Criminal Procedure, Professor Moskovitz, Spring 2000 Final Exam

OUTLINE OF ISSUES

I. First Statement (“Roger Hartburn made me. . .”)

A. Fruit of illegal stop?

Seizure? Yes, as cop ordered D. Easy issue.

Stop was clearly illegal, as no reasonable suspicion. Easy issue.

B. Fruit of Miranda violation?

1. “Custody”?

Probably not. Compare Berkemer & Carter. Here, C had some privacy (more than in Berkemer), but not much time. Closer issue.

2. Interrogation?

Yes, as C presented evidence to D. Easy issue.

C. Fruit of “due process” violation re interrogation?

No DP violation. C lied, but that’s all. Easy issue.

II. Cocaine

A. Fruit of illegal stop?

Attenuation? No. Not much time passed, no unforeseeable intervening acts, but tree was pretty flagrant. Closer issue.

B. Fruit of Miranda violation? No. Elstad. Easy issue.

C. Fruit of illegal entry into Toyota?

B’s standing? Tough issue. Compare Rawlings. Tough issue.

P.c.? Closer issue.

III. 2^nd Statement (“Of course they were. . . “)

A. Fruit of earlier illegal stop? Attenuation? Tough issue.

B. Fruit of illegal entry into Toyota?

C. Fruit of current Miranda violation? Did B waive rights? No. Easy issue.