Environmental Engineering Chapter 7 Question Years Seems Disproportionate For Shoplifting

Chapter 7

CRIME

1

Suggested Additional Assignments

Research: Corporate Crime

Students should find a newspaper or magazine article involving crime committed by a business or

Research: Computer Crime

Students should find a newspaper or magazine article involving a computer crime, such as online fraud,

Research: Revolving Door?

Students should research recidivism rates for U.S. prisons. What percentage of prisoners return to prison

Field Work: Criminal Court

Students should visit a criminal session of a local trial court and observe court proceedings for a

Chapter Overview

Chapter Theme

Criminal behavior extends far beyond the street crime that is fodder for television dramas—white collar

crime has a greater economic impact than street crime. Criminal law differs in important ways from civil

law, the subject of most of the text: the state prosecutes the wrongdoer, the wrongdoer can face lengthy

imprisonment or death, and rights embedded in the Constitution protect individuals accused by the state

of criminal behavior.

Quotes of the Day

“He threatens many that hath injured one.” –Ben Jonson (1573 1637), English dramatist, Silius, in Fall of

2 Unit 1 The Legal Environment

Crime, Society, and Law

Rationale of Punishment

The text lists four rationales for punishment: restraint, deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation. Prison

The Difference between a Civil and Criminal

Case

Civil law involves the rights and liabilities that exist between private parties. If one person claims that

Prosecution

Only the government can prosecute a crime and punish the perpetrator by sending him to prison. The

Burden of Proof

In a civil case, the plaintiff must prove her case only by a preponderance of the evidence. But because the

Right to a Jury

The facts of a case are decided by a judge or jury. A criminal defendant has a right to a trial by jury for

Felony/Misdemeanor

A felony is a serious crime, for which a defendant can be sentenced to one year or more in prison.

Criminal Procedure

Conduct Outlawed

The prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct is outlawed by a statute.

State of Mind

Chapter 7 Crime 3

Voluntary Act

A defendant is not guilty of a crime if she committed it under duress. However, the defendant bears the

burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that she acted under duress.

Entrapment

Gathering Evidence: The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from making illegal searches and

Warrant

As a general rule, the police must obtain a warrant before conducting a search. The warrant must specify

Probable Cause

The magistrate will issue a warrant only if there is probable cause. Probable cause means that, based on

Searches without a Warrant

There are seven circumstances under which police may search without a warrant:

• Plain View.

• Stop and Frisk.

The Fourth Amendment — Exclusionary Rule

Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained illegally may not be used at trial.

Many people have a fundamental conceptual problem with understanding the exclusionary rule: it only

applies to incriminating evidence. They would, presumably, support a (non-sensical) rule that excluded

non-incriminating evidence seized during an illegal search, but they believe that if incriminating evidence

is found, how can a search be illegal? It would, of course, serve no constitutional purpose to exclude

from trial evidence that has no bearing on a defendant’s guilt. The issue is to help those who stumble

over this fact understand why courts created the exclusionary rule. One can start by not calling an illegal

search a “technical violation” or “technical mistake.” We do not consider government’s seizure of a

private residence without compensation to be a technical violation of the due process clause, or banning

of peaceful political speech to be a technical violation of the First Amendment.

Question: How can it possibly make sense to exclude legitimate evidence because a police officer

made a mistake in getting a warrant? Aren’t we letting the criminal go free because the constable

blundered?

Answer: The Supreme Court has created the exclusionary rule as a judicial remedy to protect all

about their investigations lawfully.

Question: Does the Supreme Court think that all police want to abuse the average citizen?

4 Unit 1 The Legal Environment

Answer: No. What the court has said, by crafting the rule, is that one of the most valuable things

Question: I haven’t done anything wrong and am not worried about the police “smashing in my

doors in the middle of the night.” Why should I care about the exclusionary rule?

Answer: There’s a saying—“A liberal is a conservative who has just been arrested; a conservative is

Question: The difference between a lawful search or arrest and an unlawful one is often a warrant.

What is so special about a warrant?

Answer. The warrant requirement means that the police must obtain the permission of a neutral

Question: What might happen if there was no requirement for probable cause?

Answer: For example, police might reason that a certain percentage of students at a large university

Question: What is wrong with being searched if you don’t have anything to hide?

