1. Officer Snow had reasonable suspicion to stop Eddy. Afraid that he could be armed, the officer reached inside his pocket and retrieved a handgun. Eddy is charged with illegal possession of a firearm. He challenges the evidence. He argues that the seizure of the gun was illegal. Was the seizure of the gun justified under the stop and frisk doctrine?

2. Officer Strong had reasonable suspicion to stop Teddy. Suspecting that he could be armed, the officer frisked him. While conducting the pat-down, the officer felt a gun in Teddy's pocket. He reached inside the pocket to retrieve the gun. As he took out the gun, a bag of crack cocaine fell onto the ground. Teddy is charged with possession of illegal drugs. He requests suppression of evidence. He argues that the only purpose of frisk is to remove weapons and the officer had no legal ground to seize the drugs. Was the seizure of the drugs justified under the stop and frisk doctrine?

3. In Minnesota v. Dickerson, the Court held that the seizure of the cocaine could not be justified under the plain view (feel) doctrine. Explain why the Court held this way.

4. In Florida v. J.L. the Court found the information the police received containing no sufficient indicia of reliability; whereas in Alabama v. White the Court found the information the police received exhibiting sufficient indicia of reliability. Explain why the Court ruled differently in the two cases.

5. While patrolling a high crime area, Officer Major saw Collin standing at the street corner. Upon seeing the officer, Collin turned around and started to run. Officer Major stopped and frisked Collin. The officer found a gun in his pocket. Collin is charged with illegal possession of a firearm. He requests suppression of evidence, claiming that there was no reasonable suspicion for the officer to stop him. He contends that he should have the right to go about his own business and the officer could not stop and frisk him because he was running away from the officer. Did Officer Major have reasonable suspicion to stop Collin?

6. The stop and identify statute of the State provides that anyone who is stopped by the police must identify him/herself when asked by the police. Failure to comply with the request is an offense punishable by a fine. The statute contains no provision stating that the police need to have reasonable suspicion to make a stop. Aaron is charged with the offense stipulated by the statute because he refused to identify himself when asked by the police. Aaron challenges the constitutionality of the statute. Is the statue of the State constitutional?

7. The stop and identify statute of the State provides that upon being asked by the police one must provide to the police "credible and reliable" identification. Failure to provide such identification is an offense punishable by a fine. Is the statute constitutional?