Officer Jones reported to a domestic violence call. The 911 call stated that a woman was assaulted by her boyfriend. Her boyfriend's name is Tom and he was wearing a pink shirt, black shorts, and cream timberlands. She proceeded to say that he had a gun and threatened to shoot her if she called the cops. Nearby, Officer Jones sees someone matching the description of Tom and hears him yelling about a fight that he had with his girlfriend.

1. What is he allowed to do?
   1. Stop him
   2. Stop and question him
   3. Stop, question, and conduct a weapons frisk
   4. Arrest him
   5. All of the above

1. When Officer Jones stops the perpetrator that matches Tom's description, he learns that it is Tom. Tom states that he just had a verbal argument with his girlfriend and that he didn't lay a finger on her. The police arrest Tom and bring him to the precinct. At the precinct, it would be acceptable for the police to do all, except:
   1. Give him Miranda warnings
   2. Interrogate him
   3. Lie to him about the evidence against him
   4. Question him after invoking his rights to counsel
   5. Videotape him without his consent

1. While Tom is at the precinct, a call comes through that there was a recent robbery close to where Tom was arrested, and Tom also fits the robber's description. Officer Jones prepares an identification procedure. Which identification procedure would be appropriate?
   1. Show-up
   2. Line-up
   3. Confirmatory photo
   4. In-court identification
   5. Photo array

1. During one of the identification procedures, Officer Jones gets fillers to match the description of the robber. The description is: Hispanic male, fair complexion, beard, around 200lbs, late 20s- early 30s, muscular build, and a caesar haircut. Which of the following fillers would be acceptable?
   1. 28-year-old, dark-skinned male, beard, caesar haircut, 200lbs
   2. 35-year-old, white male, beard, 200lbs
   3. 18-year-old, Hispanic male, beard, caesar, 300lbs
   4. 30-year-old, bi-racial male, beard, caesar, 190lbs
   5. None of the above

1. While at the precinct, Tom confessed to having a gun and said that he has two more guns in his house that he was planning on turning into the police. What would justify a search of Tom's home?
   1. Exigent circumstances
   2. Consent
   3. Search warrant
   4. Consent or a search warrant
   5. All of the above

Short Answer: 5 points each= 25 points

Answer each question in 4-5 sentences.

1. Describe the difference between seizure of a person as opposed to seizure of property. What is legally required for each?

1. Describe the difference between a Terry Stop and an arrest. What is legally required for each?

1. Describe the difference between the 5^th Amendment Right to Counsel and the 6^th Amendment Right to Counsel?

1. Describe the difference between appearance evidence and bodily evidence?

1. Describe the difference between the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause?

Short Answer Hypotheticals: 3 points each=30 points

For EACH question, provide the following:

1. Whether the statement is true or false

b. Why or why not?

c.Cite a case to support your conclusion and reasoning (name the relevant case)

***For full-credit, you must answer all 3 for each question***

1. An officer suspects a motorist of selling drugs but isn't sure. The officer receives an anonymous tip that the motorist sells drugs from their car, so the officer follows the motorist for about an hour to wait to see if he commits a traffic infraction. The officer's actions are legal.

1. During a protest the government, a protestor takes out an American Flag and burns the flag. This type of speech is not protected by the Constitution.

1. During a custodial interrogation, the police give the suspect water, lets the suspect order take-out, asks the suspect is they need to make any calls, and gives the suspect a cigarette break. The officer did everything lawful.

1. A couple just committed a murder. They just got rid of the body and on their way home, they are stopped by the police for a broken taillight. The officers run their license and they both have outstanding warrants, so are arrested. In the back of the police car, they make sure they have the same story to not reveal the location of the body. Their conversation cannot be monitored by the police because they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

1. Tom gets stopped by the cops, while he is on his way to the grocery store. He is stopped for improper display of license plates, but when the officer ran his license, he saw that Tom was driving with a suspended license, so he placed him under arrest. After Tom was in handcuffs, the officer searched him and found a bag of marijuana in his pocket. The search of Tom was legal.

