at the trial. Can it be used for any purpose?

Chapter 7: Compulsory Self-Incrimination

Case Study 1:

Henrietta Snodgrass had been charged with running an illegal gambling ring out of the back of the Sometown Pub. One of the witnesses in her trial, Marge Sampson, Snodgrass’s former associate, had been granted immunity in exchange for her testimony against Snodgrass. In order to build a case against Snodgrass, several people from the Sometown Pub have been informed that they must appear to testify in front of a grand jury. The owner of the bar, as well as the bartenders, wait staff, and door attendants from the Saturday night shift will all have to go to court to make statements about what they knew about the weekly poker game held in the back of Sometown Pub.

The thought of testifying, especially against Henrietta Snodgrass, made everyone at the pub nervous. Jesse Plimpton, the owner of Sometown Pub, was particularly jittery, as he was afraid of testifying about the extent of his knowledge about what was happening in the back room of his pub. He feared that his testimony might incriminate him, and he did not want to be caught up in Henrietta Snodgrass’s downfall.

Plimpton had met Snodgrass when the pub was struggling financially. Snodgrass had offered to help him stabilize his finances if he let her use the back room on Saturday nights to run the poker game. He thought that it would just be a friendly game, and he fancied himself the owner of a speakeasy. Over the last year, however, he heard things about Snodgrass’s associates beating up players who owed debts they could not pay. When he said something to Snodgrass, she reminded him that the game was going on in his bar, and he could go to jail for his involvement. Plimpton wished he did not have to go to court, but he had no choice.

Questions:

1. How specifically did the assistant district attorney compel Jesse Plimpton and the Saturday night staff of Sometown Pub to testify? What is this a form of?

2. Can they “plead the Fifth” and refuse to testify? Why or why not?

3. What is Jesse Plimpton’s degree of Fifth Amendment protection while testifying before the grand jury?

Case Study 2:

Sylvia Packer was on trial for stealing an antique vase from the Sometown Antique Shoppe. Police officers had obtained an illegal confession from her by questioning her after she had been indicted by a grand jury and not obtaining a waiver of her Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Despite the inadmissible confession, the prosecution had enough physical evidence from the scene of the crime and from eyewitness testimony to proceed to trial. The assistant district attorney had called witness after witness who identified Packer as the thief, even though Packer had been wearing a mask at the time of the robbery. The assistant district attorney also presented video evidence, showing someone who matched Packer’s description leaving the store with the vase.

When it came time for the defense to make its case, Packer exercised her right against self-incrimination and did not take the stand. Instead, the defense called expert witnesses who questioned the fingerprints left at the scene, saying that Packer was a frequent customer of the Sometown Antique Shoppe and that her fingerprints could have been left there when she was a customer. Another expert witness examined the video footage from the incident and said that the footage did not prove conclusively that Packer was the thief. Packer was of average weight and height, and though police had found clothes at Packer’s apartment that match those seen in the footage, the clothes were nondescript enough to be inconclusive. When the time came for closing arguments, the assistant district attorney called attention to Packer’s refusal to testify as further proof of her guilt.

Questions:

1. Did the assistant district attorney violate Sylvia Packer’s Fifth Amendment rights when she called attention to Packer’s refusal to testify? Why or why not?

2. If defendants did not have this protection, what would be the result?

3. When does the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination apply? When does it not apply?

Case Study 3:

George Fisher is on trial for kidnapping. The prosecutor played a taped telephone call made by the kidnapper to the victim’s mother at George’s trial. He then called George to the witness stand and asked him to repeat the words spoken by the kidnapper so that the jurors could compare the voices and decide whether the defendant was the person who made the call.

Questions:

1. Can George’s attorney object under the Fifth Amendment? 

Case Study 4:

Sometown Police Officer Grendell arrested Jason Southerland for driving under the influence late Saturday night. Southerland was driving erratically down Broadway, and Officer Grendell pulled him over. When asking Southerland for his license and registration, Officer Grendell smelled alcohol on Southerland’s breath and observed that his eyes were bloodshot. Officer Grendell asked Southerland to step out of the car and then conducted a field sobriety test. Southerland failed the test, as he could not walk a straight line or recite the alphabet with his finger on his nose. After Southerland failed the test, Officer Grendell placed him under arrest and took him to the police station.

