Legal Final

Legal Final

Order Description

THIS PAPER DOES NOT NEED TO FLOW AS ONE PAPER. THIS PAPER HAS 14 QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED.EACH ANSWER MUST NOT BE MORE THAN 200 WORDS.

” For each answer indicate at least one source from the class materials that supports your answer. Indicate this by a specific reference to the text (e.g. O’Brien, p. 459), article (e.g. Cotton ,p. 319), or outline (e.g. Unit 3 Outline, p. 35, line 62).
• There should be 14 essays. It is anticipated that these will be no longer than 200 words each.
• Answers must be in your own words, no lengthy quotes of materials are acceptable. There is no need to quote passages of the Constitution.
• Use complete sentences and proofread answers.”

The textbook, “) O’BRIEN: “Constitutional Law and Politics: Volume Two”, Ninth Edition, 2014, by David O’Brien. ” IS THE ONLY OTHER SOURCE OUTSIDE THE LIST OF SOURCES I PROVIDE THAT CAN BE USED.

1.    Several individuals in Grover’s neighborhood were under suspicion for the murder of a prominent poet.  Plainclothes vice officers on patrol in the vicinity of Grover’s neighborhood saw Grover, who was known to them, on the afternoon of September 26, 1995, in a group of young men. Although Grover was not yet the focus of an investigation, the plainclothes vice officers had received information that homicide detectives were interested in speaking with him, because he had been scheduled the day after the killing to compete in a poetry contest against the poet. The patrolling officers broadcast on their police radios that they had located Grover, then approached by foot and engaged the group in conversation.
Assume, only for this question, the following:
During the conversation with the group, the plainclothes vice officers noticed that Grover was shifting his position from the front of the group of 7 young men to the back of the group, then walked away slowly about 10 to 15 feet, Grover’s hands were in his jacket pockets and his was bent over has we was walking facing the ground.  At this point one of the officers runs over to Grover and forcibly grabs him. Apart from any knowledge of the murder of the poet:
A) Would the plainclothes vice officer have sufficient justification for grabbing Grover according to Illinois v. Wardlow? In answering describe the rule of law in this case.

2.    Several individuals in Grover’s neighborhood were under suspicion for the murder of a prominent poet.  Plainclothes vice officers on patrol in the vicinity of Grover’s neighborhood saw Grover, who was known to them, on the afternoon of September 26, 1995, in a group of young men. Although Grover was not yet the focus of an investigation, the plainclothes vice officers had received information that homicide detectives were interested in speaking with him, because he had been scheduled the day after the killing to compete in a poetry contest against the poet. The patrolling officers broadcast on their police radios that they had located Grover, then approached by foot and engaged the group in conversation.
Assume only for this question the following:
During the conversation with the group, the plainclothes vice officers noticed that Grover was shifting his position from the front of the group of 7 young men to the back of the group, then walked away slowly about 10 to 15 feet, Grover’s hands were in his jacket pockets and his was bent over has we was walking facing the ground.  At this point one of the officers runs over to Grover and forcibly grabs him. Apart from any knowledge of the murder of the poet:
B) Does the fact that these were plainclothes vice squad officers make a difference in determining the reasonableness of grabbing Grover, according to Whren v. U.S.?  In answering describe the rule of law in this case.

3.    Several individuals in Grover’s neighborhood were under suspicion for the murder of a prominent poet.  Plainclothes vice officers on patrol in the vicinity of Grover’s neighborhood saw Grover, who was known to them, on the afternoon of September 26, 1995, in a group of young men. Although Grover was not yet the focus of an investigation, the plainclothes vice officers had received information that homicide detectives were interested in speaking with him, because he had been scheduled the day after the killing to compete in a poetry contest against the poet. The patrolling officers broadcast on their police radios that they had located Grover, then approached by foot and engaged the group in conversation.
Assume only for this question the following:
During the conversation with the group, the plainclothes vice officers noticed that Grover was shifting his position from the front of the group of 7 young men to the back of the group, then walked away slowly about 10 to 15 feet, Grover’s hands were in his jacket pockets and his was bent over has we was walking facing the ground.  At this point one of the officers runs over to Grover and forcibly grabs him. Apart from any knowledge of the murder of the poet:
C) Assume that officer, immediately upon being stopped and handcuffed by the officer, questions Grover about the murder, and Grover says that he killed the poet.  Then the officer gives Grover Miranda warnings and asks again, and again Grover admits to the killing.  Can either of these admissions be used as evidence?  Were the requirements of Miranda violated according to Missouri v. Seibert?  In answering describe the rule of law in this case.

