WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL

FINAL EXAMINATION INSTRUCTIONS

Course: Criminal Procedure I

Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2001

Instructor: David A. Moran

Time allowed for examination: Three hours

Number of Pages (Including This Page): 5

Students may keep the examination questions.

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:

1) For each problem, assume the jurisdiction follows federal law in all respects. Therefore, do not speculate as to whether the jurisdiction has a state constitution, a statute, or any other law that would produce a different result than would be obtained in federal court.

2) Each of the problems calls upon you to demonstrate knowledge of the state of the law, not the way the law should be. Therefore, you will receive no credit for arguing that certain cases were correctly or wrongly decided, even if I agree with your argument.

3) There are three problems. Each problem is worth a different number of points. Since you have 180 minutes and the total number of points is 180, you may wish to allot approximately the same number of minutes to each problem as the number of points that the problem is worth.

MATERIALS ALLOWED:

You may use your notes and outlines, commercial outlines, and any textbook, casebook, or treatise including, but not limited to, the books that were assigned for the course.

PROBLEM I (Essay—75 Points)

On March 8, Vance Vaughn’s wife called the Detroit police to report that her husband, a wealthy businessman, had failed to return home from work. Mrs. Vaughn gave the police the description and license number of the Lexus her husband drove.

On March 15, Officer Gary Green spotted the stolen Lexus at a traffic light. Officer Green stopped the Lexus and arrested the driver, Dick Durban, for automobile theft. As Green drove Durban to the jail, Green asked, “That Lexus is a nice car. How much does one of those cost?” Durban replied, “How the hell would I know?” [Statement # 1]. At the jail, Durban’s clothing was taken, and he was searched. A jail clerk asked Durban his name, age, address, and occupation. In response to the last question, Durban said, “Auto theft.” [Statement #2].

After the booking was completed, Detective Bella Brown took Durban to a small room, told him that she wanted to ask some questions about the stolen Lexus, and then read him the Miranda warnings. Durban said, “I know my rights, and I’m not talking without a lawyer.” Detective Brown immediately ended the interview and returned Durban to his jail cell.

Two hours later, Durban was arraigned on one count of automobile theft, and the judge appointed counsel and set bail at $10,000. Durban was then returned to jail.

The next day, March 16, Detective Brown again visited Durban at the jail and said, “I want to ask you some questions about a missing man named Vaughn. I won’t ask you about the car.” Durban replied that he would be willing to answer some questions and, after Brown read him his Miranda rights, he signed a waiver form. Brown then said, “I’ll get right to the point. We know you killed Vaughn.” Durban replied, “I don’t know what you’re talking about. I stole a Lexus from a parking garage, and that’s all I did.” [Statement #3]. Durban then demanded to see his lawyer, and Detective Brown ended the interview. The next day, March 17, Durban’s father posted the $10,000 bail, and Durban went home.

Two days later, on March 19, Detective Brown visited Durban at his home and said, “While you were in jail we tested the clothing you were wearing when you were arrested. The results just came back. Can you tell me why Vaughn’s blood was on your shoes?” Durban replied, “I was stealing the car when the guy showed up and started beating on me. I had to kill him. It was self-defense.” [Statement #4]. Brown then arrested Durban for murder.

Durban was arraigned on premeditated murder charges later that day and returned to the jail. The next day, March 20, Detective Brown went to the jail and asked Durban, “Where’s the body, Dick?” Durban replied, “I hid it in the basement of an empty house on the corner of Cass and Howard.” [Statement #5]. Durban then went to that location and found Vaughn’s body under a pile of mattresses in the basement. Vaughn had been stabbed 28 times in the back.

A. In the automobile theft case, Durban has moved to suppress Statements #1, #2, #3, and #4. Should any of these four statements be suppressed in the automobile theft case?

B. In the premeditated murder case, Durban has moved to suppress all five statements and Vaughn’s body. Should any of his five statements and/or Vaughn’s body be suppressed in the premeditated murder case?

