Download Police Investigation of Suspected Drug Sales Leads to Bank Robbery Discovery and more Exams Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity!
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FINAL EXAMINATION – FALL
- You will have THREE HOURS to complete the examination.
- If you are writing your exam by hand, please write only on one side of the paper, use ink, and write legibly. You may of course instead typewrite the exam using the registrar’s exam-writing program.
- This is a closed book exam.
- The final exam consists of one essay question raising a number of issues. You may use what space you need, in answering the essay question.
- Best wishes for the holiday season, and good luck!
On December 1, a caller who declined to give her name called the Pierce City police department and said that her neighbors, Albert and Dorothy Jones, were selling drugs out of their home. The police chief assigned Detective Carl Copp to investigate. Because Copp was busy investigating a recent armed robbery of the United Bank, he could not immediately investigate the tip. He did, though, check records and discovered that Albert and Dorothy were both forty- eight years old. Twenty-five years ago, Albert had a misdemeanor conviction for possession of marijuana, but otherwise neither had a criminal record.
On December 24 at 3:00 p.m., Copp, wearing civilian clothes, went to the Jones house to investigate. From a bench in a park across the street, Copp watched the house for about an hour, using binoculars. In that hour, Copp saw a number of people arrive at the Jones house, knock, enter, stay for between five and ten minutes, and then leave. Copp saw a young man arrive at 3:10 and leave at 3:18, a woman in her forties arrived at 3:25 and left at 3:35, a group of three people, two teenagers and an elderly man, arrived at 3:41 and left at 3:46, and a woman in her twenties arrived at 3:55 and left at 4:00. Copp did not observe any of the people to be bringing anything when they arrived at the house, but he saw that the young man who arrived first and the young woman who arrived last both left carrying a small package wrapped in brown paper. Copp did not see the other people carrying anything when they left, but Copp noted that all wore bulky clothing under which a package could have been concealed. As each person left the house, Copp took a photograph of the person.
At 4:00, Copp decided to follow the woman as she walked away from the house. When Copp caught up with her three blocks away, he displayed his police badge and said, “excuse me, ma’am. Police. I want to ask you a couple of questions.” The woman kept walking but slowed her pace to allow Copp to catch up. Copp asked to see her identification, and the woman produced a driver’s license which gave her name as Trudy Williams. At that point, they stopped walking, and Copp wrote down her name and address before handing back the license. He asked where she was coming from, and Williams replied that she was just out for a walk, and had not gone anywhere in particular. Copp asked her if she had seen anybody while out on her walk. Williams answered that there were some people on the streets, but she had not interacted with anybody. Copp then asked her where she got the package she was carrying. Williams replied that it was a gift from a friend. Copp asked what was in it, and Williams replied that she had not opened it and so did not know. Copp asked to see the package, and Williams handed it to him. Copp opened it and found in it a box containing $300 in cash, and a section of a city map with a location circled and on which was written in pencil: “January 10 2:30.” Copp asked Williams what the map meant, and she replied that she did not know. After making notes, Copp gave her back the package. Williams walked away, and Copp returned to the Jones house.
When he got back to the Jones house at about 4:30, Copp noted that significant numbers of people were arriving at the house. It soon became clear that the Joneses were hosting a party. After waiting until many guests had arrived and seeing that the front door had been left open, Copp went in. In the entryway, he saw a coat that looked like the one worn by the young man Copp had earlier seen and photographed. After checking to see that nobody was watching, Copp searched the coat’s pockets and found the package wrapped in brown paper he had seen the man leave with earlier. Copp put the package in a pocket of his own coat. Copp then walked quickly through the house, at first avoiding the rooms the guests were in. He looked into the kitchen, and
wasn’t you, it was her, and I’ll see that she gets prosecuted to the maximum extent.” Albert looked down, but said nothing. Copp then said, “Listen Albert, just between you and me, was she in on it? If you say she wasn’t, I’ll know it was you, and only you will be prosecuted. And if you say nothing, I’ll know it was her, or both of you. Now is your last chance.” Albert started to cry, and after a moment, said quietly, “she wasn’t.” Copp then said, “Good man, Albert. Just one more thing. Where is the money?” Albert answered, “in the attic in a hidden compartment under the floor.”
Copp arrested Albert and Dorothy. Later that night, Copp obtained a warrant to search the house on the basis of the facts described above. When the police searched the house, they found the ski mask on the dresser and, in an ingeniously-constructed and very well hidden compartment in the attic, several bags of cash stolen from the United Bank.
Soon afterwards, the police arrested Williams. Unable to discover any evidence incriminating Dorothy, the police released her without charge. Williams has reached a conditional plea bargain whereby, if her motion to suppress is denied, she will testify that Albert organized the bank robbery and hired Williams to scout out other banks Albert identified as potential targets. If her motion is granted, she intends to maintain her plea of not guilty and go to trial. The police also located a witness, Barney Blue, who had just left the United Bank on November 20 when he noticed two men in long coats walking toward it. When Blue read the next day in the newspaper that two men in long coats and ski masks had robbed the bank the previous afternoon, he realized that the men he saw approaching the bank must have been the robbers, and contacted the police. At the end of December, after the arrests, a newspaper reporter got Blue’s name from a police officer and went to Blue’s house with the booking photos of Tommy and Albert. The reporter showed the two photos to Blue, and asked him if they were the men he saw approaching the bank. Blue couldn’t identify Albert, but said he was 90% sure that Tommy was one of the men.
Tommy, Albert, and Williams have been indicted for bank robbery and conspiracy to commit bank robbery. Each has filed a motion to suppress evidence. In particular:
Williams has moved to suppress: (1) the photograph taken of her leaving the Jones house on Christmas eve; (2) Copp’s testimony about the contents of the package he opened after catching up with Williams that day; and (3) the statements she made to Copp at that time.
Tommy seeks to suppress: (1) the contents of the package found in his coat pocket; (2) the ski mask seized from the Jones house and Copp’s testimony about seeing it; (3) Copp’s testimony about the conversation he overheard in the Jones house; (4) the gun; (5) his statements to Copp; and (6) the eyewitness identification testimony of Blue.
Albert seeks to suppress: (1) the photographs of Tommy and Williams leaving the Jones house; (2) Williams’s testimony about her role in the robberies and Copp’s testimony about the map and money he observed in the package she carried; (3) the contents of the package found in Tommy’s coat pocket; (4) the ski mask seized from the Jones house and Copp’s testimony about observing it on the dresser; (5) Copp’s testimony about the overheard conversation involving Tommy; (6) Albert’s statements made just before his arrest; and (7) the money found in the attic.
The hearing on the motions to suppress has been held. You are the clerk to the trial judge. The judge has asked you to write a memo discussing the arguments for and against the suppression of the challenged items of evidence, and recommending which items, if any, should be suppressed.