Answer: Being searched is—by definition—invasive. Some people might not mind it, but there are

Question: How many people go free because of the exclusionary rule?

Answer: Very few. As the text reports, most studies have shown that less than 1 percent of those

You Be the Judge: Ohio v. Smith

1

Facts: Wendy Northern was hospitalized for a drug overdose. When police questioned her in the hospital,

she identified her drug dealer as Antwaun Smith. She then called him to arrange for the purchase of crack

cocaine at her house that evening. When Smith arrived at her house, the police arrested him, searched him

that the evidence from his cell phone be excluded because it had been obtained without a warrant. After

Chapter 7 Crime 5

the judge denied this motion, Smith was found guilty and sentenced to 12 years in prison. The appeals

court upheld his conviction. He appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

You Be the Judge: Was the search of Smith’s cell phone legal? Should the evidence found on the phone

be excluded?

Argument for the police: The police have the right to search anyone they arrest. During a perfectly legal

Argument for Smith: Police have the right to search someone they have arrested so that they can protect

themselves and prevent evidence from being destroyed. A search of the cell phone’s contents was not

necessary to ensure officer safety, and there was no evidence that the call records and phone numbers

were in danger of being destroyed. Once the police had the phone, they had plenty of time to ensure that

the data were preserved. Additionally, they might have been able to obtain Smith’s phone records from

his service provider.

The police were entitled to search Smith and discover his cell phone. But they did not have the right to

search the phone without a warrant. Modern cell phones are much more similar to a laptop than to an old–

fashioned address book — they have the ability to transmit large amounts of personal data in various

forms. Courts have ruled that defendants have a high expectation of privacy in laptop computers and that

the police must obtain a warrant before searching one. It would be a terrible precedent to declare that the

police could search cell phones without a warrant.

Question: Was the search of Smith’s cell phone legal?

Answer: There are obviously two ways to look at this. One could say that Smith had an expectation

Question: Should the evidence found on the phone be excluded?

Answer: Here again, there are two views. Prosecuting attorneys, however, may be able to get this

The Patriot Act

In response to the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress passed a sweeping antiterrorist

law known as the Patriot Act. The statute was designed to give law enforcement officials greater power to

The Patriot Act has been questioned and tested in the courts, resulting in some revisions.

The Case Begins

The trial is now ready to begin. But, the government may not be able to use all the evidence it has

gathered.

Fifth Amendment –Due Process

6 Unit 1 The Legal Environment

Self-Incrimination

The Fifth Amendment bars the government from forcing any person to testify against himself. In other

Exclusionary Rule – Again

If the police do force a confession, the exclusionary rule prohibits the prosecution from using it or any

Miranda Rights

The police cannot legally force a suspect to provide evidence against himself. But sometimes, under

Landmark Case: Miranda v. Arizona

2

Facts: Ernesto Miranda was a mentally ill, indigent citizen of Mexico. The Phoenix police arrested him at

his home and brought him to a police station, where a rape victim identified him as her assailant. Two

police officers took him to an interrogation room but did not tell him that he had a right to have a lawyer

present during the questioning. Two hours later, the officers emerged with a written confession signed by

Issues: Was Miranda’s confession admissible at trial? Should his conviction be upheld?

Excerpts from Justice Warren’s Decision: Our holding briefly stated it is this: the prosecution may not

use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the

defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against

self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers

Chapter 7 Crime 7

does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted

with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned.

In a series of cases decided by this Court, the police resorted to physical brutality — beating, hanging,

whipping — and to sustained and protracted questioning incommunicado in order to extort confessions.

Only recently in Kings County, New York, the police brutally beat, kicked and placed lighted cigarette

butts on the back of a potential witness under interrogation for the purpose of securing a statement

incriminating a third party.

Unless a proper limitation upon custodial interrogation is achieved there can be no assurance that

individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself.

All these policies point to one overriding thought: the constitutional foundation underlying the privilege is

the respect a government — state or federal — must accord to the dignity and integrity of its citizens. To

maintain a fair state-individual balance, to respect the inviolability of the human personality, our

accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an individual

produce the evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple

expedient of compelling it from his own mouth.

