MIDTERM EXAM — OUTLINE OF ISSUES

Monday, March 20, 2000, 6:30 to 7:30 p.m.

Growing equipment was fruit of only one search: entry into basement (arguably, fruit of arrest too). No warrant, so only p.c. + e.c. may justify search.

Notes:

1. SIVA does not work, as D too far from basement.

2. Mom’s consent is irrelevant to search, as it came after entry into basement. (It might be relevant to seizure of equipment.)

3. Search of trunk is irrelevant, as came after search of basement.

I. P.C.?

A. Informant’s tip?

1. Was informant reliable? No. (Does this negate p.c.? No. Gates.)

2. Basis of knowledge?

Not stated, but might be inferred from corroboration of “intimate” facts. Draper, Gates.

Here, informant predicted arrival of red Toyota, though time was a bit off. (It was off in Draper too.)

B. Cop’s own info. Cunha, Gates.

1. Drain pipe & bright lights.

2. Shopping bag.

3. “Mom. . . .”

II. E.C.

A. Compare Vale.

B. Compare Stackhouse.

[Seizure of equipment might also be examined. It is justified by p.c. No e.c. is needed. Arguably, Mom’s consent also justifies it.]