Reference no: EM132194936

The Fourth Amendment -- Exclusionary Rule

1. Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained illegally may not be used at trial. The Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule to ensure that police conduct legal searches.

a. Does it make sense to exclude legitimate evidence because a police officer made a mistake in getting a warrant? This could allow the criminal go free because the constable blundered?

b. Does the Supreme Court think that all police want to abuse the average citizen?

c. The difference between a lawful search or arrest and an unlawful one is often a warrant. What is so special about a warrant and/or the warrant requirement.?

d. What might happen if there was no requirement for probable cause?

e. What is wrong with being searched if you don't have anything to hide?

f. What percentage (approximate) of people go free because of the exclusionary rule? Why?

2. According to a complaint filed against supermodel Naomi Campbell by her maid Ms. Gibson, Campbell accused Ms. Gibson of stealing a pair of jeans. When Ms. Gibson bent down to look for the pants, Ms. Campbell allegedly hit her on the back of the neck, berated Ms. Gibson with insults, and then Ms. Campbell's "agents" allegedly prevented Ms. Gibson from leaving by threatening to withhold her pay, and both Ms. Campbell and her "agents" threatened further bodily harm. What torts might be included in Ms. Gibson’s complaint?

3. At approximately 7:50 p.m., bells at the train station rang and red lights flashed, signaling an express train’s approach. David Harris walked onto the tracks, ignoring a yellow line painted on the platform instructing people to stand back. Two men shouted to Harris, warning him to get off the tracks. The train’s engineer saw him too late to stop the train, which was traveling at approximately 99 mph. The train struck and killed Harris as it passed through the station. Harris’s widow sued the railroad, arguing that the railroad’s negligence caused her husband’s death. Evaluate her argument.

4. Karin made illegal firearm purchases at a gun show. At her trial, she alleged that she had committed this crime because her boyfriend had threatened to harm her and her two daughters if she did not. Her lawyer asked the judge to instruct the jury that the prosecution had an obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karin had acted freely. Instead, the judge told the jury that Karin had the burden of proving duress by a preponderance of the evidence. Who is correct?

5. An informant bought drugs from Dorian. The police obtained a search warrant to search Dorian’s house. But before they acted on the warrant, they sent the informant back to try again. This time, Dorian said he did not have any drugs. The police then acted on the warrant and searched his house. Did the police have probable cause?