From the testimony of the officers and by the admission of [the defendant], it is clear that Miranda was

not in any way apprised of his right to consult with an attorney and to have one present during the

interrogation, nor was his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself effectively protected in any

other manner. Without these warnings the statements were inadmissible. The mere fact that he signed a

statement which contained a typed-in clause stating that he had “full knowledge” of his “legal rights” does

not approach the knowing and intelligent waiver required to relinquish constitutional rights.

Question: What was Miranda’s life after parole?

Right to a Lawyer

As Miranda made clear, a criminal defendant has the right to a lawyer before being interrogated by the

8 Unit 1 The Legal Environment

After Arrest — Indictment

The grand jury — a group of ordinary citizens — determines whether there is probable cause that this

Arraignment

At an arraignment a clerk reads the formal charges of the indictment. The judge now asks the lawyer how

the defendant pleads to the charges. At this stage, most defendants plead not guilty.

Discovery

During the months before trial, both prosecution and defense will prepare the most effective case

Plea Bargaining

Sometime before trial the two attorneys will meet to consider a plea bargain. A plea bargain is an

Trial and Appeal

When there is no plea bargain, the case must go to trial. The mechanics of a criminal trial are similar to

Double Jeopardy

The prohibition against double jeopardy means that a defendant may be prosecuted only once for a

particular criminal offense. The purpose is to prevent the government from destroying the lives of

innocent citizens with repetitive prosecutions.

Question: What does double jeopardy mean?

Question: I recall reading about cases where people were prosecuted by a state and by the federal

government for the same offense. Why doesn’t that violate double jeopardy?

Answer: To qualify as double jeopardy a second prosecution must be done by the same sovereign

Question: Is that fair?

Question: O. J. Simpson was acquitted after the most highly publicized trial in history, yet he was

then sued by the families of the victims. Didn’t that violate double jeopardy?

Chapter 7 Crime 9

Punishment

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The most dramatic issue litigated

under this clause is the death penalty. The Supreme Court has ruled that capital punishment is not

inherently unconstitutional. Most state statutes divide a capital case into two parts, so that the jury first

considers only guilt or innocence, and then, if the defendant is found guilty, deliberates on the death

Case: Ewing v California

3

Facts: California passed a “three strikes” law, dramatically increasing sentences for repeat offenders. A

defendant with two or more serious convictions, who was convicted of a third felony, had to receive an

indeterminate sentence of life imprisonment. Such a sentence required the defendant to actually serve a

Issue: Did Ewing’s sentence violate the Eighth Amendment?

Holding: No. Excerpts from Justice O’Connor’s opinion:

When the California Legislature enacted the three strikes law, it made a judgment that protecting the

public safety requires incapacitating criminals who have already been convicted of at least one serious or

violent crime. The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit California from making that choice and

precedent establishes that States have a valid interest in deterring and segregating habitual criminals.

According to a recent report, approximately 67 percent of former inmates released from state prisons were

felonies must be incapacitated.

Question: What are “three strikes” laws?

3

538 U.S. 11, 123 S. Ct. 1179, 155 L. Ed. 2d 108 United States Supreme Court, 2003

10 Unit 1 The Legal Environment

felony.

Question: How does the law decide whether punishment is cruel and unusual?

Answer: In In re Lynch

4

the California Supreme Court stated “a penalty offends the proscription

Question: 25 years seems disproportionate for shoplifting.

Question: Then why didn’t the court hold it to be cruel and unusual in violation of the 8th

Amendment?

Question: What were those reasons?

Answer: The state passed its three-strikes law to address recidivism—new crimes committed by

Question: Does the Court agree that the three-strikes law is a good idea?

Answer: It does not say, and that is not the point of its opinion. The court decided that the three–

Crimes That Harm Business

Businesses must deal with four major crimes: larceny, fraud, arson and embezzlement.

Larceny is the trespassory taking of personal property with the intent to steal.

Fraud refers to a variety of crimes, all of which involve the deception of another person for the purpose

of obtaining money or property. Wire fraud and mail fraud are specific types of fraud that violate

Case: Skilling v. United States

5

Facts: The Enron Corporation was founded as an energy company in Houston, Texas, Five years later, it

hired Jeffrey Skilling, a young Harvard Business School graduate, to run one of its subsidiaries. Eleven

Chapter 7 Crime 11

$45 million in restitution. Skilling appealed, alleging that he had not violated the honest services statute

because it only applied to bribery and kickback schemes. The Fifth Circuit affirmed his conviction. The

Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue: Did Skilling violate the honest services statute?

