Criminal Procedure, Professor Moskovitz, Fall 2001 Final Exam

OUTLINE OF ISSUES

I. Berkovitz’s Motion to Suppress:

A. Marijuana – clearly the fruit of an unreasonable search of H’s office, as C had no p.c. and no e.c.. But B would not seem to have standing, as he had no JEP in H’s office. #2

B. Statement

1. Fruit of illegal search of H’s office? B has no standing re poisonous tree. #1

2. Fruit of Miranda violation?

1. Did B waive rights? “OK” is ambiguous – might mean “OK” to interrogate him, or might mean “OK, I won’t tell him anything.” #3

2. If B did not waive, then C may not “interrogate”. Did C interrogate by picking up bag and looking at it? #3

C. Note

1. Fruit of illegal search of H’s office? B has no standing re tree. #1

2. Fruit of Miranda violation? No. Elstad. #1

3. Fruit of illegal search of H’s car? No – B has no standing, as no JEP in H’s car. #1

II. Hartburn’s Motion

A. Marijuana. Fruit of an unreasonable search of H’s office. #1

B. Note

1. Fruit of illegal search of H’s office?

a. Search illegal? Yes, as no p.c. or e.c..#1

b. Too attenuated? #2

2. Fruit of Miranda violation? No. Elstad and H has no standing to challenge violation of B’s rights. #1

3. Fruit of illegal search of H’s car? H has standing, but search is OK, based on H’s consent. #1