CASE ANALYSIS 1 Student name Case Analysis Mod 3 Professor Vivaldi CASE ANALYSIS 2 Case Analysis and Fact Patterns Case #1 Kurt v. Saint Leo Police Department Main Issue: There are several main issues in this case. The main issue is the arrest that was made by a Saint Leo Police Officer. The Officer's arrest of Kurt was based on an event that took place before the event was considered a violation of law. The issued arrest warrant led to the discovery of marijuana in the plaintiff's home. Relevant Legal Concepts: The events in this case describe a violation of the ex post facto law, \"laws that make acts criminal that were not criminal at the time they were committed\" (Schubert, 2009, p. 308). Kurt was arrested for a noise violation that had occurred prior to the noise violation law being enacted. There was also an illegal search and seizure that took place before the arrest. \"A valid search warrant must be specific and sufficiently descriptive. An officer conducting a search is prohibited from going outside the limits set by the warrant\" (Schubert, 2009, p. 340). In this case the officer has gone outside the limits of the arrest warrant by entering the home and entering the refrigerator. (NOTE: Must have excerpts from text here) Relevant Case Law: In the case Weeks v. United States \"we adopted the federal exclusionary rule for evidence that was unlawfully seized from a home without a warrant in violation of the fourth Amendment\" (Schubert, 2009, p. 344). This illustrates the inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence. (NOTE: Same here) In this case the police officer has violated the ex post facto clause, unlawfully entered and searched the plaintiff's home and falsely arrested the plaintiff. It is unlawful for the court to issue a warrant for the plaintiff's arrest because the ex post fact clause states that a person cannot be charged for a crime that was not technically a crime at the time of commission. Due to the arrest warrant being invalid the officer had no right to enter the plaintiff's home; the warrant was also only for the plaintiff and did not prescribe the search of the refrigerator as there was no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff was hiding in the refrigerator. Therefore the marijuana was unlawfully discovered and not authorized to be a criminal charge. Ruling: The ruling in this case should reflect the disregard for the law by both the court that issued the warrant and the police officer. The officer not only violated the law but also violated the Saint Leo Police Department's code of ethics by searching for a drink in the plaintiff's home. The court should be held legally liable and the officer should be held legally and civilly liable. All charges should be dropped. Case #2 State v. Summer Main Issue: The main issue in this case is what charges if any should Anna and Summer face for their attempted bank robbery. CASE ANALYSIS 3 Relevant Legal Concepts: In this case both Anna and Summer demonstrated their intent or mens rea to commit the crime of robbery. Anna's intent is shown by the fact that she entered the bank with the duffel bag and mask as planned and when she reached the counter had then decided not to commit the robbery, however she mistakenly grabbed the wrong bag on her way out of the bank which contained $100,000. Summer's intent is shown by her decision to take Ana to another bank and then wait outside for her to complete the robbery. Relevant Case Law: In the case State v. Gordon the defendant stated that he did not have intent to retain possession of the vehicle he took which would make him innocent of the charge of robbery. \"The wrongdoer must intend: (1) an advantageous relationship between himself and the property wrongfully taken, and (2) that such relationship be permanent rather than temporary.\" (Shubert, 2009, p. 316). It is this example that demonstrates Ana and Summer's intent to take money from the bank for their own use. Ruling: Ana and Summer both demonstrated their intent to commit robbery by going to the bank with the bag, mask and getaway vehicle. Even though Ana did not actually rob her intended target, the bank, she still committed robbery because she came out of the bank with property that she did not go into the bank with and in the process of obtaining this property she had the real intent to rob the bank and leave with money. In my opinion both of the girls should be charged with robbery. Due to the facts stated above I believe that a judge would agree with the reasoning presented and proceed with the same charges. Case #3 Jason v. City Municipality Main Issue: The main issue in this case is whether the police officer had legal authority to enter the plaintiff's home. Relevant Legal Concepts: This case refers to search and seizure concepts as well as the exclusionary rule. (Shubert, 2009) The police officer assumed that just because she saw a monkey in the plaintiff's home it was the stolen monkey. She did not have sufficient probable cause to enter the home. The officer thought that she was using proper \"knock and announce\" procedures however those procedures apply to arrest warrants not vague suspicion. The officer also did not provide sufficient time for the plaintiff to answer the door. Relevant Case Law: In the case Hudson v. Michigan the court affirmed that a knock and announce \"is not necessary when \"circumstances present a threat of physical violence,\" or if there is \"reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given\" (Schubert, 2009, p. 344). In this case it is not reasonable