WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL

FINAL EXAMINATION INSTRUCTIONS

Course: Criminal Procedure I

Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2001

Instructor: David A. Moran

Time allowed for examination: Three hours

Number of Pages (Including This Page): 4

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, or part of a problem, as the number of points that the problem, or part of a 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 (55 Points)

One morning, the Detroit Police Department received a phone call from a woman who reported that a man was selling cocaine inside the Greyhound Bus Station on Howard Street. The woman, who refused to give her name, stated that the man was a young black male wearing a bright green jogging outfit.

Five minutes after this call was received, uniformed Officer Russell Red arrived at the bus station. Upon entering the station, Officer Red immediately spotted a young black man wearing a bright green jogging outfit seated near the ticket counter. A moment later, the young man, Danny Doyle, looked up and noticed Red standing near the station entrance. Doyle then stood up and began to walk toward the men’s room.

Officer Red quickly walked up to Doyle and said, “Sir, I’d like to ask you some questions.” Doyle stopped and asked, “What kind of questions?” Red replied, “First, show me some identification.” Doyle then gave Red his driver’s license. After examining the license, Red said, “Please empty your pockets.” Doyle complied and handed his wallet, bus ticket, and keys to Red. Red then asked, “Sir, are you carrying any drugs on you today?” Doyle replied, “Well, I’ve got a little weed in my sock.” Red immediately told Doyle he was under arrest for marijuana possession, handcuffed him, and patted him down. Red found a small bag of marijuana in Doyle’s left sock.

Red then walked to the seat where Doyle had been sitting when Red came into the station, approximately 25 feet away from the spot where Doyle had just been arrested. Under the seat, Red found a briefcase. Red opened the briefcase and found a large quantity of white powder, later determined to be cocaine, wrapped in clear plastic bags.

A. (40 Points) What plausible arguments can Doyle make that the seizure of each of the following items resulted from unconstitutional police conduct: (1) Doyle’s statement (“Well, I’ve got a little weed in my sock”); (2) the marijuana; and (3) the cocaine? Consider each item separately and discuss any reasonable responses the prosecution might have to each of Doyle’s arguments.

B. (15 Points) Suppose Doyle testifies at the suppression hearing that the briefcase, and the cocaine in the briefcase, were not his and that he had no idea who put the briefcase under the seat. Should this testimony result in the denial of Doyle’s motion to suppress the cocaine even if the judge agrees with Doyle that the cocaine was seized as the result of unconstitutional police conduct? In answering this question, consider separately each argument Doyle made in Part A that the cocaine was seized as the result of unconstitutional police conduct.

PROBLEM II (75 Points)

Vera Vogel was awakened one night at 3:00 a.m. by three masked men who tied her up, ransacked her house, and then left. One hour later, one of the masked men returned, attempted to sexually assault Vogel, and then fled. Vogel managed to untie herself several hours later and called the police. Vogel told the police that she could not possibly identify any of the three intruders.

Four days later, the police arrested Delbert Davis after a computerized fingerprint comparison established that some of the fingerprints found in Vogel’s house matched Davis’ fingerprints. Davis’ prints were in the police database because he had one prior larceny conviction.

At the station, Detective Oliver Ochre read Davis the Miranda warnings, and Davis signed a written waiver. Under questioning, Davis initially said that he knew nothing. Ochre then confronted him with the fingerprint report and added, “Delbert, the lady has positively identified you as the one who came back and tried to rape her.” Davis replied, “I’d like to see a lawyer.” Ochre responded, “That’s fine, we’ll stop right now, but I don’t see how a lawyer is going to make this evidence go away. You’re looking at life in prison, and I’m the only one who can help you now.” Davis then said, “Okay. Maybe I know something about the break-in, but I don’t know who went back later. It wasn’t me.” [Statement # 1]. A few minutes later, Davis again asked to see a lawyer, and Ochre stopped the interview. Davis was then arraigned on one count of robbery, and the judge appointed counsel. Davis was released from jail later that day after his father posted bail.

One week later, Davis’ “friend,” Ivan Inky, visited Davis at his home. Inky, who was wearing a hidden tape recorder, was working as a paid police informant. Inky said, “Delbert, I’ve got some friends who are bringing some meth from a lab in Maine, and they need some local distributors. I know you need the money to hire a good lawyer, so maybe you and me could go in on it.” When Davis replied that he knew nothing about distributing meth, Inky said, “I know how to do everything. I just need someone to help me out.” Davis then agreed to Inky’s plan, and Inky asked, “I’ve just got to know one thing before we go in together. Did you rob that lady and then try to rape her?” Davis replied, “Yeah, I broke in with a couple of my friends, and maybe I went back later. So what if I did?” [Statement # 2].

Two weeks later, Davis was arrested as he was unloading methamphetamine from Inky’s car. At the police station, Detective Ochre again advised Davis of his Miranda rights and again obtained a written waiver. After Ochre played the tape of Davis’ conversation with Inky, Davis admitted, “Yes, I robbed the lady, and I went back later to try to rape her.” [Statement # 3].

A. (50 Points) The prosecution has now added an attempted rape charge to the robbery charge. For each of Davis’ three statements, discuss whether that statement should be admissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief for the robbery charge and/or the attempted rape charge?

B. (25 Points) Davis has also been charged in a separate complaint with possession of methamphetamine. Should he be convicted of that charge?

PROBLEM III (50 Points)

At 10 p.m. on June 1, 2000, Sacramento Police Officer Tania Taupe, on routine road patrol, saw a Honda Accord driven by Dina Delaney stopped at a traffic light. Taupe noticed that Delaney’s Honda had several bumper stickers, including, “Stop Police Harassment!” and “More Teachers, Fewer Cops!” Angered by the bumper stickers, Taupe decided to follow Delaney’s Honda to see if Delaney would commit a traffic violation.

After following for two blocks, Taupe observed Delaney turn left into an apartment complex without using her left turn signal. As Delaney parked the car and headed into the apartment building, Taupe pulled her car up to the curb and yelled, “Police! I’m giving you a ticket for failure to signal! Stop right there!”

Delaney responded by making an obscene gesture in Taupe’s direction and continued into the apartment building. A few seconds later, Taupe entered the building just in time to see Delaney enter apartment 1C and slam the door shut. Taupe immediately forced open the door to apartment 1C, entered the apartment, found Delaney in the bedroom, and arrested her. On the nightstand in the bedroom, Taupe spotted a marijuana plant, which she seized.

Taupe then transported Delaney to the police station and booked her into jail for marijuana possession and leaving the scene of a traffic stop. A jail matron strip-searched Delaney and found several pills hidden in Delaney’s underwear.

After Taupe tested the pills and confirmed that they were Ecstasy, she returned to the apartment complex shortly before midnight and opened Delaney’s Honda. In the glove box, Taupe found and seized a small bag of white powder, which was later confirmed to be cocaine. Taupe then opened up the trunk and found and seized a plastic bag containing a large quantity of powder, which was later confirmed to be heroin.

Delaney has now been charged with possession of marijuana, Ecstasy, heroin, and cocaine. She has moved to suppress: (1) the marijuana plant seized from her bedroom; (2) the Ecstasy pills seized from her underwear during the strip search; (3) the cocaine seized from the glove box of her car; and (4) the heroin seized from the trunk of her car. Should any of these items be suppressed from the prosecution’s case-in-chief?