Excerpts from Justice Ginsburg’s Opinion: Unlike fraud in which the victim’s loss of money or

Skilling asserts that [the honest services statute] is unconstitutionally vague. To satisfy due

process, a penal statute must define the criminal offense [1] with sufficient definiteness that ordinary

people can understand what conduct is prohibited and [2] in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary

and discriminatory enforcement. According to Skilling, [the honest services statute] meets neither of the

two due process essentials. First, the phrase “the right of honest services,” he contends, does not

The Government did not, at any time, allege that Skilling solicited or accepted side payments from a third

party in exchange for making these misrepresentations. It is therefore clear that Skilling did not

commit honest-services fraud.

Question: What is the honest services statute?

Question: Did Skilling violate the honest services statute?

12 Unit 1 The Legal Environment

Crimes Committed by Business

A corporation can be found guilty of a crime based on the conduct of any of its agents, who include

anyone undertaking work on behalf of the corporation. An agent can be a corporate officer, an accountant

Case: Commonwealth v. Angelo Todesca Corp.

6

Facts: Brian Gauthier, an experienced truck driver, worked for Todesca, a paving company. After about

a year driving a particular 10-wheel tri-axle dump truck, Gauthier noticed that the back-up alarm had

stopped working. When he reported this, the company mechanic realized that the old alarm needed

replacement. The mechanic had none in stock, so the company instructed Gauthier to drive the truck

without the alarm.

About a month later, Gauthier and other Todesca drivers were delivering asphalt to the work site on a

Issue: Could the company be guilty of motor vehicle homicide?

Holding: Yes, conviction affirmed.

Excerpts from Justice Spina’s Decision: Before criminal liability may be imposed on a corporate

defendant the Commonwealth must prove that the individual for whose conduct it seeks to charge the

The defendant maintains that a corporation never can be criminally liable for motor vehicle homicide

because the language of a criminal statute must be construed strictly, and a “corporation” cannot

“operate” a vehicle. We agree with the Commonwealth. Because a corporation is not a living person, it

can act only through its agents. By the defendant’s reasoning, a corporation never could be liable for any

It was undisputed that Gauthier’s truck was not equipped with a functioning back-up alarm at the time

of the collision, and that he knew the alarm was missing. Although a back-up alarm was not required by

statute, the defendant had a written safety policy mandating that all its trucks be equipped with such

Chapter 7 Crime 13

equip its trucks with back-up alarms, and that the victim expected to hear a back-up alarm when a driver

operated a truck in reverse.

sound.

Affirmed.

Question: The court answers two entirely separate questions in this case. What are they?

Answer: First, the court has to decide whether corporations could be criminally liable for the acts of

whether there was sufficient evidence to find this corporation liable.

Question: Todesca wants to court to read the law strictly. What does this mean?

Question: What did the court think about that argument?

Answer: Not much. Taken to its logical conclusion that line of thinking would make it impossible

Question: If the employee commits the criminal act, why is it fair to hold the corporation liable for

the employee’s conduct?

Answer: Because if the employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment, they are

Question: A corporation cannot go to jail. What criminal penalties do courts impose on

corporations?

Question: If individuals have been harmed by a corporation’s crime would they receive payment of

a fine imposed on the corporation?

Selected Crimes Committed By Business

Workplace Crimes

The most important statute regulating the workplace is the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of

1970 (OSHA) which sets safety standards for many industries.

RICO

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is one of the most powerful and

controversial statutes ever written. Congress passed the law primarily to prevent gangsters from taking

money they earned illegally and investing it in legitimate businesses.

What does that mean in English? It is a two-step process to prove that a person or an organization has

violated RICO.

• The prosecutor must show that the defendant committed two or more racketeering acts, which are any

14 Unit 1 The Legal Environment

Money Laundering Cases and Prosecutorial Ethics

Federal prosecutors have sharply increased the number of people they charge with money laundering.

Because more people are funneling drug money out of the country? Not necessarily, argue defense

lawyers. They say that prosecutors are now routinely adding on money laundering charges to cases that

used to be routine fraud cases. For example, a medical supply company bills the federal government for

prosthetic devices that it never delivered. Formerly, that would have been a simple Medicare fraud case.