for the officer to believe that there are any circumstances that would present a threat or that any evidence would be destroyed if she did not knock and announce. CASE ANALYSIS 4 Ruling: The police officer in this case did not have an arrest warrant or reasonable suspicion to enter the plaintiff's home. Even though she knocked and announced herself she did not provide sufficient time for the plaintiff to open the door. She did not have any reason to believe that the plaintiff was a threat or that he would destroy evidence due to the fact that she was not aware of any potential evidence in the home. Because she did not have the legal authority to enter the home she cannot charge the plaintiff for the drugs found in his possession. Those drugs were discovered during an illegal search and seizure. The plaintiff should be acquitted of the charges brought upon him and the officer should be held legally responsible for violating the plaintiff's fourth Amendment. She should also be held civilly liable for any damage she may have caused to his door upon the illegal entry into the home. CASE ANALYSIS 5 References Shubert, F. (2009). Introduction to law. Mason, OH: Cengage . All cases cited throughout the narrative must also be cited here. CRM 123 - Case Analysis 5 Fact Patterns Write an analysis for each scenario below. See the Case Analysis Instructions for further information about completing the assignment. 1. Jonas is 18 and recently finished high school. He lives at home with his mom and dad. While collecting dirty laundry in his room one day, Jonas' mother discovered some of Jonas' clothing with dried blood on them. She also found a bloody survival knife and muddy boots under his bed, as well as a bracelet that said \"Lynn.\" A few days earlier, police had discovered the missing body of Jonas' high school sweetheart, Lynn, in the woods. Lynn had recently broken up with him. The medical examiner had determined that Lynn had died from repeated stabbing. When Jonas had been questioned by the police at the station, he claimed he knew nothing of the incident, and the police have no evidence tying Jonas to the disappearance or murder. Analyze these facts using ethical concepts or concerns from Module 8. (You are not evaluating elements of murder, or due process issues for example.) 2. District Attorney Schultz has brought charges against three players of the University football team. They have been charged with raping a stripper at a party attended by team members. The case has received much publicity and the media have discovered that the three players have a history of violence towards women. (Last year, two other women claimed they had been raped, but the cell phone video showing the forced sex had been excluded based on an illegal police search, and the players were found "not guilty.\") Shultz believes these players are guilty, and has given approximately 60 media interviews on the case. Schultz has also been campaigning for reelection, and a conviction here would go a long way. Unfortunately for Schultz, the DNA tests he ran do not match any of the three players to the victim's assault. When he questioned her about this, the victim made contradictory statements, and she had no other evidence to corroborate the events. In fact, while her statements confirm that they raped her, she admitted to having consensual sex with two other men at the party, which weakens the case. Schultz decides to not tell anyone about the DNA results unless asked, and instructs the victim/witness to deny the other sexual encounters at trial. Analyze these facts using ethical concepts or concerns from Module 8. (You are not evaluating elements of rape or due process issues for example.) Assuming that Schultz had a strong belief that the defendants were guilty, include in your analysis whether this affects the moral and legal permissibility of his conduct. 3. Michelle worked two jobs as a security guard in Phoenix, Arizona. She was walking outside the building where she works at 6:30 AM, Monday, when two bundles of money fell out of an armored truck en route to a bank. Inside the bundles was approximately $500,000. Michelle had an inheritance that would post to her bank account on Wednesday. She decides to take the day off and head to Las Vegas to play poker. Unfortunately, Michelle lost all of the money she gambled, but luckily, as expected, on Wednesday, her inheritance was paid. Michelle turned all of the $500,000 in to the FBI on Thursday morning, three days after finding it. Analyze these facts using ethical concepts or concerns from Module 8. (You are not evaluating elements of theft, conversion, or torts.) Include in your analysis whether Michelle was morally obligated to return the money. Should Michelle be penalized for using the money or for waiting three days to return the money? CASE ANALYSIS 1 Latonia Smith Case Analysis Module 5 Professor Vivaldi CASE ANALYSIS 1 Case Analysis and Fact Patterns Case #1 Kurt v. Saint Leo Police Department Central Issue: there are several issues involved in the arrest of Kurt. The main reason for the arrest was, however, the possession of marijuana with the intent to sell. There are however several issues with the arrest. First the Officer's arrest of Kurt was based on an event that took place before the event was considered a violation of the law. The issued arrest warrant led to the discovery of marijuana in the plaintiff's home. Relevant Legal Concepts: this is a clear violation of the ex-post facto law, \"laws that make acts criminal that were not criminal at the time they were committed\" (Schubert, 2009, p. 308). Kurt was arrested for possession of marihuana yet the officer before violating relevant procedure only had a warrant for the noise disturbance charge. There was also an illegal search and seizure that took place before the arrest. \"A valid search warrant must be specific and sufficiently descriptive. An officer conducting a search is prohibited from going outside the limits set by the warrant\" (Schubert, 2009, p. 340). In this case, the officer has gone outside the bounds of the arrest warrant by entering the home and entering the refrigerator. \"While waiting, he got thirsty and went to the fridge to get a drink. In the fridge, he found a bag of marijuana and a bong on the counter. When Kurt came home a few minutes later, he was arrested.