Suspicion Stops Presentation Case Study 01
SUSPICION & STOPS
The Fourth Amendment and the Limits of Policing
The Constitutional Text
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
Key Word: "Unreasonable" – What determines reasonableness?
Protection: Secures individual privacy against state overreach.
The Sliding Scale of Evidence
Reasonable Suspicion
Specific and articulable facts that would lead a reasonable officer to suspect a person is involved in criminal activity.
Allows: "Stop and Frisk"
Brief Investigative Detention
Probable Cause
A higher standard: Sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime.
Required for: Arrests
Required for: Search Warrants
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
The Landmark Precedent
The Facts:
An officer observed three men "casing" a jewelry store. He stopped and frisked them, finding two revolvers.
The Question:
Was this search a violation of the 4th Amendment if the officer lacked probable cause for an arrest?
The Ruling
"Police have the right to stop and frisk a suspect if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous."
Outcome: The "Terry Stop" was born, balancing officer safety with constitutional rights.
ARTICULABLE FACTS
"Hunches" are not suspicion. An officer must point to specific facts. Which of these are articulable?
Frequent glances back at a patrol car
Presence in a "high-crime area"
Loitering near a closed business at 2 AM
"Just looking suspicious"
Hand-to-hand exchange of small objects
Running away after seeing the police
Note: Courts often look at the "Totality of Circumstances."
Terry Stop Worksheet Terry Stop Analysis
Unit: Constitutional Rights in Law Enforcement
Student Name:
Date:
I. Defining the Standard
The Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures." To determine reasonableness, the Supreme Court has established two primary legal standards. Define them in your own words below:
Reasonable Suspicion
Probable Cause
II. Precedent: Terry v. Ohio (1968)
"In justifying the particular intrusion, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion." — Chief Justice Warren
1. Why did the Court allow a search even though the officer didn't have enough evidence for an arrest yet?
2. What is the scope of a "Terry Stop" search? What exactly is an officer allowed to do (and look for)?
III. Field Report Evaluation
Review the following police reports. For each, identify the articulable facts and determine if the stop was Constitutional or Unconstitutional based on the Terry standard.
Report #012-B | Officer: Henderson LOCATION: 4th & Main
Observation Narrative
Subject was standing on the corner of a high-crime intersection at 11:30 PM. Subject was wearing a heavy winter parka despite the temperature being 72 degrees. As I approached in my marked unit, Subject immediately turned his back, began walking rapidly in the opposite direction, and kept reaching toward his waistband area.
Identify Articulable Facts
Legal Justification (Why?)
VERDICT
Constitutional
Unconstitutional
Report #045-F | Officer: Rodriguez LOCATION: Residential Park
Observation Narrative
Observed a group of four teenagers sitting on park benches. They appeared to be "looking suspicious" and laughing loudly. One subject looked at me and whispered to the others. I had a "gut feeling" they might be in possession of narcotics. I initiated a stop and performed a pat-down search of all four individuals.
Identify Articulable Facts
Legal Justification (Why?)
VERDICT
Constitutional
Unconstitutional
Suspicion Stops Teacher Guide Teacher Guide: Suspicion and Stops
Lesson 1: The Fourth Amendment
Objectives
Differentiate between reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
Analyze the impact of Terry v. Ohio on law enforcement procedures.
Apply the "articulable facts" standard to evaluate the legality of police stops.
The Hook: "Vibe Check"
Show two short video clips (or describe two scenarios) of police stops.
Scenario A: A person runs when they see a police car in a busy downtown area.
Have students vote: Which one is "suspicious enough" to stop? Do not give the answer yet. Use this to highlight that "suspicion" is often subjective and needs a legal framework.
Quick References
Terry Standard
Reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and the person is armed/dangerous.
Articulable Facts
Facts that can be spoken or written; not just a "feeling."
Critical Discussion Questions
1
Why does the law allow a "frisk" (outer clothing pat-down) if the officer only has suspicion, not enough for an arrest? (Answer focus: Officer safety)
2
What are the dangers of a subjective "suspicion" standard? How might bias play a role in what an officer considers suspicious?
Worksheet Answer Key
I. Defining the Standard
Reasonable Suspicion: Less than probable cause, but more than a hunch. Requires specific, articulable facts that suggest criminal activity is occurring.
