analyzing the fact pattern Criminal Justice

Ensure your citations are in APA.

Please see the grading rubric, which will be used to grade this assignment.

Chris is a police officer with the local Centerville Police Department.  She is in plain clothes and knocked on the front door of Steve’s house and asked if she could enter to enforce a valid warrant.  The warrant was a search warrant issued by Judge Wells from the Centerville District Court.  Judge Wells is a retired state police trooper from the state police barracks in Centerville.  The warrant indicated that \”the first floor of Steve\’s house will be searched for a gun used in connection with a robbery and jewelry, which was stolen.\”  While searching the first floor of Steve\’s house, Officer Chris smelled what she thought was gun powder emanating from the second floor.  Officer Chris immediately walked upstairs and found a gun at the tops of the stairs.  She went to confiscate the gun and while doing so noticed a note attached to the gun with an address on it.  The address was a known location for stolen jewelry to be pawned.  During the search, Steve told Officer Chris that, \”I do not know what you are here for, because I did not rob Grubb\’s jewelry store.\”  Officer Chris asked Steve to go to the police station and Steve agreed.  As they walked into the police station, Judge Wells yelled, \”is that the person who robbed Grubb\’s jewelry store?\”  Steve replied, \”I told Officer Chris already, I did not rob Grubb\’s jewelry store.

Struggling with where to start this assignment? Follow this guide to tackle your assignment easily!

Writing a Legal Analysis of the Fact Pattern

To effectively analyze the fact pattern, follow this step-by-step guide:

Step 1: Identify the Legal Issues

Start by pinpointing the key legal issues presented in the fact pattern. For example:

• Validity of the search warrant and whether it complies with federal or state law.
• Officer Chris’s actions, including search scope, probable cause, and exceptions to the warrant requirement.
• Application of the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained on the second floor.
• Statements made by Steve and whether they violated Miranda rights or the right against self-incrimination.

Step 2: Analyze Each Issue with Legal Reasoning

Break down the issues and apply relevant law to the facts:

1. Search Warrant Validity
   • Discuss whether Judge Wells’ issuance of the warrant poses a conflict of interest due to their background.
   • Examine if the warrant’s scope (“first floor only”) was adhered to and whether probable cause justified Officer Chris’s actions upstairs.
2. Second Floor Search
   • Analyze whether smelling gunpowder created exigent circumstances justifying Officer Chris’s search of the second floor without expanding the warrant.
   • Address whether the evidence (gun and note) found upstairs may be admissible under the plain view doctrine or other exceptions.
3. Steve’s Statements
   • Discuss whether Officer Chris violated Miranda rights when questioning Steve at the house.
   • Assess the admissibility of Steve’s responses to Judge Wells’ comment at the police station.
4. Exclusionary Rule
   • Evaluate whether evidence obtained from the second floor could be excluded under the exclusionary rule for violating the search warrant’s limitations.

Step 3: Apply Legal Precedents and Concepts

Incorporate examples of case law or legal principles, such as:

• Terry v. Ohio: Reasonable suspicion and exigent circumstances.
• Miranda v. Arizona: Right to remain silent and requirement for Miranda warnings.
• Mapp v. Ohio: Exclusionary rule.

Step 4: Provide a Conclusion

Summarize your findings with clear legal reasoning:

• Conclude whether Officer Chris’s actions were lawful and whether the evidence obtained will be admissible.
• Address how Steve’s statements could be used against him or excluded based on potential violations.

Sample Structure for the Paper

1. Introduction
Briefly introduce the fact pattern and outline the legal issues to be discussed.

2. Analysis of the Search Warrant

• Discuss the validity of the warrant.
• Examine whether Officer Chris’s second-floor search complied with the law.

3. Analysis of Steve’s Statements

• Evaluate whether Miranda rights were violated during the questioning.
• Discuss admissibility of Steve’s responses at the station.

4. Application of the Exclusionary Rule

• Determine if the evidence obtained upstairs could be excluded due to a warrant scope violation.

5. Conclusion
Summarize your findings and explain the implications for Officer Chris, Steve, and the case overall.