\" (Kurt vs. Saint Leo Department). Relevant Case Law in the case of Rodrigues vs united states, the plantif was released of all charges after the supreme court ruled that the police officer making the arrest prolonged the interrogation time to more than the one prescribed and thus violated the fourth amendment. (rodriguez vs united states, 2015) Officer vidal unlawfully entered the home of Kurt and proceeded to arrest him illegally using unlawfully seized evidence. The court cannot issue a warrant for the plaintiff's arrest because the ex-post facto clause states that a person cannot be charged for a crime that was not technically a crime at the time of commission. This nullifies the arrest warrant, and the officer had no right to enter the plaintiff's home; the warrant was also only for the plaintiff and did not prescribe the search of the refrigerator as there was no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff was hiding in the fridge. This makes the seized marijuana unlawfully discovered and hence not authorized to be a criminal charge. Ruling: the ruling should consider the actions of the arresting officer and how they led to the discovery of the evidence. Actions taken by the arresting officer were against the law and against the code of conduct of any police officer. All charges against Kurt should be dropped as he was illegally arrested, a result of a violation of the fourth amendment. CASE ANALYSIS 1 Case #2 State v. Summer Main Issue: in this case Anne and Summer were involved in a bank robbery. The main issue is which charges should they face if any? Relevant Legal Concepts: in this case Anne and Summer both show intent to commit a crime. Anne goes to the bank in a mask and a duffle bag ready to take the money. However, she changes her mind at the last minute and makes away with the wrong bag containing $100,000 and a gun. She cannot directly defend her innocence, and the bag will be taken as evidence of armed robbery. Summer was an accomplish to the crime, actively suggesting banks they should rob and driving her friend there. Relevant Case Law in the case reimus v. carbajose it is clar that the intentions of the defendant were innocent and permanently profitable unlike anne and Summer. \"The wrongdoer must intend: (1) an advantageous relationship between himself and the property wrongfully taken, and (2) that such relationship is permanent rather than temporary.\" (Reimus v. Carbajose, 2013). It is this example that demonstrates Ana and Summer's intent to take money from the bank for their use. \"she needed a few thousand dollars for the car she wanted, she decided to rob the nearby bank\" (state vs. summer and Anne). Ruling: Anne and summer are both guilty of robbery though charges of armed robbery should be dropped it is clear to see that they both had the intent to take money from the bank. Anne backed out at the last minute but still managed to come out with property belonging to the bank and get away using the getaway vehicle. Summer, however, drove the getaway car and also showed full commitment to the crime by actively supporting Anne. Both plaintiffs are guilty of robbery. Case #3 Jason v. City Municipality Main Issue: did the arresting officer have any legal authority to enter the plaintiff's house? Relevant Legal Concepts: This case refers to search and seizure concepts as well as the exclusionary rule. (Shubert, 2009) .the arresting officer used suspicion to enter the plaintiff's house. She saw a monkey and assumed that it must be the stolen one. She thought she used legal knock and enter procedure but forgot that it only applies when warrants have been issued. \"Through the huge window, she sees a monkey jumping on the table! What good luck, she'll surely make a good impression with the chief! Using proper knock and announce procedure, Leah enters Jason's home to arrest him.\" (Jason vs. city municipality). Relevant Case Law: In the case walter v. united statesthe court reaffirms when and when not to use the knok and announce procedure, it must be accompanied by a warrant. In the above case no warrant was issued and hence illeagal to enter the premise even if knock and announce procedure was used.(walter v. united states, 2011) CASE ANALYSIS 1 Ruling: the defendant Jason should be acquitted of all charges of marijuana possession. The search and arrest were carried out illegally and evidence obtained by a violation of the law. There was no arrest or search warrant issued for the case and hence the evidence found should be discarded. CASE ANALYSIS 1 References Shubert, F. (2009). Introduction to law. Mason, OH: Cengage . Kurt vs saint Leo department state vs summer and anne Jason vs city municipality Reimus v. Carbajose, 2013 walter v. united states, 2011 rodriguez vs united states, 2015