Probable Cause: Higher standard. Facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe a specific person committed a specific crime.
III. Field Report Evaluation
Report #012-B (Henderson): CONSTITUTIONAL
Facts: Heavy parka in heat (suggests concealment), reaching for waistband (suggests weapon), flight from police in high-crime area. The "totality of circumstances" provides reasonable suspicion.
Report #045-F (Rodriguez): UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Facts: Teenagers whispering, laughing, and the officer's "gut feeling." These are NOT articulable facts. Looking suspicious or whispering is legal behavior. Without more evidence, this stop violates the 4th Amendment.
Evidence Exclusion Presentation Case Study 02
EVIDENCE & EXCLUSION
Warrants, the Exclusionary Rule, and the Fruits of the Poisonous Tree
The Exclusionary Rule
A legal rule that prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law.
Purpose:
To deter police misconduct. If the police know illegally obtained evidence can't be used, they are more likely to follow the rules.
Key Precedent
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Applied the Exclusionary Rule to all states. Evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment is inadmissible in state and federal courts.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Legal Doctrine
"If the source (the tree) of the evidence is tainted, then anything gained (the fruit) from it is also tainted and inadmissible."
Illegal Search
(The Tree)
Discovered Evidence
(The Fruit)
SEARCH WARRANT CHECKLIST
Under the 4th Amendment, warrants must meet four strict requirements:
1
Probable Cause
Established by an affidavit (sworn statement).
2
Supported by Oath or Affirmation
Signed under penalty of perjury.
3
Particularly Describing
Must specify the place to be searched AND the things to be seized.
4
Neutral and Detached Magistrate
Signed by a judge, not a police officer or prosecutor.
PROCEDURAL ERRORS = SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE
If a warrant is too broad, contains false information, or is signed by an unauthorized official, the evidence it yields may be thrown out of court.
Warrant Workshop Next
Warrant Workshop Activity Warrant Workshop
Procedural Review: Search & Seizure
Class: 12th Civics
Name: _______________________
Your Mission
You are a Judicial Clerk. Your job is to review the following Search Warrant Applications before they are signed by the Judge. A warrant that is procedurally flawed can result in all evidence being suppressed under the Exclusionary Rule. Look for errors in Particularity, Probable Cause, or Procedure.
A
Application #2026-X1
Affidavit of Probable Cause:
Officer J. Miller swears that an anonymous tipster stated they saw "lots of suspicious activity" at 1422 West Oak Street. The tipster claims the resident has been seen carrying large bags into the house late at night. Officer Miller performed a drive-by and saw the resident look at him through the curtains.
Place to be Searched:
Items to be Seized:
1. Identify the Main Flaw(s)
Lack of Probable Cause
Lack of Particularity (Place)
Lack of Particularity (Items)
Explain the Error:
Would the Judge sign this?
YES
NO
B
Application #2026-X2
Affidavit of Probable Cause:
A reliable confidential informant, who has provided information leading to three previous arrests, witnessed the suspect (Marcus Vane) selling stolen electronics from his apartment (2B, 900 Ridgeview). The informant provided photos of the serial numbers from three laptops currently inside the apartment.
Place to be Searched:
Items to be Seized:
1. Identify the Main Flaw(s)
Lack of Probable Cause
Lack of Particularity
No procedural flaws found
Explain your reasoning:
Would the Judge sign this?
YES
NO
Evidence Exclusion Teacher Guide Teacher Guide: Evidence & Exclusion
Lesson 2: Warrants and Mapp v. Ohio
The Hook
Present a scenario: "A known dangerous criminal has a trunk full of illegal items. An officer searches the car without a warrant or probable cause. Under the Exclusionary Rule, that evidence is thrown out, and the criminal goes free. Is this justice?"
Debate Point: Does the rule protect the guilty, or does it protect everyone's privacy by forcing the police to follow the law?
Legal Precedents
Mapp v. Ohio (1961): States must follow the exclusionary rule. Evidence from illegal searches is inadmissible.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: If the initial search is illegal, any secondary evidence found because of it is also suppressed.
