1. Give three arguments in favor of the exclusionary rule as it currently stands, and three arguments against it. Then explain your position on the issue, supporting it with logical examples
2. The exclusionary rule was fashioned to deter police misconduct. The Supreme Court has refused to apply it to cases where the misconduct was not by the police. Should the exclusionary rule be extended to other public officers besides the police? Why or why not? If so, to what other public officers should the rule apply?
3.What was the effect of Mapp v. Ohio upon the criminal justice system?
4. The Court has held that probable cause is necessary for a stationhouse detention accompanied by interrogation as opposed to ust fingerprinting even if no expressed arrest is made. Do you agree with this holding Support your position.
5. Stops based on race alone are not valid but there is disagreement whether race can be taken as one factor in determining reasonable suspicion for a stop. Under what circumstances should race be allowed as one factor in determining reasonable suspicion for a stop ive an example to support your conclusion.
6. Using the guidelines in seuence that were set in Terry v. Ohio create a police department procedure for stopping and frisking an individual. Be specific
7. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Constitution requires that the police must announce their purpose before breaking into a dwelling. Name and discuss two of the exceptions to this rule.
8. The Supreme Court has issued opinions in cases dealing with a wide range of intrusiveness in searches and seizures. Why are roadblocks to control the flow of illegal aliens less intrusive than stationhouse detention?
9. Define, compare, and contrast actual and constructive seizures. Give an example of each.
10. Discuss the different factors governing use of deadly force and use of non-deadly force. Provide examples of situation in which each would be permissible.
11. Discuss the issues regarding computer searches and the following: search and seizure, probable cause, and reasonable expectation of privacy.
12. Searches of probationers and parolees are a special needs situation, and are permitted without a search warrant. Explain the justification for this exception.
13. Define and describe the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. What are the four general types of circumstances that are typically recognized as being exigent circumstances?
14. Define and provide an example of a pretext (pretextual) motor vehicle stop. What did the U.S. Supreme Court say about such stops in Whren v. U.S. (1996)? Explain why you agree or disagree with that decision.
15. What types of checkpoints or roadblocks have been approved or disapproved by the U.S. Supreme Court? Do you agree or disagree with the Court’s decisions on any or all of these types? Explain your position.
16. The authority of the police to search a vehicle without a warrant and based on probable cause is extensive. Name the three things that an officer can do after the vehicle is stopped, when the officer has probable cause for the search and the vehicle is mobile. How does the reasonable expectation of privacy support the need for a warrant to search locked trunks or glove compartments? Explain your answer.
17. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that although a vehicle stop is a form of seizure, the motorist is not fully protected by the Fourth Amendment. Explain the reasons given by the Supreme Court in this decision. Do you agree? Why or why not?
18. What are four factors that can be used to distinguish between the open fields and curtilage? Provide examples.
19. Define abandoned property and discuss the guidelines for determining when items are considered abandoned.
20. An officer is coming out of a house after responding to a call. She sees pots of marijuana inside a fenced yard next door. Discuss the different requirements for the admissibility of what she sees and what is required to seize the marijuana.
21. Define, compare, and contrast the Kirby and Wade-Gilbert rules. Do you agree or disagree with each rule? Explain your position.
22. Define, compare, and contrast the Daubert and Frye doctrines. Which one will, in general result in the introduction of more scientific evidence? Explain your position. Which rule do you think is best? Explain your position.
23. What is the current position of the U.S. Supreme Court on the reliability and admissibility of polygraph evidence? Do you think polygraph evidence should be admissible in court? Why or why not? Explain your position.
24. Specify three types of situations where statements obtained in violation of Miranda, or evidence obtained from such a statement, can still be utilized as evidence. Do you agree or disagree that such exceptions to Miranda should be allowed? Explain your position.
25. Compare and contrast U.S. v. Henry (1980) with Illinois v. Perkins (1990). Take a stance on each of these two positions, and explain your reasons. Can these two decisions be reconciled, or do you believe that they are too contradictory in nature for this to be possible?
26. Miranda warnings are required during police custodial interrogation. How is “custody” defined for Miranda purposes? Give two examples of interrogation situations where custody would exist, and two where it would not.
27. Discuss ONE of the following cases: Edwards v. Arizona (1981), or Arizona v. Roberson (1988), or Minnick v. Mississippi (1991). Is the case that you selected consistent with Miranda? Has the law as represented in this case evolved to benefit defendants rather than the government?
28. The Sixth Amendment provides defendants a number of rights. Discuss these rights and how they apply in the criminal justice process.
29. The Constitution does not require a unanimous verdict in criminal cases. Many states and the federal system do require a unanimous verdict. Should all criminal trials be required to have unanimous verdicts? What practical issues might result?
30. There are two kinds of challenges the prosecutor and the defense lawyer can use when selecting a jury. What are they and how do these challenges differ? Which challenge is bad for the defendant, and why?