hope2018 wrote:How did you guys analyze the Crim? I thought there was not consent for entry it was not voluntary consent and did the full blown exceptions and exclusion with exceptions but didn't have much to really analyze for crim pro.
For crim, my analysis was something like:
1. Fourth Amendment overview
- explain Fourth Amendment
- note exclusionary rule, note exceptions (knock and announce/grand jury/impeachment/parole/something beginning with a "c") and say they don't apply here.
- note the fruit of poisonous tree doctrine, not exceptions (inevitability, which is discussed later, independent source, intervention by D)
2. Govt Act
- easy, police acting via Officer Ava and the other guy
3. Reas expectation of privacy (at least I think I included this, hope so)
- easy, this is a house. require warrant for house search.
4. Valid Warrant
- said what warrant needs.
- discussed (1) officer ava went to the house without a warrant so her search is illegal unless an exception applies, and (2) I said invalid warrant bc even if it has probable cause (noted informant rules/analysis) it is lacking in particularity (only said "Don's house" (no address, street, etc) and "for C" (no last name/identifiers).
5. Good faith reliance by police?
- no bc Officer Ava isn't relying on the warrant.
- i didnt mention it, but maybe this could save the second police officer using the crappy warrant, provided it wasn't so lacking in PC that he would fail. Probably some points missed here.
- named all exceptions, flagged:
(1) plain view, but said officer ava wasn't in legit place by being in the house and the illegality of the items weren't apparent except for the bomb as this could be in a place that a child might be and was big enough to be obvious. Plain view doesn't save the others even with a valid warrant/inevitability excuse to fruit of poisonous tree due to the warrant being granted.
(2) hot pursuit, but said doesn't help here bc timing is unclear on the facts re when she went missing versus when police heard the tip, and also there is no chase or suspect that the police followed into the house. If they were in pursuit, anything in plain view would be ok, so just the bomb.
(3) common caretaker, said won't help but can't remember why.
(4) consent, but said no way bc she intimidated him at the door and said she was going to search the house whether he wanted her to or not.
7. Discussed inevitability defence based on the warrant but said the warrant was bad so no defence. Even if it was a good warrant, only the bomb could be admitted bc warrant wouldn't allow them to search for little girls in medicine cabinets or sealed envelopes.
2. Attempted kidnap
- Note attempt requirements
- Note kidnap requirements
- Explain no guilt bc bc even if D had the mental state (specific intent to kidnap, based on informant fact re wanting to kidnap someone to raise as daughter), D didn't commit an act of perpetration sufficient to come dangerously close to completion.
- Noted possible defence of abandonment, which isn't accepted by common law but is in minority states, but stated not even applicable bc he didnt make an act sufficient enough to abandon.