Normally, the Sometown Police tested DUI suspects using a Breathalyzer machine, as it is the least invasive procedure to determine intoxication. However, the machine broke the week prior and was out for repairs until Monday. As a backup measure for such eventualities, the Sometown Police Department contracted a physician, Dr. Gagnon, to perform blood draws to test for intoxication. Officer Grendell contacted Gagnon, who came in to perform the test. Gagnon used standard blood drawing equipment to obtain a blood sample from Southerland for testing. The blood then was sent to a lab for processing. Officer Grendell did not obtain a warrant to draw blood from Southerland prior to having Gagnon administer the test.

When the test came back, it showed that Southerland’s blood alcohol levels were at almost twice the legal limit. Southerland was charged with drunk driving and later convicted at Sometown District Court.

Questions:

1. Was drawing Jason Southerland’s blood without a warrant constitutional? Why or why not? Which amendment applies here?

2. What Supreme Court decision governs this practice? What was the Court’s reasoning?

3. Unless confronted with an emergency, for what types of bodily searches should officers obtain a warrant before having them performed on a suspect?

Case Study 5:

Harvey Simon was suspected of a brutal rape. The victim had been found, beaten and bloody, in the alleyway near a popular night spot. She had required emergency surgery, but was expected to make a full physical recovery.

Upon investigating the crime, police found several eyewitnesses who placed Simon at the same bar as the victim the night of the incident. One witness testified that she had seen the victim leave with Simon. It appeared to the witness that she left under duress. Simon had held her firmly by the arm and was walking behind her. According to the witness, the victim looked as though she was trying to remain calm, but was visibly terrified. The witness expressed guilt about not doing more to help her.

When the victim awoke after surgery, police questioned her in her hospital room. Although she was in shock from the realization of what had happened to her, the victim was able to identify Simon as her assailant. In addition to the surgery, doctors performed a rape kit procedure. However, because Simon’s DNA was not in the system, they did not have a match for the DNA. Police would need to obtain a pubic hair and semen sample from Simon in order to confirm him as the rapist.

Using the testimony from the victim and the witnesses, officers obtained a search warrant to compel Simon to provide the evidence. Simon was ordered to appear at a doctor’s office to provide the samples. When the evidence was analyzed, Simon was arrested for the rape. He was tried, convicted, and sent to prison.

Questions:

1. Why did police obtain a warrant before obtaining the samples from Simon?

2. Is grounds for arrest enough to justify invasive bodily searches? Why or why not?

3. In the case of Harvey Simon, how did police meet the criteria required for the search performed?

Chapter 8: Right to Counsel

Case Study 1:

Leon Keller was facing a charge of driving under the influence in Sometown. Police had pulled him over after he crossed the yellow line, and he had failed a field sobriety test. Tests confirmed his blood alcohol levels were above the legal limit, and so he had been charged. This was the first time he had been arrested and charged with a crime.

Keller, a 50-year-old man with a strong distrust of the legal system, did not want to hire an attorney. Instead, he wished to defend himself. In his mind, he had a solid defense. Keller was a man of above-average intelligence, who did not suffer from mental illness. He had attended college, but did not graduate. At his arraignment, he told Judge Jet that he wished to waive his right to counsel.

“Are you sure, Mr. Keller?” Judge Jet asked. “Yes, your Honor. I would like to defend myself against these charges.”

There was nothing to suggest that Leon Keller lacked the mental competence to defend himself. Judge Jet proceeded to give Keller a very stern warning about the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. She asked him several questions about his education and then several more about any experience he had with the criminal justice system. Once Keller had answered her questions, the judge again asked Keller if he was absolutely sure of his decision. Keller answered that he was. Judge Jet expressed her reservations but allowed Keller to represent himself at trial. As a precaution, she appointed standby counsel.

