CRJ 551 Legal Issues in Criminal Justice Administration II. Case Brief Guidelines and Rubric

Transcription

1 CRJ 551 Legal Issues in Criminal Justice Administration II Case Brief Guidelines and Rubric 1. Students will brief all assigned cases for the module in which they are assigned. The instructor will assign cases. A list of possible cases starts on the next page. The case briefs are to be the student s own work. The learning process takes place with the student reading, analyzing, and summarizing the facts and issues in a case; copying someone else s work is not part of the learning process. However, students may consult with each other, discuss cases, and use the product of those discussions to write their briefs. 2. Your classmates will depend on you to write a thorough, accurate brief of the case(s) assigned. You, in turn, will rely on your classmates to do the same for their cases. 3. A copy of your briefs will be submitted to the Assignment box and posted in the appropriate module s Case Brief Discussion Board. (These Assignment boxes maybe linked to Turnitin.) 4. Be prepared to explain, justify, or dissent from your assigned case, as the instructor and/or classmates may query you about the case. 5. Case briefs will be written in the following format (mandatory): a. Title and Citation (e.g., Jones v. Smith, 123 F.3d 456 (11th Cir. 2004)) b. Type of Action (e.g., civil suit for money damages for violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment.) c. Facts of the Case (Discuss relevant facts; What happened? Why is this matter in court?) d. Contentions of the Parties (What are the best arguments favoring each party?) Smith argues that: Jones argues that: e. Issue(s) (The issue relevant to the subjects studied in the module in which it is assigned, e.g., Were Jones rights under the First Amendment violated when he was fired for speaking at a political rally?) f. Decision (How did the court rule on that issue?) g. Reasoning (Why did the court rule the way it did? This is the most important part of the case.) h. Rule of Law (What one legal point do we take from this case?) 6. Length: Should not exceed two pages. 7. Do not post a brief without checking your spelling and grammar. You will lose points for errors. 8. Important Point: Each time you brief a case, remember why the case is selected at this point in the course. Some cases address multiple issues. You do not need to discuss all of the issues. Focus on the point of law where the case is assigned in the course. 9. Case brief grades are weighted as follows (total 70 points): a. Summary of facts: 10 points b. Format: 10 points c. Clarity of writing: 10 points d. Correctly identify the appeals court that is offering the opinion: 10 points e. Identify the correct legal issue: 10 points f. Correctly state the court s holding on the legal issue: 10 points g. State the court s reasoning for their holding: 10 points

2 Possible Cases Module 1 (Case Brief 1): Police Power, Authority, and Responsibility 1. U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) Limits on Police Authority 2. President Riverboat Casino, Inc. v. Missouri Gaming Commission, 13 S.W.3d 635 (Mo. 2000) Due Process Clause 3. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952) Due Process Clause: Effects of Broadening Its Scope 4. Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) Protection of Rights via State Constitutions and Laws 5. Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714 (1975) 6. Woods v. Candela, 921 F. Supp (S.D.N.Y. 1996) Module 2 (Case Brief 2) Consensual Encounters 1. U.S. v. Gigley, 207 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2000) 2. People v. Herrera, 1 P.3d 234 (Colo. 1999) Terry v. Ohio Stop-and-Frisk Rationale 3. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) 4. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) 5. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) 6. U.S. v. Roberts, 986 F.2d 1026 (1993) 7. U.S. v. Muldrow, 19 F.3d 1332 (10th Cir. 1994) 8. Jackson v. Sauls, 206 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir. 2000) 9. U.S. v. Mattarolo, 209 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2000) 10. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) Off-Street Situations 11. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979) Detaining Motorists 12. Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U. S. 323 (2009) 13. U.S. v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985) 14. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) Detention of Luggage 15. U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) 16. Illinois v. Caballas, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) Duration of Detention 17. U.S. v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985) Detention to Check Driver s License and Registration 18. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) Detention at Police Roadblocks 19. Michigan State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) 20. Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000)

3 Module 3 (Case Brief 3): General Authority to Arrest 1. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) Statutory Authority to Arrest: See statutes in reading and your own state code Definition of Arrest 2. Green v. State, 525 S.E.2d 154 (Ga. 1999) 3. Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (1985) Elements of Arrest 4. California v. Hodari D, 499 U.S. 621 (1991) 5. Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (1988) Arrest Warrant Authority 6. U.S. v Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) Supported by Probable Cause 7. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) 8. Draper v. U.S., 358 U.S. 307 (1959) 9. Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560 (1971) 10. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) Describing with Particularity 11. U.S. v. Ferrone, 438 F.2d 381 (3d Cir. 1971) Entering Arrestee s Dwelling 12. Peyton v New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) Entering Third Party Dwelling 13. Steagald v. U.S., 451 U.S. 204 (1981) Warrantless Arrest Authority 14. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) Grounds 15. U.S. v. Kincaid, 212 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000) 16. U.S. v. Segars, 31 F.3d 655 (8th Cir. 1994) 17. Steiner v. State, 690 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1997) 18. Virginia v Moore, 553 U.S 164 (2008) 19. Whitley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560 (1971) 20. Herring v U.S., 555 U.S. 135 (2009) 21. Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) Post-Arrest Probable Cause Determination 22. Gerstein v. Pugh, above. 23. County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) Use of Force in Making an Arrest 24. Tenn. v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

