Law

The requirements for the essay:

(1) Read the question carefully to identify all the constitutional law issues.

(2) Point out the applicable law with respect to each identified issue.

(3) Analyze the issue based on the facts of the question by applying relevant laws.

(4) Do not copy the question. You need to organize your writing in the form of an essay.

Grading criteria

Whether you have identified all the issues, whether you have applied the correct law or legal rules, whether you have soundly analyzed the issues based on the facts of the question, whether your writing is well organized will all be considered in grading the essay.

There is no requirement as to how long the essay has to be. The requirement is that you need to sufficiently discuss all the issues. Make sure you identify all the issues and discuss them correctly and sufficiently.

Allan, Bob and Craig broke into six electronic stores within a month. They stole quite a number of i-Phones. Three months after the crime, the police arrested Bob. Bob made a confession to the police and told the police that Allan was the ringleader and he masterminded the crime. Bob told the police Allan’s cell-phone number. To gather evidence against Allan, the prosecution sent a subpoena to Allan’s cell-phone carrier to obtain the cell site location information (CSLI) of Allan’s phone in the past five months. The CSLI indicates that Allan’s phone was near the robbed stores on all six occasions. The prosecution intends to use this evidence at Allan’s trial. Allan objects to the evidence.

Bob told the police that Allan was also involved in drug dealings. The police asked Bob to work as their informant. The police concealed a radio transmitter on Bob’s person. Bob went to Allan’s house and had a conversation with him. Allan told Bob about his recent drug dealings. The conversation was transmitted electronically to the police. The prosecution intends to use the conversation at Allan’s trial. Allan objects.

While Bob was in Allan’s house, the police got into Allan’s car and secretly placed a GPS unit in the car. After talking to Bob, Allan got into his car and drove away. Through the GPS system in the car, the police were able to follow Allan’s car. The police observed Allan conducting drug transactions with another dealer. The police arrested Allan on the spot and seized the drugs he was selling. The prosecution intends to use the drugs as evidence in his trial. Allan objects.

Bob also told the police about Craig’s involvement in the burglary. The police obtained an arrest warrant for Craig’s arrest. Two officers went to Craig’s apartment to arrest him. As the officers were getting out of the patrol car, they saw Craig come out of the apartment building. Upon seeing the police, Craig started to run. The officers noticed that Craig was carrying a gun. They gave chase.Craig ran into a park. It was Saturday and there were many people in the park. As Craig ran through a wooded area, he tripped and fell. The officers arrived and handcuffed him. The officers could not find the gun on him. One of the officers asked: “Where is the gun?” Bob replied: “Behind the tree.” The officer went behind the tree and found the gun. In addition to the burglary, the prosecution intends to charge Craig with illegal possession of firearms. The prosecution intends to use the gun found by the police. Craig objects to the evidence.

The police obtained a search warrant to search Craig’s house for stolen i-Phones. In Craig’s bedroom, in a drawer the police found five stolen i-Phones and a stack of credit cards with different people’s names on them. Suspecting that the cards were stolen, the police seized them. One officer noticed a laptop computer on the table. It was in sleep mode. The officer woke it up and found an e-mail message that Craig was working on. The message was about how he used a fake credit card to buy the computer he was using.The police seized the computer. Craig is charged with credit card fraud. The prosecution intends to use the credit cards seized, the e-mail message, and the computer as evidence. Craig objects.

At the police station, the police interrogated Craig. The police read Craig the Miranda warning. The officers asked Craig whether he understood the warning. Craig nodded his head. The police asked him to sign a waiver card. Craig refused to sign the card but he made no statement as to whether he wanted to remain silent. The police started interrogation. The interrogation lasted for two hours and Craig said nothing to the police. One officer then said: “You have been here for a long time. Why don’t you talk to us and then your wife can come here to visit you?” Upon hearing this remark, Craig admitted his involvement in the burglary and in the crime of credit card fraud. At trial, the prosecution intends to use Craig’s statement. Craig objects, claiming that the confession was obtained in violation of his right to remain silent.

The police found fingerprints on the gun dropped by Craig in the park. To make sure that the gun was dropped by Craig, the police asked Craig to provide his fingerprints. Craig refused to cooperate. The police forcefully obtained his fingerprints. The obtained fingerprints match those on the gun. Craig objects the use of the fingerprints evidence at his trial. He argues that the police cannot forcefully make him provide evidence that may incriminate himself. He claims that the obtaining of his fingerprints over his objection violated the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.