Semester exam master
Mary, a 12-year-old girl, is assaulted and raped while on the way home from Trenton Middle School (the assault does NOT take place on the school grounds). -- standard for searches: reasonable suspicion or probable cause?
She is not able to give much of a description of her assailant as he was wearing a Halloween mask, but says the assailant's voice and size led her to believe he was middle school age, and she did notice that he had a "Trenton Middle School" jacket on. -- Would this be enough information to do a personal search of every Trenton Middle School boy?
She also says she fought back and is sure she scratched the boy on his upper thigh and on his arm. -- If a boy is found to have scratches in these locations, is this enough concrete evidence (along with what else the girl said) to arrest the boy?
The next morning, the police go to the Trenton Middle School (which is located next to the school district's high school) and, aware that the students are required to shower after phys ed classes, requests the boys phys ed teacher inform them if he notices any students with fresh scratches or bruises anywhere on their bodies (they do NOT tell him where the girl says the scratches were on the assailant's bodies). -- Is this request enough to turn the instructor into an agent of the police? Why does the answer to this question matter?
During the lunch period, the phys ed instructor informs the police that one boy named Ryan in the third period class had two fresh, deep scratches on his buttocks as well as scratches on his left arm. -- Was this a search (that is, is there a reasonable expectation of privacy in the locker room? If there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, was there enough information from the girl's statement to justify the invasion of privacy?
With this information, the police ask the principal to open the boy's locker and when they do, they find a jacket with "Trenton Middle School" emblazoned on it. -- Is the locker search standard reasonable suspicion, or probable cause? Does it matter?
The boy, age 14, is then summoned to the principal's office. When confronted with the victim's statement and the phys ed teacher's observation, Ryan denies any involvement. -- Can the police talk to the boy at this point? If so, must he be given MIRANDA warnings?
The police then order the boy to roll up his left shirt sleeve and, when he does so, it reveals fresh scratch marks. -- assuming MIRANDA WARNINGS would be required to question the boy, are they required to search him?
At this point, the boy is strip-searched, revealing scratches on his buttocks. -- Does the presence of scratch marks on his arm, as described by the girl, provide probable cause for a strip search? Is a search warrant required?
Ryan is put in handcuffs, informed of his MIRANDA rights, and taken to the police station, after which his parents are called.
Assuming the police erred at any point in their procedures, would the exclusionary rule apply, barring use of any of the evidence against the boy in a criminal trial? Consider the effect of the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, as well as the impact on admissibility of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
She is not able to give much of a description of her assailant as he was wearing a Halloween mask, but says the assailant's voice and size led her to believe he was middle school age, and she did notice that he had a "Trenton Middle School" jacket on. -- Would this be enough information to do a personal search of every Trenton Middle School boy?
She also says she fought back and is sure she scratched the boy on his upper thigh and on his arm. -- If a boy is found to have scratches in these locations, is this enough concrete evidence (along with what else the girl said) to arrest the boy?
The next morning, the police go to the Trenton Middle School (which is located next to the school district's high school) and, aware that the students are required to shower after phys ed classes, requests the boys phys ed teacher inform them if he notices any students with fresh scratches or bruises anywhere on their bodies (they do NOT tell him where the girl says the scratches were on the assailant's bodies). -- Is this request enough to turn the instructor into an agent of the police? Why does the answer to this question matter?
During the lunch period, the phys ed instructor informs the police that one boy named Ryan in the third period class had two fresh, deep scratches on his buttocks as well as scratches on his left arm. -- Was this a search (that is, is there a reasonable expectation of privacy in the locker room? If there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, was there enough information from the girl's statement to justify the invasion of privacy?
With this information, the police ask the principal to open the boy's locker and when they do, they find a jacket with "Trenton Middle School" emblazoned on it. -- Is the locker search standard reasonable suspicion, or probable cause? Does it matter?
The boy, age 14, is then summoned to the principal's office. When confronted with the victim's statement and the phys ed teacher's observation, Ryan denies any involvement. -- Can the police talk to the boy at this point? If so, must he be given MIRANDA warnings?
The police then order the boy to roll up his left shirt sleeve and, when he does so, it reveals fresh scratch marks. -- assuming MIRANDA WARNINGS would be required to question the boy, are they required to search him?
At this point, the boy is strip-searched, revealing scratches on his buttocks. -- Does the presence of scratch marks on his arm, as described by the girl, provide probable cause for a strip search? Is a search warrant required?
Ryan is put in handcuffs, informed of his MIRANDA rights, and taken to the police station, after which his parents are called.
Assuming the police erred at any point in their procedures, would the exclusionary rule apply, barring use of any of the evidence against the boy in a criminal trial? Consider the effect of the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, as well as the impact on admissibility of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.