Questions:

1. What determination does a judge need to make before a defendant is allowed to represent himself or herself?

2. Did Judge Jet satisfy the requirements in the case of Leon Keller?

3. What Supreme Court decision established the right to represent oneself? What was the Court’s reasoning?

Case Study 2:

Jessica Jones, an indigent defendant, had been charged with theft of merchandise, valued at $2,000, from the Sometown Department Store. Eyewitnesses had placed her at the store and saw her leave with an expensive leather jacket, several designer scarves, and some jewelry. Video footage from the store showed Jones in the dressing room, putting on the jacket and draping herself with scarves and necklaces before walking back out onto the floor and then out the door. When questioned by police, Jones admitted to stealing the items, saying that she planned on selling them to get money for food. She was assigned a public defender, and a date was set for her trial.

Jones’s overworked public defender failed to show up for the two scheduled meetings with Jones to discuss her case before the trial started. When the day arrived, Jones’s counsel was 20 minutes late for the proceedings. The public defender had a large cup of coffee with her, but when Jones looked over at her while the eyewitnesses were testifying, the attorney was sleeping. The public defender did not question any of the prosecution’s witnesses, and the judge had to wake her up twice to ask her if she wished to cross-examine them. After the defense rested, the public defender called Jones to the stand and asked her questions that played right into the prosecutor’s hands. On cross-examination, Jones confessed to everything. The jury took less than a half an hour to return with a guilty verdict.

When a local advocacy group heard about Simpson’s case, it helped her to file an appeal.

Questions:

1. What did the advocacy group base the appeal of Jones’s case on?

2. Other than an appeal, how else could Jones have addressed this issue?

3. In order for this kind of case to be found meritorious, what does the defendant need to be able to prove? How would this have worked out in Jones’s case?

Case Study 3:

Rachel Hanger had been arrested and charged with cocaine distribution. Police had conducted a thorough investigation and had sufficient evidence to secure an arrest warrant. Hanger had been arraigned and was awaiting trial in county jail. Representing her was Doris Hunt, a private attorney.

After criminal proceedings were already under way, a witness came forward in the case. The witness’ description of the drug dealer matched that of Rachel Hanger, but police wanted to confirm the identity, because this witness would strengthen their case. To do so, they wanted him to identify Hanger in a lineup before having him testify in court. Because the suspect said that he remembered Hanger’s voice clearly, they also wanted participants in the lineup to say the words: “It will cost you.”

Police asked Hanger to appear for the lineup. Hanger requested Attorney Hunt’s presence at the lineup, and so police contacted Attorney Hunt and then waited for her to arrive. For the lineup, police selected five other women who roughly match Hanger’s race, height, weight, and general appearance. As they were all inmates at the county jail, all of them were wearing prison uniforms.

Attorney Hunt arrived and joined the witness, the assistant district attorney, and a police officer in the viewing room. The women walked out and stood facing the glass. In turn, each of them stepped forward and spoke the phrase, “It will cost you.” As soon as Hanger said the phrase, the witness said, “That’s her. That’s the woman I saw.” The lineup was completed, and police used the witness’s testimony at trial.

Questions:

1. Suggestive measures during lineups can lead to them being discredited. What are ways that lineups can be suggestive, and how did police avoid it in this example?

2. Criminal prosecution has already been initiated, and Rachel Hanger has an attorney. What are the constitutional requirements for a lineup at this stage, and were they met?

3. If this lineup was overly suggestive and police selected a lineup certain to make Rachel Hanger stand out, what would happen to the identification and the witness’s testimony?

Case Study 4:

Officer Green was assigned to the Whosville Police Department street gang unit. The function of the street gang unit was to compile photographic files of suspected street gang members for possible future use. On October 18, Officer Green saw a group of youths dressed in what appeared to be gang jackets, standing on a street corner, talking. When the youths noticed Officer Green aiming a camera at them, they started to walk away. Officer Green ordered them to “stay there” and, after patting them down, interviewed them one at a time, asking each about his name, address, date of birth, and other identifying information. He then photographed each of them. The photographs and identification information were then placed in the Whosville Police Department street gang file. Two months later, a youth was shot and killed in the same neighborhood. The victim’s girlfriend was with him when he was murdered. Police took the victim’s girlfriend to the police station and showed her more than 100 photographs from the street gang file. She identified the defendant as the perpetrator. The defendant’s attorney wants to challenge his identification.

