Case Studies

Generally, anything with the word "social" does NOT belong in a legal analysis.

I am NOT knocking down social movements or social media. I am teaching you how things work in court and the law, not on Facebook, Instagram, or X. 

I would also advise you not to try to make legal and rational arguments about the law or science on Facebook, Instagram, or X. Those platforms are not designed for deep, detailed, critical thinking. You can visit and live in both worlds, just remember where you are. 

Fairness and Justice are about analyzing facts and administering decisions "blindly." That is, not caring about who anyone is, how rich or powerful they are, what color they are, or any other demographic that has no bearing on the case. 

Social media, social justice, and social movements are all worthless in legal analysis. Those issues change frequently and are not arguments used in courtrooms or considered in the analysis of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, stops, frisks, arrests, searches, and seizures. 

You will need to learn the definitions of these and many other terms, which is how the law works. Movements and "isms" are not helpful in this analysis.

Here are some things to remember that may help you in legal analysis. 

1. You don't have to agree with the law (or anything) to analyze it. 

2. You should be able to determine that a suspect's rights were violated, even if, for example, the suspect molested and killed two children. 

3. Determining that a horrible person's rights were violated does not mean you agree with or support what the person did; it means you can identify a legal fact.

4. Imagine everyone as a stick figure. Stick Figure A killed Stick Figure B. That is the only way you will learn legal analysis.

5. Filter out the noise of the social world and enter the world of science, law, and facts.

6. Read the details of what you are analyzing. The real world of science, law, and medicine is based on details. Soundbytes, slogans, name-calling, and 30-second viral videos belong on social media and are not part of critical thinking.

7. Attacking the motives of a person, profession, organization, religion,  or race of one of the parties in a case is useless and means you have a weak legal argument. 

8. Argue about facts, not conclusions. If you think there was an illegal search, state the legal facts that back up your case. Stating a conclusion without supporting data is not an argument, it is an opinion.

9. Don't be emotional. Be rational, reasonable, and think critically. 

10. Relax, open your mind, and enjoy learning new things. Learning is not controversial and can be fun.

The case studies will be in a short answer format in my classes now, so it is just like you are taking an exam with several differences.

Time to Complete: You will have much more time to access and complete the case study than a traditional exam. The Case Study will be open and available until the due date or until you have completed all of your work. When you have completed everything, click "Save and Submit" at the bottom of the exam. Check your Blackboard class syllabus or the due date schedule under the "Case Studies" link to see when each case study is due.

Saving Unfinished Work: You can work on the case study a little at a time and modify your work as long as you have NOT clicked "Save and Submit" your work. Blackboard saves your progress automatically as you are working, but you can also manually click "Save Answer" next to each question or "Save All Answers" at the bottom of the page.  

Safeguard Your Work: Even though Blackboard will save your work, it's a good practice to back up your work elsewhere. Many things can go wrong in the online digital world. Bad internet connections or browser issues can cause your work not to be saved to Blackboard. I recommend copying and pasting your hard work into a Word doc, .rtf doc, .txt doc., Google docs, or someplace not related to Blackboard on your computer or tablet, just in case. 

Grading: Once you submit the Case study, I must grade it manually. This can take a few days, depending on what I have going on, so please be patient. You will see that each part of the case study has a point value. 

If you are taking your class online, the value of each section will usually be 10 points, making each case study worth 50 points for a total of 150 points for 3 case studies. 

If you are taking my face-to-face classes, each case study will be worth 66 or 67 points for a total of 200 points for the three case studies. Therefore, each question or part will be worth 13 or 14 points. 

Use Complete Sentences and Paragraphs: Remember that submitting a case study through this method in Blackboard is the same as writing a case study in a Word document and submitting that through Blackboard. Use complete sentences and paragraphs, good grammar, and be thorough. This is not a one-word or phrase answer for each part of the case study. I have picked this method of submission because of all the issues students have with formatting, using templates,  and completing all of the parts of a case study. This way you can very clearly see what section is required, what is expected, and the point value for that section. 

Why does Lorenz have each part of a case brief as a separate question in Blackboard?

After years of assigning case studies (case briefs), I have experienced all kinds of submissions from students and all kinds of formatting. Empty Word documents, links to Google docs that go nowhere. Wild formatting is affected by web browsers, user errors, not closing documents before attaching them to Blackboard, etc. It's a nightmare of time-consuming communication between me and the student. Not to mention some students who paste everything in one giant block of text with no formatting. Therefore, I have broken each part of a case study (brief) down into one short answer question as follows:

QUESTION 1

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

We will most often analyze criminal cases in my classes. That means an investigation or incident led to an arrest, trial, conviction, and appeal. 

Name and describe the defendant in the case. For example, in Miranda v. Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with rape. Describe how that happened. How did he become a suspect? What investigation led to his arrest? 

Who, What, When, Where, Why, How

Was there a search conducted, a stop, a frisk, questioning by police, or any other "procedure" by the police that may be the subject of a legal argument? Describe what the police did in this section or what the victim said or did.

This most often includes a summary of events that lead to an arrest and trial of the defendant. 

What other appellate courts were involved in this case you are analyzing? What was the path of this case from trial court up through the appeals courts?

It should also include some of the arguments, claims, or motions made by the parties in the case related to the reason for the appeal. For example, a person may be arrested for possessing a controlled substance. His attorney may have argued that police conducted an illegal search and that the evidence should be suppressed and not used against him during the trial. After the defendant’s conviction, this objection provides the basis for the defendant’s appeal to an appellate court. This summary should include a description of the reasoning and ruling of the trial courts involved in this case.  This summary may also include the original trial court judge’s ruling on the issue and possibly that trial court judge’s reasoning. 