Warrant Workshop: Answer Key
Application #2026-X1 Verdict: NO SIGNATURE
The Flaws:
Lack of Probable Cause: "Suspicious activity" and "carrying bags" are not evidence of a crime. Looking through curtains is not an admission of guilt. An anonymous tip alone is rarely enough for PC without corroboration.
Lack of Particularity (Items): "Any and all evidence of criminal activity" is a "General Warrant," which the 4th Amendment was specifically written to prevent. It must specify what is being looked for (e.g., narcotics, stolen jewelry).
Application #2026-X2 Verdict: APPROVED
The Reasoning:
Probable Cause: Established via a "reliable" informant with a track record. Direct observation of the items and serial numbers provides strong PC.
Particularity: Specifically identifies the apartment number (2B) and the specific items to be seized (3 MacBook Pros with serial numbers). This leaves no room for officer discretion to "browse" the home.
Teacher Strategy Tip
Students often struggle with the idea that "guilty" people go free because of procedural errors. Remind them that the Fourth Amendment isn't just about the person in the scenario—it's about the standard set for everyone. If the police can ignore the rules for "bad guys," they can ignore them for anyone.
Rights Interrogations Presentation Case Study 03
RIGHTS & INTERROGATIONS
The Fifth Amendment and the Power of Miranda
The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
"No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."
What it means:
The government cannot force you to speak if your words could be used to prosecute you.
The "Burden":
The burden of proof is on the state. You don't have to help them build their case.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
The Procedural Safeguard
The Problem:
Police interrogations are inherently "custodial" and "coercive." Suspects often feel they MUST answer questions.
The Ruling:
Suspects must be informed of their rights BEFORE questioning begins while in custody.
The Card
1. Right to remain silent.
2. Anything said can be used in court.
3. Right to an attorney.
4. If you cannot afford one, one will be provided.
WHEN DO RIGHTS ATTACH?
Miranda only applies during "Custodial Interrogation."
Custody
"Would a reasonable person in this situation feel they are free to leave?"
• Handcuffs
• Back of a patrol car
• Locked interrogation room
Interrogation
"Words or actions by police that are likely to elicit an incriminating response."
• Direct questioning
• Presenting evidence to provoke a reaction
• Guilt-tripping or psychological pressure
THE WAIVER
A suspect can choose to speak, but the state must prove they waived their rights voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.
Voluntary
No threats or physical abuse.
Knowing
Understood the rights being given up.
Intelligent
Aware of the consequences.
Interrogation Transcript Activity Miranda in the Hot Seat
Transcript Analysis: Case #55-ALPHA
Time Log
14:22 - 15:45
Room
INT-03
Instructions: Read the following transcript between Detective Vance and Suspect "K." Annotate the text to identify (1) Moments of Custody, (2) The Miranda Warning, and (3) Any potential Constitutional Violations. Answer the questions on the following page.
[14:22] DET. VANCE: Thanks for coming down to the station, K. Appreciate you "volunteering" your time.
[14:23] K: Yeah, whatever. I just want to clear this up. Can I go soon? I got work at 4.
[14:25] DET. VANCE: We'll see. Sit down. [Vance closes the door and it clicks shut. He sits across from K.] So, tell me about Tuesday night at the convenience store.
[14:28] K: I was home. Playing games. Alone. I told you this on the street.
[14:35] DET. VANCE: Funny. Because your phone pings say you were right outside that store. [Vance leans in.] K, look. Things go easier for people who are honest. If you tell me what happened, I can talk to the DA. Maybe get you a deal. But if you keep lying... well, I can't help you then.
[14:40] K: I'm not lying. I... I think I should talk to my lawyer now. This is getting weird.
[14:41] DET. VANCE: Your lawyer? Why? Only guilty people need lawyers right away. If you're innocent, just tell me the truth. Did you take the cash box? Just a 'yes' or 'no' and we can all go home.
[14:45] K: I... I mean, I was there. But I didn't mean to—
[14:46] DET. VANCE: Stop. [Vance pulls a card from his pocket.] Before we go further: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you... [Vance finishes the Miranda warning]. Do you understand these rights?
[14:48] K: I guess. But I already said I was there.
Constitutional Analysis
1. When did "Custody" begin? Point to a specific action or line in the transcript.
2. Analyze the timing of the Miranda Warning. Did Detective Vance read the rights at the legally required moment? Explain why or why not.