Questions:

1. Which of the three grounds—the Fourth Amendment, due process clause, or Sixth Amendment right to counsel—appears most promising for this challenge?

Case Study 5:

Meg Davis was assaulted from behind by a purse snatcher as she was walking toward her home at nightfall. A struggle ensued. She eventually relaxed her grip on her purse, and the assailant grabbed it and fled. Davis immediately called the police. She described her attacker to Officer Jackson as “a tall black male with a scar on his face” wearing “jeans, a dark shirt, and a brown windbreaker.” Officer Jackson radioed the description and 10 minutes later, Officer Martina encountered the defendant sitting in a park with friends, four blocks away. He was wearing brown pants and a black hoodie; he did not have a windbreaker or a scar. Officer Martina radioed Officer Jackson and informed him that “he had someone who matched Davis’s description of the assailant.” Officer Jackson turned to Davis and told her, “We’ve apprehended your assailant. We’re going to drive over to the park to see ‘if you can make a positive ID on the person.’” The defendant was standing next to Officer Martina when they arrived, and Davis, without hesitation, identified him as her assailant. Officer Jackson took Davis back to the police station where Davis gave a written statement in which she described her attacker as: “Afro–American, 6-foot tall, brown shirt and black pants.” Defendant was arrested, charged with second-degree robbery, and searched. He had a $5 bill, $1.75 in change, some keys, and a cell phone. Davis’s wallet, $100 cash, and identification cards were never recovered.

At trial, Davis identified the defendant as her assailant and testified that she immediately “recognized his face” when she saw him in the park standing next to Officer Jackson. When pressed for more details, she stated “It was his eyes.... They were mean. They still haunt me. I’m 100% certain he’s the attacker.” On cross-examination, she acknowledged that it was “dark,” “things happened quickly,” and she was “extremely scared.” She also acknowledged that she initially described her attacker to the police as “a tall, black man in a black shirt and blue jeans” and that in her subsequent written statement to police, she described her assailant as wearing the clothing the defendant was wearing when he was arrested. The jury returned a guilty verdict. The case is now on appeal.

Questions:

1. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits admission of testimony about pretrial identifications obtained under (1) impermissibly suggestive circumstances that (2) create a substantial risk of misidentification. Should the court have admitted Davis’s testimony about her pretrial identification?

Chapter 9: Trial and Punishment

Case Study 1:

John Smith, a 20-year-old defendant, was charged with rape and murder. Sadie Lennon had been discovered in her apartment, brutally raped, with her head severed. When police arrested Smith, he exhibited strange behavior, arguing with people who weren’t there and hitting himself. At one point, he picked up the table and flung it across the room. The assistant district attorney wondered about his competence to stand trial.

Smith, the wealthy heir to his father’s fortune, had a skilled attorney who mounted an insanity defense. Attorney Hine claimed that Smith suffered from schizophrenia and therefore could not be held responsible for his actions. At his trial, Hine called an expert witness to testify to Smith’s mental illness. Dr. Smart provided evidence of Smith’s childhood abuse and said that in his sessions with Smith, Smith exhibited the classic symptoms of schizophrenia. Smith could not be held responsible for his actions, the doctor testified, as he was unaware of what he was doing at the time of the attack.

Smith was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or mental defect and sent to a psychiatric facility. After the trial, in investigating a robbery, police discovered video evidence in the suspect’s apartment of Smith describing the crime and talking about how he would get out of the death penalty. Smith described how he would pretend to be schizophrenic and then eventually make a “miraculous recovery.” He bragged how no one would be able to touch him, even when they found out that he faked his mental illness.

Questions:

1. Why was John Smith so confident that he would not be punished, even after it was discovered that he faked his mental illness?