Additional Case: United States v. Kennard

7

Facts: The reverend Abraham Kennard bilked hundreds of churches out of millions of dollars through a

phony grant scheme. Abraham created the Network International Investment Corporation and then

approached churches and other nonprofits with an offer: for every $3,000 in membership fees that an

organization paid to the Network, the Network would award $500,000 in grants. Abraham told investors

that the grants were possible because he had secured wealthy investors who would provide financing, and

The investors never received their money and Abraham was found guilty of various crimes. Laboyce

was found guilty of money laundering. He appealed, arguing there was insufficient proof that he

knowingly laundered money.

Issue: Was there sufficient evidence that Laboyce knowingly laundered money?

Holding: Yes, conviction affirmed. Laboyce claims that there was not enough evidence for a jury to find

beyond a reasonable doubt either the existence of a criminal agreement or his knowing participation in it.

Chapter 7 Crime 15

To convict Laboyce on the money laundering conspiracy charge, the prosecution had to prove that

some agreement existed to launder the proceeds of Abraham’s fraud scheme, and that Laboyce knowingly

participated in that agreement. The extent of Laboyce’s knowledge of the details in the conspiracy does

Laboyce was also involved in Network events. For example: Laboyce went with Abraham to a

Network meeting in Charlotte, North Caroline at which Abraham gave Network members fake checks

instead of the promised grant money; Laboyce videotaped Abraham at a fake groundbreaking ceremony

for a Network resort which was used to hold off member complaints; Laboyce “worked security” at a

This evidence, according to the court, was enough for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that

Laboyce knowingly participated in the conspiracy to launder the proceeds of the fraud.

Question: What is money laundering?

Question: How did the money laundering occur here?

Answer: Payments received from members based on a fraudulent investment scheme was passed

through two accounts to hide their source and relationship to Abraham.

Question: If Laboyce did not commit the fraud, what crime did he commit?

Question: How is that different than money laundering?

Punishing a Corporation

Fines

The most common punishment for a corporation is a fine. This makes sense in that the purpose of a

business is to earn a profit, and a fine, theoretically, hurts. But most fines are modest by the present

standards of corporate wealth.

Compliance Programs

Multiple Choice Questions

1. In a criminal case, which statement is true?

(a) The prosecution must prove the government’s case by a preponderance of the evidence.

(b) The criminal defendant is entitled to a lawyer even if she cannot afford to pay for it herself.

16 Unit 1 The Legal Environment

(c) The police are never allowed to question the accused without a lawyer present.

(d) All federal crimes are felonies.

2. The police are not required to obtain a warrant before conducting a search if:

(a) A reliable informant has told them they will find evidence of a crime in a particular location.

(b) They have a warrant for part of a property and another section of the property is in plain view.

(c) They see someone on the street who could possibly have committed a criminal act.

(d) Someone living on the property has consented to the search.

3. Under the exclusionary rule, which statement is true?

(a) Evidence must be excluded from trial if the search warrant is defective, even if the police

believed at the time of the search that it was valid.

(b) The prosecution cannot use any evidence the police found at the site of the illegal search but it

can use any evidence the police discover elsewhere as a result of the illegal search.

(c) Any statements a defendant makes after arrest are inadmissible if the police do not read him his

Miranda rights.

(d) If a conviction is overturned because of the exclusionary rule, the prosecution is not allowed to

retry the defendant.

4. Benry asks his girlfriend Alina to drive his car to the repair shop. She drives his car alright, to Las

Vegas where she hits the slots. Alina has committed

(a) Fraud

(b) Embezzlement

(c) Larceny

(d) A RICO violation

5. Which of the following elements is required for a RICO conviction:

(a) Investment in a legitimate business

(b) Two or more criminal acts

(c) Maintaining or acquiring businesses through criminal activity

(d) Operating a business through criminal activity

Chapter 7 Crime 17

Essay Questions

1. You Be the Judge: WRITING PROBLEM. An undercover drug informant learned from a

mutual friend that Philip Friedman “knew where to get marijuana.” The informant asked Friedman

three times to get him some marijuana, and Friedman agreed after the third request. Shortly thereafter

Friedman sold the informant a small amount of the drug. The informant later offered to sell Friedman

three pounds of marijuana. They negotiated the price and then made the sale. Friedman was tried for

trafficking in drugs. He argued entrapment. Was Friedman entrapped? Argument for Friedman: The

undercover agent had to ask three times before Friedman sold him a small amount of drugs. A real

drug dealer, predisposed to commit the crime, leaps at an opportunity to sell. If the government

spends time and money luring innocent people into the commission of crimes, all of us are the losers.