3. Identification of Violations: Identify at least one moment where K's 5th or 6th Amendment rights were arguably violated.
Legal Challenge: "The Question-First" Tactic
In Missouri v. Seibert, the Supreme Court ruled on cases where police intentionally question a suspect first, get a confession, then read Miranda rights and ask the suspect to repeat the confession. Based on your reading, did Vance use this tactic? Should K's statement at 14:45 be admissible?
Rights Interrogations Teacher Guide Teacher Guide: Rights & Interrogations
Lesson 3: The Fifth Amendment & Miranda
The Hook: Cognitive Load
Ask a student to tell a complex lie about what they did last weekend. While they are telling the lie, have another student ask them math questions or make them tell the story backwards.
Point: Lying takes immense mental energy. Interrogators use "cognitive load" to trip up suspects. This demonstrates why the 5th Amendment is necessary—it protects people from being "broken" by the pressure of interrogation.
Key Precedent
Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Established that custodial interrogation is inherently coercive. Without warnings, any statement is presumed to be involuntary and inadmissible.
Transcript Analysis: Answer Key
1. When did "Custody" begin?
Analysis: Arguably at [14:25] when Detective Vance closes and locks the door. A "reasonable person" would not feel free to leave at this point, especially given the detective's command to "Sit down" and the locked door.
2. Timing of Miranda Warning
Analysis: The warning was LATE. Once custody began (locked door) and interrogation began (questioning about the store), the rights should have been read. Vance intentionally waited until after K made an incriminating statement ("I was there") to read the rights.
3. Identification of Violations
5th Amendment: Questioning without Miranda during custody.
6th Amendment (Right to Counsel): At [14:40], K clearly says, "I think I should talk to my lawyer now." Legally, questioning must stop immediately once a lawyer is requested. Vance's response ("Only guilty people need lawyers") is a direct violation.
Discussion Guide: Psychological Coercion
1
Vance tells K that "things go easier for people who are honest." Is this a promise? Is it coercive? (Usually allowed, but close to the line of 'improper inducement')
2
Why do people confess to crimes they didn't commit? (Focus on: sleep deprivation, extreme pressure, belief that confession is the only way out)
Digital Privacy Presentation Case Study 04
PRIVACY IN THE DIGITAL AGE
From Physical Effects to Digital Shadows
The Katz Standard
"The 4th Amendment protects people, not places."
In Katz v. United States (1967), the Court established a two-part test for privacy:
1
Subjective Expectation: Did the individual actually think they were private?
2
Objective Expectation: Is that expectation one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable"?
The Shift
Before Katz, the 4th Amendment was about physical trespass. After Katz, it became about privacy.
The Challenge of Digital Data
Location Data
Where you go, who you visit, and for how long. It's a "virtual shadow."
Third-Party Data
If you give data to a company (phone provider, bank), do you lose your privacy rights to it?
Quantity of Info
A physical wallet has limited info. A smartphone contains an entire life's history.
"A smartphone is qualitatively different than any physical effect ever searched by police."
Carpenter v. US (2018)
Cell Site Location Information (CSLI)
The Facts:
Police obtained 12,898 location pings from Timothy Carpenter's cell phone provider over 127 days WITHOUT A WARRANT.
The Ruling:
The government generally NEEDS A WARRANT to access historical cell-site location records.
Why?
Because CSLI provides an "all-encompassing record of the holder’s movements." It’s "near-perfect surveillance" that follows you into private spaces (homes, churches, clinics).
HOW FAR DOES PRIVACY GO?
If you leave a "digital breadcrumb trail" everywhere you go, is it still private?
Public Safety
Law enforcement needs digital tools to solve crimes in a digital world. Warrants can be too slow.
Privacy Rights
Technology shouldn't give the government "God-like" powers of surveillance just because it's convenient.
Digital Privacy Handout Digital Privacy Case Briefs
Applying the 4th Amendment to the 21st Century
Student Name
The Foundation: Katz v. United States (1967)
The Court moved from a "property" based view of the 4th Amendment to a "privacy" based view. It established the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (REP) test. If you show a subjective expectation of privacy that society thinks is reasonable, the 4th Amendment applies.