2. What are the requirements for the provision discussed in the previous condition?

3. When does the protection against the provision attach in a jury trial?

Case Study 2:

Jocelyn Santarpio was on trial for murder. Police had discovered the body of her husband, Mario, in the couple’s bedroom after she had called them. Jocelyn was covered in Mario’s blood, and her fingerprints were on the knife used to kill him. When she was questioned by police, Jocelyn claimed that she had come home from work at her private consulting practice and discovered her husband’s body. She had attempted to revive him, she said, and that was why she was covered in his blood. Pulling the knife out, she claimed, was something she did to try to save him.

Evidence against Jocelyn Santarpio appeared to be damning. She had worked alone that day, and no one had seen her arrive at or leave her office. What’s more, a neighbor, Angela Barker, told police that she had seen Jocelyn at the couple’s home the day of the murder and said that she looked agitated. Barker agreed to testify at trial.

When Barker took the stand for the prosecution, she testified as to Jocelyn’s whereabouts the day of the murder and also claimed that the relationship between the defendant and her husband was strained. Jocelyn Santarpio’s defense attorney, Jane Jackson, had information that she thought relevant to Barker’s testimony. She questioned Barker about what Jocelyn had been wearing when she saw her, as there were inconsistencies in her testimony. She questioned the time at which Barker had seen Jocelyn, as Jackson had discovered that Barker was not at home at the time she claimed to have seen the defendant. In addition, Attorney Jackson asked Barker about her relationship with Mario Santarpio. Jocelyn Santarpio told Attorney Jackson that she thought that Barker was in love with her husband and that might have provided motivation for her testimony. After repeated questioning, Barker finally admitted that she had not seen Jocelyn Santarpio at the time of the murder. This admission cast enough doubt on Jocelyn Santarpio’s guilt that she was found not guilty.

Questions:

1. When Attorney Jackson questioned Barker, what right was being exercised?

2. Is this right binding on the states? Why?

3. What is an important exception to this right?

Case Study 3:

News of the murder of celebrity Susan Lamb’s husband at the couple’s winter home in a small town in a northern state traveled like wildfire. Harold Lamb had been discovered in the hallway, shot twice in the chest and once in the head. The story broke the morning of the murder, and by that evening, the story was splashed all over the news. When police arrested Susan Lamb, the story grew even bigger. Media hordes gathered outside the small-town courthouse, so thick that court staff could hardly break through to get inside. Tabloids had already convicted Lamb, splashing stories of rumored affairs, drug binges, and past crimes.

Judge Serena Delaney was worried that the media attention would contaminate the jury pool. There might be a few residents living off the grid up in the mountains who had not heard about the murder, but the townspeople could not leave their front doors without some reporter asking them what they thought of Susan Lamb. Lamb’s team of attorneys had considered applying for a change of venue, but since news of the murder dominated the news night after night, they doubted that they would be able to find a juror who had not heard of the case.

The trial date was set for nine months from the date of arraignment. In addition, Judge Delaney ordered the defense attorneys, the lone witness, the prosecutors, and law enforcement officers not to release to the media information that could prejudice the jury or make statements inadmissible.

When the time came to question potential jurors, the small mountain town proved that it had decent, sensible people who were able to set aside what they had heard about the case and “render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” However, in order to make sure that jurors did not learn anything about the case from the outside media while the trial was in progress, Judge Delaney ordered that they be sequestered. Surprisingly, the trial went smoothly. Susan Lamb was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

Questions:

1. What are the dangers associated with a celebrity trial?

2. How were these dangers counteracted?

3. What is the due process standard for impartiality among the jurors? How is this determined?

Case Study 4:

When it came time to sentence Susan Lamb for the brutal murder of her husband (see prior Case Study), prosecutors sought the death penalty. In the trial, it had come out that Susan Lamb had been carrying on an affair with a neighbor. The neighbor testified that Susan Lamb had suggested killing her husband as a way to get out of a prenuptial agreement.

