07126
QUESTION ANALYSIS
Dan (D) worked at a church. One day a woman came to the church, told Dan she wanted to donate some property to the church, and handed him an old book and a handgun.
Dan had originally intended to deliver both the book and the gun to the church’s administrators, but he changed his mind and delivered only the book. He put the gun on the front seat of his car.
The next day, as he was driving, Dan was stopped by a police officer (government conduct) at a sobriety checkpoint (warrantless checkpoint regulatory stop and no criminal investigation) at which officers stopped all cars (nondiscriminatory manner) and asked their drivers to exit briefly before going on their way. (unreasonable search and seizure- 4th amendment, reasonable expectation of privacy) The police officer explained the procedure and asked, “Would you please exit the vehicle?”
Believing he had no choice, (The police do not have to tell the right to refuse consent) Dan said, “Okay.” (It is still valid voluntary consent.)
After Dan got out of his car, the police officer observed the gun on the front seat (plain view) and asked Dan if he was the owner. (Interrogation under custody- not free to leave) Dan answered, “No. I stole the gun. But I was planning to give it back.” (waiver of Miranda, Voluntary statement)
Dan is charged with theft and moves to suppress the gun and his statement to the police officer under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (fruit of the poisonous tree, Exclusionary rule) and Miranda v. Arizona. (Custodial interrogation)
1. Is Dan likely to prevail on his motion? Discuss. (#1)
2. If Dan does not prevail on his motion, is he likely to be convicted at trial? Discuss. (#2)
ANSWER OUTLINE
I. Dan’s Motion to Suppress the Gun and His Statement
1. Fourth Amendment- No Unreasonable Search without Warrant
2. Exceptions
(1) Checkpoint search
(2) Consent
(3) Plain view
2. No Miranda Warning
(1) Custodial
(2) Interrogation
II. Likelihood of Conviction for Theft