Riley v. California (2014)
Question: Can police search a cell phone found on a person who has been arrested without a warrant?
Decision: NO. Generally, police must get a warrant to search a phone.
Reasoning: Phones are "minicomputers" that hold the "privacies of life." Searching them is far more invasive than searching a wallet or pockets.
Carpenter v. US (2018)
Question: Does the government need a warrant to get historical cell tower location data from a phone company?
Decision: YES.
Reasoning: This data creates an "all-encompassing record of movements," revealing private associations and habits. It is essentially "near-perfect surveillance."
The "Third Party Doctrine"
Historically, the Supreme Court has said that if you voluntarily give info to a third party (like a bank or phone company), you have NO "reasonable expectation of privacy" in that info. The government can get it from the company without a warrant.
Critical Thinking: Does this doctrine still make sense?
Argument for the Doctrine
If you share info, it's no longer secret. Companies are private, not the government. If you want privacy, don't use the service.
Argument against the Doctrine
In 2026, you CANNOT participate in modern life without sharing info with companies (Internet, GPS, banking). Sharing isn't truly "voluntary."
Future Forensics: Smart Homes
Law enforcement increasingly seeks data from "Smart Home" devices (Amazon Alexa, Google Home, Ring doorbells). Using the precedents above, how should the 4th Amendment apply?
Scenario: A smart speaker records a conversation in a kitchen that evidence of a crime. Should the police need a warrant to get that recording from the company?
Scenario: A neighbor's doorbell camera records you walking on the public sidewalk. Can the police take that footage without a warrant because you were "in public"?
Digital Privacy Teacher Guide Teacher Guide: Digital Privacy
Lesson 4: Carpenter and the 21st Century
The Hook: "The Tracker in Your Pocket"
Have students take out their phones (if permitted). Instruct them to go to Settings > Privacy > Location Services > System Services > Significant Locations. (Note: Instructions may vary by OS).
The Reveal: Many students will find a list of every place they've been recently, with timestamps.
Question: "If a detective wanted this list to see if you were near a crime scene, should they just be able to ask Apple/Google for it, or do they need a judge to sign a warrant?"
Key Framing
Focus on the "Qualitative Difference." A search of a physical home is limited by walls. A search of a digital life is limited by nothing.
In Carpenter, the Court said that because we have to carry phones for modern life, giving up location data isn't truly "voluntary," so the Third Party Doctrine shouldn't fully apply.
Discussion Facilitation: Smart Homes
Smart Speakers (Alexa/Google Home)
Legal Debate: Is a kitchen conversation private if a "third party" device is listening?
Precedent Link: Riley says digital info is highly private. Students should argue whether the "voluntary" act of buying an Alexa means you waive your 4th Amendment rights to your own living room conversations.
Doorbell Cameras (Ring/Nest)
Legal Debate: You have no REP on a public sidewalk. But if police can access every doorbell camera on a block, they have a 24/7 surveillance grid of an entire neighborhood.
Precedent Link: Carpenter. Is this "near-perfect surveillance"? If so, a warrant should be required.
Wrap-Up Question
"Does technology make the Fourth Amendment more important or less relevant?"
Simulation Presentation Mastery Assessment
THE SUPPRESSION HEARING
Applying Constitutional Law to the Evidence Room
The Suppression Hearing
A pre-trial meeting where the judge decides if evidence was collected legally. If not, it is suppressed (thrown out).
?
The Question: Should this evidence be allowed at trial?
The Roles
The Defense: Arguing to throw it out.
The Prosecution: Arguing to keep it in.
The Judge: Applying the law fairly.
The Legal Arsenal
4th Amendment (Stops & Searches)
Terry v. Ohio: Was there reasonable suspicion?
Mapp v. Ohio: Does the exclusionary rule apply?
Carpenter v. US: Was a warrant needed for digital data?
5th Amendment (Interrogation)
Miranda v. Arizona: Was the suspect in custody?
Missouri v. Seibert: Was it a "question-first" tactic?
Waiver: Was it voluntary, knowing, and intelligent?
SIMULATION PROTOCOL
1. Investigation
Read your Case File. Identify facts that help your side and facts that hurt your side. Find the precedent that fits.
