1. Police received several tips that the house on the corner of Elm and Main streets adjacent to the Northeast State Technical Institute and A & M College campus is a "drug house," i.e., a home maintained for the purposes of trafficking in illegal drugs. The police observe a considerable amount of traffic in and out of the house, both on foot and by cars driving to and from the home. Visitors remain only a short while at the house. Police decide to have a police helicopter fly over the house and the property to take pictures and video of the surroundings. They perform these flyovers twice a day for several weeks. They also begin collecting the trash placed on the curb in front of the house each week and search it.

One day police are sitting outside the house in an unmarked car when they observe Sammy leave the house and begin to stagger down Elm street towards campus. In addition to Sammy's unsteady gait, he also has bloodshot eyes and appears severely impaired. Police stop Sammy and question him about whether he has been taking any drugs or any other substances. Sammy denies he has taken any drugs and refuses to answer any additional questions. While questioning Sammy, police also frisk the outside of Sammy's clothing for weapons. Police notice a firm item in Sammy right hip pocket and pull it out to reveal a cigarette package containing a baggie of about ounce of heroin. Sammy is placed under arrest and Officer Wade takes him to the station for processing.

The remaining officers, believing they now have the evidence they need to take down the drug house, decide to take a closer look. They enter the property and sneak into the back yard. They peer through the cracks in the blinds of the rear first-floor window to observe two men packaging up what appears to the officers based on training and experience be heroin, cocaine, and marijuana.

Officers proceed to apply for a search warrant for the house. In the warrant application, they mention observing Sammy leaving the house and the heroin seized from his pocket during the stop. They do not mention having entered the property or having peered through the blinds to observe the drug activity in the house. Police obtain the search warrant, conduct a search of the house, and seize the drugs they observed through the window. Based on this evidence, police also obtain arrest warrants for Big Al and Ronnie, the two men allegedly running the drug business from the home. The following day Big Al and Ronnie are arrested in an early-morning raid of the house.

Big Al and Ronnie seek to exclude the following:

1. Any evidence obtained from the search of the trash left outside on the curb;
2. Any evidence obtained from the flyover of the property; and
3. Any evidence obtained based on the search warrant of the house.

Sammy seeks to exclude the following:

1. Any evidence obtained from the frisk of his person.

Please explain on which grounds might Big Al, Ronnie, and/or Sammy might reasonably challenge the constitutionality of the evidence obtained? Please thoroughly examine and explain the factual and legal bases for any challenges these individuals could bring and evaluate the likelihood of success of such challenges.

2. Police have probable cause to arrest Roger for attempted robbery and are attempting to apprehend Roger on foot. Police are having a tough time catching him because Roger is a former collegiate middle-distance runner and is still quite fast despite approaching 30 years old. Roger runs towards his friend Zeke's house and enters through the front door. Roger hides in the back bedroom under the bed. Police enter Zeke's house and Zeke immediately tells them they are not permitted to enter and must leave. Police ignore Zeke's request and fan out into the home to search for Roger. They find Roger under the bed and arrest him. They search Roger's pockets and find a handgun later revealed to be stolen, a small amount of marijuana, and the car keys to a car reported stolen yesterday. In addition, police observed several high-end electronics (televisions, stereos, video game consoles, etc.) on a table in Zeke's dining room when they were searching for Roger. Police seize these items, which after further investigation are later used to charge Zeke with receiving stolen property.

Roger seeks to challenge the validity of his arrest and to exclude from evidence the handgun, marijuana, and car keys.

Zeke seeks to challenge the search of his home as unlawful and to exclude from evidence the electronics seized and later used as a basis for charging him with a crime.

Please explain on which grounds might Roger and Zeke reasonably bring these challenges. Please thoroughly examine and explain the factual and legal basis for any challenges these individuals could bring and evaluate the likelihood of success of such challenges.

3.Samantha is taken into custody for questioning concerning her involvement with an alleged murder for hire plot. The victim was Samantha's boss, Angela. After a Miranda Warning and with her attorney present, the officer begins asking Samantha about her relationship with Angela. Samantha is shown photographs of Angela's loved ones, including her boyfriend, Tony, and her mother, Mona. The officer repeatedly mentions how heartbroken Tony and Mona must be to know that someone would do something like this to Angela. Samantha repeatedly denies knowing anything about Angela's death. Questioning continues for three hours with no interruptions.

At the beginning of the fourth hour, Samantha asks for a drink of water and complains that she's getting hungry. The officer says she'll have something to eat and drink delivered soon, but the officer continues the questioning. The officer then reveals that she knows Samantha dreamed of getting the promotion that Angela got at work and that Samantha became jealous that Angela was suddenly her boss. The officer then tells Samantha, "I think you know you've made a big mistake and that you're in trouble. I get how you must be feeling right now. But think about how much better you will feel knowing that you told the truth about what happened to Angela. Let's try to put this all behind us now. Tell me the truth and we can deal with it together."

Samantha, feeling tired, thirsty, and hungry, decides to confess to the crime. She makes a written statement to police detailing that she paid someone $2,000 to murder Angela because she was jealous that Angela received the promotion that she so desperately wanted.

Before trial, Samantha seeks to exclude the confession from evidence.

Please explain on which grounds might Samantha reasonably bring this challenge. Please thoroughly examine and explain the factual and legal basis for any challenge this individual could bring and evaluate the likelihood of success of the challenge.

4. Hal is a suspected money launderer. The FBI has an open predicated full criminal investigation on Hal, although the FBI does not have probable cause to seek a search warrant at this time. For the past week, FBI agents have been monitoring his movements mostly through traditional surveillance methods, although yesterday Agent Knox placed a GPS tracker under the bumper of Hal's brand-new Italian sports car as Hal dined with his girlfriend at the city's most expensive restaurant. The next day, FBI agents use the GPS device to observe Hal driving to his local Social Security Administration (SSA) office. The agents proceed to follow Hal to the SSA office and park down the street. After they see Hal leave, the agents enter the SSA building and speak with the office director. In their conversation, they learn Hal is applying for social security benefits and has an interview in support of his application next week. The agents then ask for permission to provide some questions for the SSA interviewer to fit into her questioning of Hal. These questions are designed to elicit responses from Hal that the FBI will use against him in the criminal case. The FBI also arranges for the interview to be live-streamed and recorded by the FBI without Hal's knowledge.

The interview takes place as scheduled the following week. The SSA interviewer does a skillful job of blending in the FBI's questions with other relating to the benefits application and Hal does not appear to notice. Hal provides the incriminating statements the FBI questions were designed to elicit. The FBI uses Hal's statements to obtain a search warrant for Hal's home, business, and both personal and business bank records. The execution of the search warrants reveal evidence confirming the FBI's suspicions about Hal's money laundering activities and Hal is charged with several counts of money laundering.

Before trial, Hal seeks to exclude the evidence obtained through the search warrants.

On which grounds might Hal reasonably challenge the constitutionality of the searches of his home, business, and personal and business banking records? Please thoroughly examine and explain the factual and legal basis for any challenge Hal could bring and evaluate the likelihood of success of such challenges