4. Several individuals in Grover’s neighborhood were under suspicion for the murder of a prominent poet.  Plainclothes vice officers on patrol in the vicinity of Grover’s neighborhood saw Grover, who was known to them, on the afternoon of September 26, 1995, in a group of young men. Although Grover was not yet the focus of an investigation, the plainclothes vice officers had received information that homicide detectives were interested in speaking with him, because he had been scheduled the day after the killing to compete in a poetry contest against the poet. The patrolling officers broadcast on their police radios that they had located Grover, then approached by foot and engaged the group in conversation.
D) Assume instead of shifting his position as in the above questions, Grover had remained in the front of the group and one of the officers, being in plainclothes, clearly identified themselves as police officers, simply asked when first approaching the group.  “Hey, which one of you guys murdered the artist?”  To which Grover immediately raised his hand.  Is there a violation of Miranda v. Arizona here according to Illinois v. Perkins?

5.    Several individuals in Grover’s neighborhood were under suspicion for the murder of a prominent poet.  Plainclothes vice officers on patrol in the vicinity of Grover’s neighborhood saw Grover, who was known to them, on the afternoon of September 26, 1995, in a group of young men. Although Grover was not yet the focus of an investigation, the plainclothes vice officers had received information that homicide detectives were interested in speaking with him, because he had been scheduled the day after the killing to compete in a poetry contest against the poet. The patrolling officers broadcast on their police radios that they had located Grover, then approached by foot and engaged the group in conversation.
Instead of the contrary facts in the above questions, assume that a short time after the plainclothes vice officers engaged in conversation with the group of young men, two homicide detectives arrived and asked Grover if he would accompany them to the police station. Grover agreed and rode with them to the station, where he was interviewed by two homicide detectives for approximately forty-five minutes in a detective’s office with the door open. The judge found that the interview was at all times cordial and conducted in a conversational manner. When asked if the interview could be recorded by audiotape, Grover responded by saying, “Do it. I got nothing to be afraid of, nothing to worry about.” Grover also acknowledged on tape that he had come to the interview willingly and voluntarily. The judge found that Grover did not request an attorney or ask to leave at any point during the interview. When the interview was concluded, Grover was permitted to listen to the recording and given an opportunity to make corrections before the two homicide detectives gave him a ride back to his neighborhood.
E) Should the rules of Miranda v. Arizona apply according to the ruling in Howes v. Fields? In answering describe the rule of law in this case.

6.    Several individuals in Grover’s neighborhood were under suspicion for the murder of a prominent poet.  Plainclothes vice officers on patrol in the vicinity of Grover’s neighborhood saw Grover, who was known to them, on the afternoon of September 26, 1995, in a group of young men. Although Grover was not yet the focus of an investigation, the plainclothes vice officers had received information that homicide detectives were interested in speaking with him, because he had been scheduled the day after the killing to compete in a poetry contest against the poet. The patrolling officers broadcast on their police radios that they had located Grover, then approached by foot and engaged the group in conversation.
Instead of the contrary facts in the above questions, assume that a short time after the plainclothes vice officers engaged in conversation with the group of young men, two homicide detectives arrived and asked Grover if he would accompany them to the police station. Grover agreed and rode with them to the station, where he was interviewed by two homicide detectives for approximately forty-five minutes in a detective’s office with the door open. The judge found that the interview was at all times cordial and conducted in a conversational manner. When asked if the interview could be recorded by audiotape, Grover responded by saying, “Do it. I got nothing to be afraid of, nothing to worry about.” Grover also acknowledged on tape that he had come to the interview willingly and voluntarily. The judge found that Grover did not request an attorney or ask to leave at any point during the interview. When the interview was concluded, Grover was permitted to listen to the recording and given an opportunity to make corrections before the two homicide detectives gave him a ride back to his neighborhood.
F) If Miranda warnings had been given, did Grover waive his rights under these facts?  How does the Berghuis v. Thompkins case apply here?  In answering describe the rule of law in this case.

7. Four months after his arrest for the murder of the poet, detectives went to the jail where Grover was incarcerated, and he spoke with them voluntarily. During the course of the meeting, which was ostensibly held to ask Grover to provide a blood sample to the police, he smoked three cigarettes from a pack that the detectives had placed on a table in front of him and drank from a water bottle also placed on the table. Grover extinguished these cigarettes in an ashtray that had been cleaned by the detectives prior to the meeting. Grover declined to provide the detectives with a blood sample after speaking with his mother by telephone and deciding to consult an attorney. When the meeting was over, the detectives waited approximately one-half hour to allow Grover an opportunity to return and claim the cigarette butts and water bottle before collecting them for DNA testing purposes.
G) Is there a search within the meaning of the 4th Amendment regarding the collection of the cigarette butts and water bottle according to the ruling in Katz v. U.S.?  In answering describe the rule of law in this case.