2. Argument
Each side has 3 minutes to present. Use the phrase: "Your Honor, according to the ruling in [Case Name]..."
3. Rebuttal
Respond directly to the other side's argument. Point out where they misapplied the law or missed a key fact.
"MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT!"
Mock Hearing Evidence File Official Evidence File
Case State v. Julian Reed | Case #2026-CR-088
CONFIDENTIAL
Incident Narrative
On the night of January 12th, 2026, at approximately 11:45 PM, a silent alarm was triggered at "The Carbon Hub," a boutique bicycle shop. Officers arrived within 3 minutes and observed a subject (later identified as Julian Reed) pedaling a $12,000 racing bike away from the smashed storefront.
Officers pursued the subject into the "Harbor View" apartment complex. They lost sight of him in a hallway. While searching the hallway, Officer Chen noticed a "Ring" smart doorbell on the door of Apartment 4B. Officer Chen knocked on the door. A roommate (Sam) answered. Officer Chen stated: "There is a dangerous fugitive in this building. We need your doorbell footage right now to save lives. Can you open the app and show us who just walked by?" Sam, appearing nervous and confused, complied and showed the footage on his phone.
The footage clearly showed Julian Reed entering Apartment 4B with the bike at 11:51 PM. Officers entered the apartment without a warrant, arrested Reed, and recovered the bicycle. Reed was taken to the station and questioned for 45 minutes about the break-in. He admitted to the theft before Officer Chen pulled out a Miranda card and read him his rights.
Evidence Targeted for Suppression
Exhibt A: Doorbell Footage
The footage showing Reed entering the apartment, obtained without a warrant or formal subpoena.
4th AMENDMENT CARPENTER
Exhibit B: Confession
The admission of guilt made during the first 45 minutes of the interrogation before the Miranda warning was given.
5th AMENDMENT MIRANDA
Simulation Worksheet: Prep Your Case
For the Prosecution:
Goal: Argue the evidence is ADMISSIBLE.
Legal Justification (Hot Pursuit? Consent?)
Supporting Case Law (Terry? Riley?)
For the Defense:
Goal: Argue the evidence is SUPPRESSED.
Constitutional Violations (Search? Coercion?)
Supporting Case Law (Carpenter? Miranda?)
Opening Statement Outline
"Your Honor, the evidence in question must be [admitted/suppressed] because..."
Simulation Teacher Guide Rubric Teacher Guide: Suppression Hearing
Lesson 5: Culminating Simulation
Simulation Setup
1. Roles: Divide the class into teams of 3-4. Assign each team a side (Prosecution or Defense). You (or a student) can act as the Judge.
2. Room Layout: Arrange desks so that Prosecution and Defense face each other with a central "Bench" for the Judge.
3. Timing:
Prep Time: 15 mins
Opening Statements: 3 mins each
Rebuttal/Q&A: 5 mins
Judicial Decision: 2 mins
Judicial Tips
As the Judge, push students to move beyond "It feels wrong" to "It violates the ruling in [Case Name]."
If a student makes a claim, ask: "Counselor, which precedent supports that?"
Case Analysis Cheat Sheet (Teacher Only)
Prosecution Strengths
Exigent Circumstances: "Hot pursuit" of a fleeing felon allows entry without a warrant.
Consent: The roommate (Sam) voluntarily allowed them to see the footage.
Safety: Mentioning the "dangerous fugitive" justified the urgency.
Defense Strengths
Coerced Consent: The police used "threats of danger" to pressure Sam into showing the footage. Was it voluntary?
Carpenter Violation: Accessing digital doorbell data requires a warrant or clear consent.
Miranda Violation: Questioning for 45 mins in a station (custody) without warnings is a textbook violation.
Assessment Rubric
Criteria Exemplary (4) Proficient (3) Developing (2) Use of Precedent Cites multiple relevant cases (Terry, Miranda, Carpenter, etc.) accurately. Cites at least one relevant case correctly. Mentions case names but misapplies the legal rule. Analysis of Facts Expertly ties specific case facts (e.g., the 45-min interrogation) to the law. Discusses facts in a general sense. Struggles to identify key legal turning points in the story. Oral Advocacy Persuasive, uses professional legal language, responds well to rebuttal. Clear and organized presentation. Informal language, relies heavily on notes.