The prosecution proved that Susan Lamb had plotted her husband’s murder for months and had chosen a moment for the murder that she thought would ensure that she would not be charged. She shot her husband three times, twice in the chest and once in the head. Her plans for escaping without detection, however, were foiled, however, when a lone witness saw her leaving the scene of the crime, covered in blood. Had she succeeded in getting away with the crime, Susan Lamb would have received a substantial financial reward from her husband’s life insurance policy and would have been free of the prenuptial agreement.

Prosecutors argued that in addition to the wanton depravity of the crime, Susan Lamb had also committed premeditated murder. In the mountain state where the crime took place, this made the crime eligible for the death penalty. The defense argued that Susan Lamb’s relationship with her husband was strained. They admitted that Susan Lamb had been carrying on an affair, but her husband had also cheated on her and was lately threatening to divorce her. The husband had once hit Susan Lamb hard enough to send her to the hospital. Prior to the murder, Susan Lamb had never been convicted of a crime, and she was known for doing charitable work for needy children.

Judge Delaney weighed the facts and the severity of the crime, and decided to sentence Susan Lamb to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Questions:

1. What makes a crime eligible for the death penalty? What did prosecutors focus on in arguing for it? What Amendment comes into play here?

2. What are factors that can cause a judge to decide against imposing the death penalty? What did the defense focus on in arguing against the death penalty for Susan Lamb?

3. Why was the sentence imposed after the guilt phase of the trial had concluded?

Chapter 10: Constitutional and Civil Rights in the Government Workplace

Case Study 1:

Jonathan Hammersmith worked as an undercover officer for the Sometown Police Department. For the past six months, he had been working deep undercover investigating a drug ring in Sometown Heights. His handler was Fred Rich. Hammersmith met with Rich every other week to update him on the progress of the investigation and to report any problems.

The investigation was going well. It had taken a couple of months, but Hammersmith had earned the trust of the ringleader, Jimmy Lynch. Hammersmith accompanied Lynch everywhere and attended meetings with drug suppliers and dealers. It was at one of these meetings that Hammersmith learned why Jimmy Lynch always avoided being caught by the police.

At one of the meetings, one of Lynch’s associates mentioned that he was going to “take his Pa out for coffee” the next day. That struck Hammersmith as an odd thing to say, so he looked into it. He discovered that taking one’s father out for coffee not only involved picking up the check, but giving “Pa” a little extra spending money too. “Pa” turned out to be none other than Jake French, a member of his task force. A little more digging revealed that several other members of the Sometown Police Department were on the take.

At first Hammersmith was not sure what to do. He knew that reporting the matter internally would go badly. Officers who “ratted out” other officers were scorned by the department and given the worst assignments. What was worse, they had no recourse. While Hammersmith did not want to kill his career with the force, he also did not want to let the matter stand. He had worked for years to get drugs under control in Sometown, and he did not want that all to go to waste. Hammersmith wrote his state senator and the governor and provided them with information about the members of the force who were on the take. An investigation ensued, and the guilty parties on the force were brought down. While some of the officers on the force hated Hammersmith, he kept his job.

Questions:

1. What are Jonathan Hammersmith’s First Amendment rights as a police officer for work-related speech?

2. Why wouldn’t Hammersmith report the bribery to his handler, Fred Rich? What Supreme Court decisions illustrate why he reacted as he did?

3. What is the “public concern” requirement, and did Hammersmith’s actions meet it?

Case Study 2:

Sometown Police Detective George Rome faced termination for misusing department computers to look at online pornography. The policy against using department computers for such purposes and the consequences for violating the policy were clearly stated in the department’s employee handbook, and Rome had signed a statement saying that he had read and understood the handbook. Two months before, he had been issued a written warning for using department computers to visit pornographic websites. This warning stated that the next step in the process was termination. He had also signed this warning. A week before termination proceedings began, a routine check on his online activity—a check that all department computers are subjected to—revealed that he had once again visited these websites. This evidence provided just cause to terminate Rome.