Argument for the Government: Government officials suspected Friedman of being a sophisticated

drug dealer, and they were right. When he had a chance to buy three pounds, a quantity only a dealer

would purchase, he not only did so, but bargained with skill, showing a working knowledge of the

business. Friedman was not entrapped—he was caught.

So.2d 50, 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 179 (1994).

2. Conley owned video poker machines. Although they are outlawed in Pennsylvania, he placed them in

bars and clubs. He used profits from the machines to buy more machines. Is he guilty of money

laundering?

3. Karin made illegal firearm purchases at a gun show. At her trial, she alleged that she had committed

this crime because her boyfriend had threatened to harm her and her two daughters if she did not. Her

lawyer asked the judge to instruct the jury that the prosecution had an obligation to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that Karin had acted freely. Instead, the judge told the jury that Karin had the burden

of proving duress by a preponderance of the evidence. Who is correct?

4. An informant bought drugs from Dorian. The police obtained a search warrant to search Dorian’s

house. But before they acted on the warrant, they sent the informant back to try again. This time,

Dorian said he did not have any drugs. The police then acted on the warrant and searched his house.

Did the police have probable cause?

18 Unit 1 The Legal Environment

5. Shawn was caught stealing letters from mailboxes. After pleading guilty, he was sentenced to two

months’ in prison and three years’ supervised release. One of the supervised release conditions

required him to stand outside a post office for eight hours wearing a signboard stating, “I stole mail.

This is my punishment.” He appealed this requirement on the grounds that it constituted cruel and

unusual punishment. Do you agree?

Answer: The appeals court affirmed the sentence on the grounds that it did not violate standards of

Discussion Questions

1. Under British law, a police officer must now say the following to a suspect placed under arrest: “You

do not have to say anything. But if you do not mention now something which you later use in your

defense, the court may decide that your failure to mention it now strengthens the case against you. A

record will be made of anything you say and it may be given in evidence if you are brought to trial.”

What is the goal of this British law? What does a police officer in the United States have to say, and

what difference does it make at the time of an arrest? Which approach is better?

Answer: Answers will vary. In both British law and American law, the police may not force a

2. ETHICS You are a prosecutor who thinks it is possible that Naonka, in her role as CEO of a

brokerage firm, has stolen money from her customers, many of whom are not well-off. If you charge

her and her company with RICO violations, you know that she is likely to plea bargain because

otherwise her assets and those of the company may be frozen by the court. As part of the plea bargain,

you might be able to get her to disclose evidence about other people who might have taken part in this

criminal activity. But you do not have any hard evidence at this point. Would such an indictment be

ethical? Do the ends justify the means? Is it worth it to harm Naonka for the chance of protecting

thousands of innocent investors?

3. Van is brought to the police station for questioning about a shooting at a mall. The police read him his

Miranda rights. For the rest of the three hour interrogation, he remains silent except for a few one

word responses. Has he waived his right to remain silent? Can those few words be used against him in

court?

Answer: In Berghuis v. Thompkins,130 S. Ct. 2250, the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that to maintain

4. Police arrested Bennie on a warrant issued in a neighboring county. When they searched him, the

police found drugs and a gun. Only later did the police discover that, when they had used the warrant,

Chapter 7 Crime 19

it was not valid because it had been recalled months earlier. The notice of recall had not been entered

into the database. Should the evidence of drugs and a gun be suppressed under the exclusionary rule?

Answer: In Herring v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 695, the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that this type of

5. Andy was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). He had already been convicted of

another driving offense. The court in the first offense was notified of this later DUI charge and took

that information into consideration when determining Andy’s sentence. Did the state violate Andy’s

protection against double jeopardy when it subsequently tried and convicted him for the DUI offense?

Answer: The court in a similar case ruled that there was no double jeopardy because the additional