Business Law

Under the exclusionary rule, which statement is true? (a) Evidence must be excluded from trial if the search warrant is defective, even if the police believed at the time of the search that it was valid. (b) The prosecution cannot use any evidence the police found at the site of the illegal search, but it can use any evidence the police discover elsewhere as a result of the illegal search. (c) Any statements a defendant makes after arrest are inadmissible if the police do not read him his Miranda rights. (d) If a conviction is overturned because of the exclusionary rule, the prosecution is not allowed to retry the defendant.

Conley owned video poker machines. Although they are outlawed in Pennsylvania, he placed them in bars and clubs. He used profits from the machines to buy more machines. Is he guilty of money laundering?

Under British law, a police officer must now say the following to a suspect placed under arrest: "You do not have to say anything. But if you do not mention now something which you later use in your defense, the court may decide that your failure to mention it now strengthens the case against you. A record will be made of anything you say and it may be given in evidence if you are brought to trial." What is the goal of this British law? What does a police officer in the United States have to say, and what difference does it make at the time of an arrest? Which approach is better?

The police are not required to obtain a warrant before conducting a search if: (a) a reliable informant has told them they will find evidence of a crime in a particular location. (b) they have a warrant for part of a property and another section of the property is in plain view. (c) they see someone on the street who could possibly have committed a criminal act. (d) someone living on the property has consented to the search.

Ethics You are a prosecutor who thinks it is possible that Naonka, in her role as CEO of a brokerage firm, has stolen money from her customers, many of whom are not well off. If you charge her and her company with RICO violations, you know that she is likely to plea bargain because otherwise her assets and those of the company may be frozen by the court. As part of the plea bargain, you might be able to get her to disclose evidence about other people who might have taken part in this criminal activity. But you do not have any hard evidence at this point. Would such an indictment be ethical? Do the ends justify the means? Is it worth it to harm Naonka for the chance of protecting thousands of innocent investors?

Ramona was indicted on charges of real estate fraud. During a legal search of her home, the police found a computer with encrypted files. Would it be a violation of her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to force her to unencrypt these files?

Police arrested Hank on a warrant issued in a neighboring county. When they searched him, the police found drugs and a gun. Only later did the police discover that when they had used the warrant, it was not valid because it had been recalled months earlier. The notice of recall had not been entered into the database. Should the evidence of drugs and a gun be suppressed under the exclusionary rule?

Mickle pleaded guilty to rape. The judge sentenced him to prison for five years and also ordered that he undergo a vasectomy. Was this cruel and unusual punishment?

In a criminal case, which statement is true? (a) The prosecution must prove the government's case by a preponderance of the evidence. (b) The criminal defendant is entitled to a lawyer even if she cannot afford to pay for it herself. (c) The police are never allowed to question the accused without a lawyer present. (d) All federal crimes are felonies.

Van is brought to the police station for questioning about a shooting at a mall. The police read him his Miranda rights. For the rest of the three-hour interrogation, he remains silent except for a few one-word responses. Has he waived his right to remain silent? Can those few words be used against him in court?

YOU BE THE JUDGE WRITING PROBLEM An undercover drug informant learned from a mutual friend that Philip Friedman "knew where to get marijuana." The informant asked Friedman three times to get him some marijuana, and Friedman agreed after the third request. Shortly thereafter, Friedman sold the informant a small amount of the drug. The informant later offered to sell Friedman three pounds of marijuana. They negotiated the price and then made the sale. Friedman was tried for trafficking in drugs. He argued entrapment. Was Friedman entrapped? Argument for Friedman : The undercover agent had to ask three times before Friedman sold him a small amount of drugs. A real drug dealer, predisposed to commit the crime, leaps at an opportunity to sell. If the government spends time and money luring innocent people into the commission of crimes, all of us are the losers. Argument for the Government : Government officials suspected Friedman of being a sophisticated drug dealer, and they were right. When he had a chance to buy three pounds, a quantity only a dealer would purchase, he not only did so, but he bargained with skill, showing a working knowledge of the business. Friedman was not entrapped-he was caught.

While driving his SUV, George struck and killed a pedestrian. He then fled the scene of the crime. A year later, the police downloaded information from his car's onboard computer which they were able to use to convict him of the crime. Should this information have been admissible at trial?

While conducting a valid search of a computer for evidence of a murder, a police officer discovered child pornography. Is that evidence admissible, even though the warrant was limited to a search relating to the murder?

Suppose two people are living together: the suspect and a tenant. If the tenant consents to a police search of the premises, then the police are not required to first obtain a warrant. What if the suspect and the tenant disagree, with the tenant granting permission while the suspect forbids the police to enter? Should the police be required to obtain a warrant before searching? Or what if the suspect denies permission to enter but the police go back later and the tenant consents?

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?

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?

Which of the following elements is required for a RICO conviction? (a) Investment in a legitimate business (b) Two or more criminal acts (c) Maintaining or acquiring businesses through criminal activity (d) Operating a business through criminal activity

Benry asks his girlfriend, Alina, to drive his car to the repair shop. She drives his car all right-to Las Vegas, where she hits the slots. Alina has committed: (a) fraud. (b) embezzlement. (c) larceny. (d) a RICO violation.

Shawn was caught stealing letters from mailboxes. After pleading guilty, he was sentenced to two months in prison and three years supervised release. One of the supervised release conditions required him to stand outside a post office for eight hours wearing a signboard stating, "I stole mail. This is my punishment." He appealed this requirement on the grounds that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Do you agree?

Officer Trottier stopped Marie for driving 20 miles over the speed limit. He then became suspicious because her son would not make eye contact and she was eating a Powerbar in a "hurried manner." The officer asked for and Marie granted him permission to search her car. During the search, he found a letter, which he read. Has he committed an illegal search?