PROBLEM II (Short Answers—30 Points Total)

Shortly after the events of September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration drafted a new policy that will allow high-ranking military commanders to order fighter pilots to shoot down hijacked civilian airliners to prevent the hijackers from intentionally crashing the airliners into buildings or other targets on the ground.

A. In one or two sentences, explain why the Fourth Amendment is relevant to this new policy. (In other words, explain why having military pilots shoot down civilian airliners would be Fourth Amendment activity.) (10 points)

B. In one or two sentences, explain why the following statement about the new policy is true: “The Fourth Amendment will require that the military commander have some level of suspicion that the hijackers intend to crash the airliner into a target on the ground before he or she may order the plane shot down, but that level of suspicion will not be probable cause.” (10 points)

C. Assume that the new policy does specify the level of suspicion that the military commander must have that the hijackers intend to crash the airliner into a target on the ground before he or she may order the airliner shot down. If you were asked to decide whether that level of suspicion is high enough to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, what two competing factors should you consider in order to answer that question? (10 points).

PROBLEM III (Essay—75 Points)

Officer Sue Salmon was on routine road patrol late one Friday night in Over-the-Rhine, a crime-ridden, predominantly minority neighborhood in Cincinnati, when she noticed an expensive sports car containing three young white people. Since the car was moving slowly and was hesitating at each intersection, Salmon concluded that the driver was unfamiliar with the neighborhood. From the license plate, Officer Salmon could tell that the car was registered in Summerside Estates, an upper-class suburb. Suspecting that the three young people in the car might be high school students who had come to the area to buy narcotics, Officer Salmon activated her flashing lights and pulled the car over.

After the car stopped, Salmon ordered the driver, Dan Dorn, out of the car and frisked his outer clothing. Feeling a large, hard object in Dorn’s jacket pocket, Salmon reached in and pulled out a dark plastic bottle. Salmon opened the bottle and found that it contained four rocks of crack cocaine. Salmon then handcuffed Dorn and placed him in the back of her police car.

Salmon next ordered the two passengers, Carrie Coffee and Elaine East, out of the car, and both women exited the car carrying their purses. Salmon frisked their outer clothing, but found nothing. She then opened and searched their purses. In Coffee’s purse, Salmon found and seized a small baggie with several rocks of crack cocaine, but she did not find anything of interest in East’s purse. Salmon then handcuffed Coffee and placed her in the police car.

Salmon next searched the passenger compartment of the car, but found nothing of interest. After Salmon determined that the car belonged to East, Salmon turned to East and said, “Would you please open the trunk up for me?” East opened the trunk, and Salmon found a paper bag there. Salmon opened the paper bag and found that it contained several small baggies, each containing several rocks of crack. Salmon then handcuffed East, and placed her in the police car.

Salmon then drove Dorn, Coffee, and East to the jail. As Salmon drove silently, Dorn said, “Great idea, Carrie. ‘Let’s go downtown and buy some crack together.’ It really worked out great, didn’t it?” Coffee replied, “Shut up, Dan. You and Elaine wanted to come as much as I did.” East said, “Look, you guys, we bought the crack together, so now we’re in this together.”

Dorn, Coffee, and East have now each been charged with joint possession of all of the crack cocaine found in the car.

A. Dan Dorn has moved to suppress: (1) the crack found in the bottle in Dorn’s coat; (2) the crack found in Coffee’s purse; (3) the crack found in the paper bag in the trunk; and (4) the entire conversation that occurred in the back of Officer Salmon’s police car. Which of these items, if any, should be suppressed in Dorn’s case? (Do not consider hearsay issues or any other ground for suppression not covered in this course).

B. Elaine East has moved to suppress the same four pieces of evidence listed in Part A. For which of the four items, if any, would your legal analysis and/or your answer be different than in Part A?

C. Carrie Coffee has moved to suppress the same four pieces of evidence listed in Part A. For which of the four items, if any, would your legal analysis and/or your answer be different than in Part A or Part B?