1. Andrew is a known drug dealer in the neighborhood. The police have been trying for years to get one of his friends to be a confidential informant (CI) and one day, they got lucky. The police found out from the CI that Andrew was going to arrange a shipment at a diner. Officers went to the diner, saw Andrew talking on the phone and tapped his phone call. The officers did not need a warrant because Andrew was in a public place.

1. Officer Brad and his partner were on patrol in a high-drug area, made eye-contact with a black man, and immediately thereafter, the man began to run. Officer Brad used a show of authority and told the man to stop, but he kept running. Even though Officer Brad showed authority, there was no seizure because the man did not stop.

1. Officer Rita approached a man on the street while investigating and asked him if he knew anything about a recent burglary in the neighborhood. This man does not have to answer Officer's Rita's questions.

1. Officer James heard gunshots while on patrol. He received notification that the perpetrator was wearing a white shirt and blue jeans. He saw someone matching that description and stopped him. Officer James immediately arrested him, brought him back to the precinct, read his Miranda warnings, then told him that if he didn't confess his family would be in trouble. The suspect then confessed to the shooting. Because Miranda Warnings were given, the confession is valid.

1. Scott was arrested for shoplifting from Macy's in the state of Maine. Maine's constitution allows a public defender to be appointed, but only for felonies. In Maine, shoplifting is a misdemeanor, not a felony. Because of Maine's constitution, Scott must go pro se.

Fill-in-the-blank:(10 questions, 1 point each=10 points)

1. The ____________________ clause gives Congress the power to regulate channels and instrumentalities, persons and articles, and any substantial commercial activity.

1. The ____________________ clause states that federal laws supersede and annul state laws when the two are not compatible.

1. The due process clause consist of both _________________ due process and ________________ due process.

1. _________________ due process requires states to use fair procedures reaching decisions that deprive a person of life, liberty, or property.

1. _________________ due process requires them to have an adequate justification, in other words, a good enough reason for the deprivation.

1. The _______________ _________________clause ensures that the government treat all persons who are similarly situated alike.

1. In determining whether or not a restriction abridges freedom of speech, the courts look at the speaker's message or ____________ accompanying it.

1. ________________ speech is limited, to protect consumers from misleading/deceptive advertising, requires sellers to warn consumers on health hazards from their product, and to prevent overly aggressive advertising.

1. A _______________ __________________ is when the police ask the suspect to cooperate in the investigation by answering questions, without restraining the suspect's freedom of movement or indicating , in any manner, that compliance is mandatory.

1. A ____________________ occurs when a suspect's freedom of movement is restricted and the suspect is brought under the officer's control, either by a submission to a show of legal authority, or physical restraint.

Essay: 20 points

On December 12, 2019, Matt just finished his constitutional law final exam at BMCC. He is studying to become a paralegal to support his family. After the exam, Matt along with a few other classmates, decided to go out for celebratory drinks. Matt has a car and offered to drive everyone to the bar. At the bar, they have a great time, they reminisced about how much fun they had during their group presentations and they make a pact to keep in touch. Several drinks later, they decide it is getting late, so they head out. Matt gets into his car and agrees to give Stacy a ride home, while the others ordered Ubers. While driving Stacy home, Matt stops short because a squirrel ran into the street and before he knew it, he saw flashing sirens behind him. Officer Graham approaches Matt's car and asks Matt is he had anything to drink. Matt being the informed constitutional law student, does not answer the officer and instead, politely asks why he is being stopped. Officer Graham smelled alcohol on Matt's breath when he spoke, saw that his eyes were red (sign of intoxication or not) and then told Matt to step out of the vehicle. Stacy, in a state of panic, told the officer that he wasn’t drunk and that they just had a few drinks, but it was a couple of hours ago. Unfortunately, her statement did not help (it never does) and Matt was arrested and processed for driving under the influence of alcohol. Stacy did not have a license and since Matt was being processed, his car was impounded by the police. During an inventory search of Matt's car, Officer Graham found 20 baggies of cocaine under the passenger's seat.

Prepare the following:

1. Cross examination of either Matt or Officer Graham
2. Summation for either the prosecutor or the defense attorney (3-5 paragraphs)
3. Cite a case in your summations supporting why the drugs should be suppressed or admitted into evidence.