Analyze any two of the following three scenarios. Clearly label your answers so

Analyze any two of the following three scenarios. Clearly label your answers so that your professor will know which scenarios that you are analyzing. Answer the following questions and support your answers with facts from the scenario and legal analysis by discussing the cases that have been provided to you or additional cases obtained through your own research and explaining how these cases apply to your chosen scenario. You are not required to conduct additional research to earn full credit. Be sure to include the case names and citations of all the cases that you use in support of your arguments in the body of your paper as well as in the reference section.
Consider the following cases:
Scenario 1-A High Crime Area
Two police officers were patrolling in a high-crime neighborhood at 3 a.m. when they noticed a parked car with two people inside (a driver and a passenger) in a parking lot at the local Best Buy. The officers also saw a young woman leaning into the passenger’s window and handing the passenger an object, which the officers could not identify, and the passenger handing the woman cash.At this point, the officers approached the car to investigate, and the woman began to walk away. One of the officers noticed the passenger making a shoving down motion, leading the officer to believe that the passenger might be armed. He also noticed a bulge in the passenger’s front pocket. The officer drew his gun and shouted, “Let me see your hands.” After making more shoving down motions, the passenger complied. The officer asked both occupants to exit the vehicle. Because the officers believed that the individuals could be armed, they frisked both of them.
When frisking the passenger, the officer touched the bulge in the outer portion of the passenger’s front pocket. It was a large, hard object, which the officer immediately believed to be rocks of crack cocaine. The officer then reached in and removed a plastic bag from the pocket. The bag contained several rocks of crack cocaine that totaled almost 100 grams. The officer then searched the vehicle but did not find a weapon. The passenger was arrested and charged with illegal possession of a controlled substance. The passenger has filed a motion to suppress based upon the officer’s lack of reasonable suspicion.
**In a criminal case, a motion to suppress is a motion based on the exclusionary rule, that a defendant can file to ask a trial court to prevent the prosecution from admitting items into evidence because the items were illegally seized in violation of the constitution. The motion to suppress will be granted if the items were seized in violation of the constitution.
Using the cases of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) and Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993), analyze the scenario by determining whether the defendant’s motion to suppress should be granted by discussing the following:
Whether the officers had articulable facts to support reasonable suspicion to investigate or were the officers instead acting on a “hunch,” curiosity, or instinct?
Whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that the suspect was armed and dangerous that would justify the frisk?
Whether the officer’s seizure of the rocks of crack cocaine from the suspect’s pocket that were discovered during the frisk was constitutional under the plain touch or plain feel rule?
Support your reasoning and answers to each question with the case law provided.
Please respond to this question in 1-3 pages.
Scenario 2-A Group in an Alley
On a routine patrol, an officer noticed three people talking and laughing in an alley around 6 p.m. Two of the individuals were known drug addicts who had their hands in their pockets. When the officer approached the group, the group dispersed. The officer stopped one of the individuals and frisked her.During the frisk, the officer discovered an illegal weapon. The person was charged and has now filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the officer did not have articulable facts to support reasonable suspicion to investigate the group. The defendant also argues that talking and laughing with drug addicts in an alley is not criminal conduct, and there was no justification for the frisk.
Using the cases of Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) and Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968), analyze the scenario by determining whether the defendant’s motion to suppress the weapon should be granted by discussing the following:
Whether the officer had articulable facts to support reasonable suspicion or were they instead relying upon a hunch, instinct, or curiosity when they approached the group in the alley?
Whether the frisk was appropriate by analyzing whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that the suspect was armed and dangerous?
Support your reasoning and answers to each question with the case law provided.
Please respond to this specific question in 1-3 pages.
Scenario 3-Hot Pursuit of a Fleeing Misdemeanor Suspect
Officers were patrolling the local shopping center when they noticed a baby who was left unattended in the backseat of an SUV. The weather on that day was 90 degrees. Just as the officers were about to approach the vehicle, the mother ran out of the local CVS, started the vehicle, and headed down the street. The officers followed the vehicle and turned on their lights shortly thereafter. Instead of stopping, the mother turned into a driveway, entered the open garage, and immediately closed the garage door.Officers followed the vehicle and were able to run into the garage prior to the door’s closing. Upon entering the garage, officers noticed an automatic weapon or a machine gun in the corner of the garage that they immediately recognized as being a prohibited weapon.
The driver has been charged with a Class C misdemeanor for leaving a child unattended in a vehicle and possession of an illegal weapon, a Class D felony. The mother/defendant has filed a motion to suppress arguing that the officer had no right to enter her home without a warrant and that the plain view doctrine does not apply to the discovery of the weapon because the officers illegally entered the garage in the first instance.
Using the cases of Lange v. California, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), and Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987), analyze and discuss the following:Whether the officers had the right to enter the fleeing suspect’s garage for a violation of the misdemeanor offense of leaving a child unattended in a vehicle?
Whether the plain view doctrine allowed officers to seize the automatic weapon in the garage?
Support your reasoning and answers to each question with the case law provided.
Please respond to this specific question in 1-3 pages.