Part 2- Crimes and Torts, Chapter 5: Criminal Law and Procedure, Doc 11

Here’s a summary of the responses to the problem cases in "Crimes and Torts": 1. Ressam’s Felony Conviction: o The Ninth Circuit ruled that for the felony charge of carrying explosives “during the commission of” making false statements, a link between carrying the explosives and the felony was necessary. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, would likely focus on a broader interpretation that “during” simply requires temporal overlap without needing a direct relationship between the explosives and the false statement felony. 2. Carter and Johns’ Fourth Amendment Claim: o Carter and Johns, who were observed by police while bagging cocaine from outside the apartment, were not entitled to Fourth Amendment protection as they were temporary visitors without a reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment. The evidence obtained through the officer’s observation was admissible. 3. XYZ Corporation and Self-Incrimination: o Paul-Weiss, Doe’s law firm, was incorrect in asserting selfincrimination protection over corporate records. Since the documents belonged to the corporation and not Doe personally, they were not protected by Doe’s Fifth Amendment rights, and Paul-Weiss was required to produce them. 4. Dumpster Search and Fourth Amendment Violation: o The court ruled there was no Fourth Amendment violation in Parks’ search of the dumpster as it was located in an area accessible to the public, and items discarded in a trash container do not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore, the evidence obtained was admissible. 5. Santos and Diaz’s Money Laundering Conviction: o The Supreme Court ruled that “proceeds” in the money-laundering statute refers to “profits” rather than “receipts.” Since there was no evidence that Santos and Diaz’s transactions involved profits rather than simply gross receipts, their money-laundering convictions were vacated. 6. Gant’s Car Search: o The U.S. Supreme Court held that the warrantless search of Gant’s car after his arrest was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because Gant was already secured and posed no threat. Thus, there was no justification for a search incident to arrest, making the evidence inadmissible. 7. Ideal Steel vs. National Steel and RICO: o The Supreme Court ruled that Ideal Steel’s complaint did not establish the required causal connection between National’s alleged fraudulent tax practices and Ideal’s financial losses under RICO. The absence of direct causation meant Ideal could not claim injury under RICO’s private right of action. 8. Muniz’s Stumbling Responses and Fifth Amendment: o Muniz’s responses to questions about personal identifiers (e.g., age, weight) were not testimonial and did not invoke the Fifth Amendment. However, his difficulty with the questions could be considered testimonial, so parts of the audio should have been excluded under Miranda. 9. Twombly and Eveloff’s Spam Case: o The argument that sections of 18 U.S.C. § 1037 were unconstitutionally vague was without merit. Courts generally interpret these statutes as targeting deceptive practices meant to mask the sender’s identity, which clearly applied to the spam actions alleged. 10. Thermal Imaging and Kyllo’s Fourth Amendment Rights: o The U.S. Supreme Court held in Kyllo v. United States that using a thermal imaging device on a private home constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the government’s position was incorrect, and the evidence gathered via thermal imaging required a warrant. 11. AML’s Corporate Liability Without Officer Knowledge: o AML’s conviction was upheld. Under the respondeat superior doctrine, corporations can be held criminally liable for actions of their employees, even without direct involvement or knowledge by corporate officers, if employees acted within the scope of their roles and for the company’s benefit. 12. Seibert’s Miranda Violation Case: o Seibert’s statements, obtained without Miranda warnings in a deliberate two-step interrogation technique, were inadmissible. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this interrogation method violated the spirit of Miranda, and the statements were suppressed.