4 Module 4 (Case Brief 4): Exclusionary Rule 1. Weeks v. U.S., 232 U.S. 383 (1914) 2. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Good Faith Exception 3. U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) 4. Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984) 5. Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) Seized Evidence for Impeachment 6. U.S. v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620 (1980) Illegally Seized Evidence in Grand Jury Proceedings 7. U.S. v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) Inevitable Discovery 8. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) Other Non-Criminal Proceedings 9. Pa. Board of Probation v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) Requirements of a Valid Search Warrant Proper Issuing Official 10. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) Only for Authorized Objects 11. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967); 18 U.S.C. Sec (1970) Based on Probable Cause 12. Kyllo v. U.S., 533 U.S. 27 (2001) 13. State v. Badgett, 695 So.2d 468 (Fla. 1997) 14. Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988) Describe With Particularity 15. Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 732 N.E.2d 906 (Mass. 2000) 16. Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987) Execution of the Search Warrant Use of Necessary Force 17. Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2000) 18. Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001) 19. State v. Thompson, 693 So. 2d 282 (La. 1997) Prior Notice and Demand ( Knock and Announce ) 20. Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995) 21. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997) 22. Hudson v Michigan, 547 U.S (2006) Search of Persons on Premises, Not Named in Warrant 23. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979)

5 Module 5 (Case Brief 5): Arrest Must Be Lawful 1. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969) 2. Frisbie v Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952) Search Contemporaneous with Arrest 3. U.S. v. Porter, 738 F.2d 622 (4th Cir. 1984) 4. Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1982) 5. U.S. v. Ho, 94 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996) Area of Search 6. Mincey v Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) 7. U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) 8. Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 17 (1984) 9. Gant V Arizona, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) See Belton v New York below Consent Search Voluntariness 10. U.S. v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) 11. U.S. v Robinette, 519 U.S. 53 (1996) 12. Florida v. Jimeno, 499 U.S. 934 (1991) Authority 13. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) 14. Georgia v Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) Search of Vehicles 15. Carroll v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132 (1925) 16. Belton v New York, 543 U.S. 454 (1981) See Gant v Arizona above 17. Chambers v. Moroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970) 18. U.S. v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) 19. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991) Inventory Searches 20. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) 21. Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) Exigent Circumstances 22. King v Kentucky, 563 U.S. (2011) Plain View 23. Washington v Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1 (1982) 24. Horton v California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) Open Fields 25. Oliver v U.S., 446 U.S. 170 (1984) 26. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 55 (1988) Search by Private Individual(s) 27. U.S. v Penter 984 F. 2d 376 (10th cir. 1993) Stop and Frisk 28. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) 29. Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (1999) 30. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) 31. Arizona v Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) 32. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Circuit, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) Seizure via Electronic Surveillance of Voices 33. Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967) 34. U.S. v. Amen, 831 F.2d 373 (2d Cir. 1987) Airport Searches 35. U.S. v. Edwards, 498 F.2d 496 (2d Cir. 1974)

6 Module 6 (Case Brief 6): Free and Voluntary 1. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) 2. Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969) Warning and Waiver Requirements (Miranda Rule) What is Custody? 3. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 711 (1977) 4. Stansbury v California 511 U.S. 318 (1994) 5. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) What is Questioning? 6. Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977) 7. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 289 (1980) 8. Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987) 9. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) What is a Proper Warning?; What is a Proper Waiver? 10. Florida v. Powell 559 U. S Maryland v. Shatzer 130 S. CT U.S. v. Patane, 546 U.S. 630 (2004) 13. Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 (1988) 14. Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) Right to Counsel 15. Davis v. U.S., 512 U.S. 452 (1994) 16. Montejo v. LA. 129 S. CT Berghuis v Thompkins, 560 U.S. (2010) Delay in Arraignment ( without unnecessary delay ) 18. Mallory v. U.S., 354 U.S. 449 (1957) Exceptions to Right to Counsel and Self-Incrimination Impeachment 19. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971) 20. Kansas v Ventris, 556 U.S. (2009) Non-Official Questioning 21. State v. Dreps, 558 N.W.2d 339 (S.D. 1996) Public Safety Exception 22. New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984) Module 7 (Case Brief 7): Self-Incrimination Challenge 1. U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) Right to Counsel Challenge 2. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972) 3. Smith v. State, 534 So.2d 903 (2000) Due Process Challenge 4. Foster v California, 394 U.S. 440 (1969) 5. State v. Day, 762 So. 2d 264 (La. 2000) Pretrial Photo Identification 6. Simmons v. U.S., 390 U.S. 377 (1968) 7. U.S. v. Honer, 255 F.3d 549 (5th Cir. 2000)