Accounting -Police Officer Agnes had a warrant to arrest Bert, a stockbroker, for insider trading

| January 30, 2017

Question
1. Police Officer Agnes had a warrant to arrest Bert, a stockbroker, for insider trading. They knew that Bert lived with his girlfriend, Martha, a local celebrity who hosted a weekly program on cable television’s Home and Garden network. The police had evidence implicating Martha in Bert’s unlawful conduct, but they lacked sufficient proof for an arrest. Agnes arrested Bert at 7 am on his front porch as he was leaving his home for work. As he was being led away in handcuffs, he shouted to Martha, who was in an upstairs bedroom, that the police had arrested him and that she should call their lawyer and have him meet Bert at the station house. “Those bastards!” Martha shouted. “Don’t say anything to those vultures, Bert.” Hearing Martha, Agnes’s partner, Officer Nick, entered the home in search of her. He found her in the bedroom on the phone to the lawyer. Seeing Nick, Agnes turned and threw a three-pound crystal vase at him, calling him an obscene name. The vase hit Nick on the side of the head, and the resulting wound required ten stitches. Nick arrested Martha for assaulting a police officer. Martha’s argument that Nick lacked authority to enter the bedroom likely:

A. Has merit, because Nick had no reason to fear Martha when he entered the residence

B. Has merit, because Bert’s arrest occurred outside the home

C. Lacks merit, because Martha threw a vase at Bert

D. Lacks merit, because Martha shrieked when she learned of Bert’s arrest

2. Neighbors complained about the high volume of traffic in and out of Alison’s house late at night. They reported that from midnight until 3 am cars would pull up and someone would exit the vehicle, enter the house, and return to the car minutes later. The car would then drive off, only to be replaced minutes later by another. Police Officer David surveilled the residence for one week. He noticed nothing unusual on six of the seven nights, but on the seventh, a Saturday night, he did notice a higher volume of traffic in and out of the house late at night, with visitors staying for varying lengths of time. He also contacted “Ralph,” an informant with many contacts in the drug-trafficking trade. Ralph agreed to make some calls and, after doing so, informed David that his sources confirmed that Alison was dealing drugs out of the residence.

Based on the foregoing information, David applied for a search warrant for Alison’s home. His affidavit in support of the warrant application described what he had witnessed while surveilling the house and added that a police informant “spoke to individuals with personal knowledge of Alison’s unlawful sale of drugs from her home.” Relying on the affidavit, Judge Tammy issued a search warrant for Alison’s residence at 18 High Street. Based on Aguilar-Spinelli, Tammy’s issuance of the warrant was:
A.Improper, because she was given no information about the informant
B.Improper, because she did not know how the informant’s contacts acquired their information
C.Proper, because the informant’s information was unnecessary to furnish probable cause
D.Proper, because the information provided in the affidavit was sufficient to grant the warrant
E.None of the above

3. Officer Alan received an anonymous tip that the Bracketts were selling marijuana at their home on 14 Drury Lane. Alan surveyed the property, hoping to witness suspicious behavior that, together with the tip, would furnish probable cause for the issuance of a warrant. On the fourth day of surveillance, Alan saw Mr. Brackett place a black, plastic bag outside his house in the back yard, leaning against the porch. Two hours later, he saw a dog enter Brackett’s back yard from the street. The dog pawed at the bag and then dragged it out of the back yard and onto a neighbor’s property. Seeing the neighbor in her front yard, Alan asked her if he could search the bag that the dog had dragged onto her lawn. She consented to the search, which turned up marijuana paraphernalia among various items of household trash. Brackett’s claim that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights will:
A.Succeed, because he has a privacy interest in his back yard
B.Succeed, because he did not knowingly expose the contents of the bag to public view
C.Fail, because the dog dragged the bag onto the neighbor’s yard
D.Fail, because the bag contained trash that Brackett meant to discard
E.None of the above

4. Responding to a tip, the United States Attorney’s Office was investigating the securities trading activities of Lori, a rising star at Silverman Sachs. Through their investigation, federal officials discovered that Lori had falsely reported her trading activity to boost her profitability. In addition, her colleagues reported that they believed she was using cocaine (“nose candy”), based on her erratic behavior and the fact that her nose was often running. Based on the reporting misrepresentations and other trading irregularities linked to Lori, federal officers obtained a warrant to search her apartment for any documentary evidence that “proves, or tends to prove” securities fraud. While executing the warrant, officers found further evidence of fraudulent trading. They also seized several ounces of cocaine from a change purse located in Lori’s jewelry box, an area they were not authorized to search. Dwight, the assistant U.S. attorney prosecuting Lori’s case, argues that the cocaine is admissible nonetheless, based on inevitable discovery. Dwight’s argument should:
A. Prevail, based on the information gleaned from Lori’s colleagues
B. Prevail, because the discovery of further evidence of securities fraud would have led officers to obtain authority for a broader search of Lori’s apartment
C. Fail, because securities fraud and cocaine are not closely linked
D. Fail, because the evidence of cocaine use was too weak
E. None of the above

5. Despite their numerous protests to town officials, Thomas and Arlene were unsuccessful in their efforts to prevent a dry-cleaning business, owned by Jake, from moving into the building next door. One month after Thomas and Arlene arrived, Jake noticed that clothes were disappearing from his store. Suspicious, Jake set up security cameras that showed two adults breaking into the store, grabbing clothes and carrying them towards a shed located 100 feet from Jake’s store on property owned by Thomas and Arlene and situated 100 feet from their home. Jake sent the tape to the police.

After viewing it, Officer Carl approached the shed from the area behind Jake’s store. Carl moved a large rock hindering access to the door and then entered the shed, seizing clothes taken from Jake’s store. As he left the property, Carl passed by a second shed, located adjacent to Jake’s store. Finding it locked, Carl peered inside and saw containers of dry-cleaning solvent, forbidden under state environmental laws. He used this information to obtain a warrant to seize the solvents. Arlene and Thomas challenge the first search and Jake, the second. Which of the following is TRUE?

A.Carl’s entry into the shed violated Thomas and Arlene’s Fourth Amendment rights in the curtilage of their residence because the shed was located 100 feet from their home
B.Carl’s entry into the shed violated Thomas and Arlene’s Fourth Amendment rights in the curtilage of their residence because the shed was located 100 feet from their home and a rock hindered access to the shed door
C.Carl’s actions with respect to the second shed did not implicate Jake’s constitutional rights because dry-cleaning stores are not “houses” under the Fourth Amendment
D.Carl’s actions with respect to the second shed did not violate Jake’s constitutional rights because Jake merely peered into the shed
E.Carl’s actions with respect to the second shed violated Jake’s Fourth Amendment rights

Get a 30 % discount on an order above $ 50
Use the following coupon code:
COCONUT
Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code: COCONUTOrder Now
Positive SSL