8.  Four months after his arrest for the murder of the poet, detectives went to the jail where Grover was incarcerated, and he spoke with them voluntarily. During the course of the meeting, which was ostensibly held to ask Grover to provide a blood sample to the police, he smoked three cigarettes from a pack that the detectives had placed on a table in front of him and drank from a water bottle also placed on the table. Grover extinguished these cigarettes in an ashtray that had been cleaned by the detectives prior to the meeting. Grover declined to provide the detectives with a blood sample after speaking with his mother by telephone and deciding to consult an attorney. When the meeting was over, the detectives waited approximately one-half hour to allow Grover an opportunity to return and claim the cigarette butts and water bottle before collecting them for DNA testing purposes.
H)  Is there a search within the meaning of the 4th Amendment regarding the testing of the cigarette butts and water bottle for DNA evidence according to the ruling in Maryland v. King?  In answering describe the rule of law in this case.

9. Grover contends that his constitutional rights were violated when the judge allowed the trial jury to hear testimony concerning his refusal to provide a court ordered hair sample. Prior to the trial, the judge had allowed the Prosecution’s pretrial motion that Grover be ordered to provide blood and hair samples for the purpose of comparison to items retrieved from the crime scene. The Prosecution elicited testimony at trial showing that, although Grover had complied with the court order in connection with the blood sample, he had refused to refrain from cutting his hair in order for an adequate hair sample to be taken.

I) Did the trial judge’s allowing the jury to hear the refusal evidence violate the 5th Amendment Privilege according to the decision of:

1) Salinas v. Texas?  In answering describe the rule of law in this case.

2) Schmerber v. California?  In answering describe the rule of law in this case.

10. Assume that the prosecution of Grover also relied on cell site location information to show that Grover, at the time of the murder of the poet, was in the vicinity.  The evidence at issue consisted of records obtained from cell phone service providers pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2703(c) and (d).  Under that Act, the government can obtain from providers of electronic communication service records of subscriber services when the government has obtained either a warrant, or, as occurred in this case, a court order under The order under the SCA does not require the government to show probable cause.  The evidence obtained under the order and presented against Grover in the district court consisted of so-called “cell site location information.” That location information includes a record of calls made by the providers’ customer, in this case Grover, and reveals which cell tower carried the call to or from the customer. The cell tower in use will normally be the cell tower closest to the customer. The cell site location information will also reflect the direction of the user from the tower. It is therefore possible to extrapolate the location of the cell phone user at the time and date reflected in the call record. All parties agree that the location of the user will not be determined with, but the information is sufficiently specific that the prosecutor expressly relied on it in summing up to the jury in arguing the strength of the government’s case for Grover’s presence at the crime scene.

J)  Answer both of the following:

1) How does U.S. v. Jones apply here to determine the constitutionality of the collection and use of this evidence?  In answering describe the rule of law in this case.

2) How does Smith v. Maryland apply here to determine the constitutionality of the collection and use of this evidence?  In answering describe the rule of law in this case.

11. While confined awaiting trial, Grover is subjected to strip searches and body cavity inspections by the jail officials.  He complains that the presumption of innocence means that there should be heightened scrutiny by the courts of this security practice.
K) How would Bell v. Wolfish apply to these facts?  In answering describe the rule of law in this case.

12. Assume that the prosecutor talks to Grover’s attorney about a plea bargain, where Grover could get a reduced sentence for a guilty plea.  The defense attorney fails to notify Grover of this offer, Grover is convicted and given the maximum sentence (twice as harsh as the offer in the plea bargain).
L) How would Missouri v. Fry apply to these facts?  In answering describe the rule of law in this case.

13. After his sentence, Grover discovers that the prosecutor had not shared with the defense attorney the information that he had about the victim which was a blood test taken from the scene of the murder, which indicated the presence of THC indicating that the victim was a user of marijuana.
M) How would Brady v. Maryland apply to these facts?  In answering describe the rule of law in this case.

14. After his sentence and his removal to state prison, he learns that that the prison restricts all communication to the outside world to one letter per year.  He complains that since this activity is First Amendment speech this means that there should be heightened scrutiny by the courts of this restriction.
N) How would Turner v. Safley apply to these facts?  In answering describe the rule of law in this case.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂

find the cost of your paper