As Rome was a senior officer on the force, prior to termination, he was given a hearing, attended by the chief of police, a representative from the union, and the head of the internal investigations department, who would make the ultimate decision. At the hearing, he was presented with the charge against him: misuse of department computers to visit pornographic websites. Rome was told that this was in direct violation of department policy, a policy that he had acknowledged and had agreed to abide by. In addition, he had received a written warning stating that if he violated this policy again, he would be terminated. A routine check of his online activity had revealed that he violated the policy. The committee gave Rome an opportunity to challenge the evidence and to present testimony. As Rome had, in fact, used department computers to look at online pornography after being warned not to do so, he chose not to challenge the evidence against him or present testimony in his defense. George Rome was terminated from the Sometown Police Department.

Questions:

1. George Rome was in flagrant violation of department policy and had violated a written warning issued just two months prior to his termination. Why was he not immediately terminated?

2. What is the constitutional basis for a “property right in a job”? What is “just cause”?

3. What are the minimum requirements for a termination hearing for police officers who have a property right in their jobs? Were these requirements met in George Rome’s case?

Case Study 3:

Ever since she was a little girl, Juanita Lopez wanted nothing more than to join the Sometown Police Department. She had worked hard to fashion herself into an ideal candidate. In college, she had studied justice at and had graduated at the top of her class. Lopez spoke English and Spanish fluently and also knew some Mandarin Chinese. Unlike most of the members of the force, she would be able to communicate with the majority of the residents of Sometown without the aid of an interpreter. Despite having a sizeable Latino population, Sometown did not have any Latina women on the police force. This had caused difficulties when the police conducted investigations in Latino neighborhoods. Lopez’s presence would likely alleviate this problem.

An outgoing person who had lived her entire life in Sometown, Lopez knew almost everyone in town, and they knew and respected her. Lopez also had a black belt in karate and ran marathons, so the physical demands of the job would not present her with any difficulties. When she applied to join the Sometown Police force, she fully expected to be offered the job with open arms.

There was just one little problem. Juanita Lopez was 5′1″ tall and weighed 110 pounds. In all of her research into the requirements of becoming an officer at the Sometown Police Department, Lopez had somehow not discovered that to join the force, a candidate needed to be at least 5′2″ tall and weigh at least 125 pounds. These minimum height and weight requirements seemed outrageous to Lopez, and she sued the department and won. She joined the Sometown Police Department and proved to be a true asset to the force.

Questions:

1. Did Juanita Lopez sue the Sometown Police Department on constitutional grounds? If so, what were they? If not, then how did she make her case?

2. If Juanita Lopez had been obese, would her case have succeeded? Why or why not?

3. What is the justification for heightened restrictions for police officers, concerning their appearance and behavior?

Case Study 4:

Over the past two years, the Sometown Police Department had made active strides to increase diversity on its force. They had hired a number of minority and women officers, and had been rewarded with a better relationship with the Sometown community. Now the members of this new crop of junior officers were busily studying for the exam to make them eligible for promotion. The police chief was excited about having the face of the Sometown Police Department better match the face of Sometown.

Testastic, a testing consulting firm, created the exam designed to identify the best candidates for promotion. Testastic had an excellent reputation for creating tests that were job-specific and avoided elements that were likely to leave minorities and women at a disadvantage. Their methods were scientific, and they adhered to exacting standards. The Sometown Police chief was confident that the test would accurately measure the abilities of the officers and not provide any unfair advantages.

The day for the exam arrived, and the junior officers sat down at computer stations and took the Testastic test. Most of the officers felt confident about their performance and eagerly awaited the results. The results, however, left the police chief shocked and upset. While many of the junior officers did very well on the exam and qualified for promotion, there appeared to be a statistical disparity in pass rates for minority and female candidates. If the promotions were handed out on the basis of this exam, the department could open itself to charges of discrimination. The chief was not sure what to do.

Questions:

1. The Sometown Police Department had made an effort to increase diversity on its police force. In attempting to create a test that was job-specific and nondiscriminatory, what was the department trying to avoid?

2. Which Supreme Court decision recognized this type of discrimination? In so doing, it increased the standard for compliance for which law?

3. Which Supreme Court case does the example from the Sometown Police Department resemble? What did the Court decide, and what was its reasoning? What type of discrimination did the plaintiff claim had happened?