Example of how-to answer this section - using Illinois v. Gates (1983). You can compare my paraphrase (below in blue) of what happened and how the case got to the Supreme Court to what the Court wrote in their Syllabus located at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/462/213/#tab-opinion-1955092 .

In May of 1978, the Bloomingdale Illinois Police Department received an anonymous letter that contained information that Mr. and Mrs. Gates were involved in selling drugs. Specifically, the anonymous letter gave details about the wife driving the car to Florida on May 3rd to be loaded with drugs, and the husband would fly to Florida and drive the car back with the trunk of the car loaded with drugs. The police did not know the identity of the letter writer, but they corroborated as much of the information as they could with their own independent investigation. The local police contacted the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) and found out that Mr. Gates, the husband, took the flight, stayed in a motel room registered under the wife's name, and then left the following morning in the car registered in the wife's name. A search warrant was obtained for the Gate's residence from an Illinois State Court Judge based on all of the described activity, including a copy of the anonymous letter. When Gates arrived home, the police waited for them and executed the search warrant. They found marihuana and other contraband in the home and the car. 

The trial court suppressed all of the evidence in the car and the house, and the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the suppression of the evidence. The Illinois Supreme Court also affirmed the suppression of the drugs and contraband, holding that the letter and the affidavit for the search warrant were insufficient to establish probable cause using the Aguilar and Spinelli "two-pronged test". The Illinois Supreme Court stated that since the police could not establish the anonymous informant's basis of knowledge (how he knew what he knew) and therefore the informant's veracity and reliability could not be determined (under the Aguilar/Spinelli) standard. 

The Supreme Court then agreed to hear this case on certiorari. 

QUESTION 2

ISSUES / QUESTIONS: 

Each appellate case will have a legal basis for appeal in which one party will assert that an error was committed during the original trial. Using the example above, the defendant’s attorney may argue that his client's conviction should be reversed because of a violation of his client’s rights. Even though Ryan's attorney is making the argument, it will be phrased as if Ryan is making the argument because he is the defendant. "Ryan asserts that his 4th amendment rights were violated when police searched his house without a warrant". 

The issues or questions here are the procedural or legal issues. Was there a search, by definition? Was the search justified? Was the warrantless search justified? Should evidence located during the search of Ryan's house have been admitted in the trial court? 

Here is how you should word this part of your case study. I paraphrased the first question from Illinois v. Gates. I quoted directly the second question the Court considered or asked. I am okay with students directly quoting the questions articulated in the Court case, as I did in this example below in "quotes." 

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the 4th Amendment allows an anonymous informant's tip to justify the issuance of a search warrant to search a residence. The Court describes the question they will address in this case in several places. 

"Rather, we consider the question originally presented in the petition for certiorari and conclude that the Illinois Supreme Court read the requirements of our Fourth Amendment decisions too restrictively" (p. 459). The Court here was referring to the lower courts ruling the evidence obtained from the Gates home and vehicle by use of a search warrant, should not be allowed as evidence because the search warrant was based on an anonymous tip (a letter mailed to the police about the Gates drug activity). 

We now turn to the question presented in the State's original petition for certiorari, which requires us to decide whether respondents' rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by the search of their car and house (p. 462).

The Supreme Court also requested the parties of this case to address the modification of the exclusionary rule, but since the lower courts did not address this issue specifically, the Court stated it would not address that issue in this case.  

"[W]hether the rule requiring the exclusion at a criminal trial of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961); Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914), should to any extent be modified, so as, for example, not to require the exclusion of evidence obtained in the reasonable belief that the search and seizure at issue was consistent with the Fourth Amendment." 

"We held early on that § 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 furnished us with no jurisdiction unless a federal question had been both raised and decided in the state court below" (p. 462).

QUESTION 3

JUDGMENT / RULING / DECISION: This is the outcome of the case, the final decision handed down by the highest appellate court. Was the original outcome of the trial court affirmed, reversed, remanded, modified, etc? 

If this is a Supreme Court case, give the vote outcome. 

Was this a 5-4 decision, meaning five justices agreed with each other and four dissented or disagreed? Name the justices and how they voted. Who drafted the opinion of the court? Who wrote dissenting opinions?

Questions you should answer in this section:

1. What was the ruling?

2. Who delivered the opinion of the court? Name the concurring justices?

3. What was the vote (5-4), (6-3), etc?

4. Name the dissenting justices.

5. Who filed (wrote) opinions and who joined?

Here is how you should phrase these answers in a paragraph. I will use the case of Illinois v. Gates (1983) as an example.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the court. Justices Burger, Blackmun, Powell, O'Connor, and White concurred. Justice White also filed a concurring opinion. 

Justice Brennan filed a dissenting opinion joined by Marshall. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion joined by Brennan. 

QUESTION 4

REASONING, RATIONALE, HOLDING: What was the Court's reasoning for voting the way they did? What legal arguments and/or precedents did they use? When reading a case, look for the word "Held:" What follows is usually a sentence or several sentences and sometimes a paragraph or two. As an example, look at the syllabus in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). In that case, the "holding" is followed by the "ruling" of the Supreme Court. 

Held: The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, and  petitioner's trial and conviction without the assistance of counsel violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455, overruled. 

Reversed and cause remanded 

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/335/#tab-opinion-1944168

Here is how you should answer this question generally. I will use Illinois v. Gates again.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the question of whether the rule requiring the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the 4th amendment should be modified because it was not presented or decided by the Illinois courts. 

The Supreme Court did rule on the previous, rigid two-pronged test under the Aguilar and Spinelli decision, which required a demonstration that the tip was reliable and credible based on the known informant's veracity and basis of knowledge. Instead, the Court, in this case, argues that a new approach using "the totality of the circumstances" should be used to determine probable cause. Thus, the Court wants a magistrate who is considering the issuance of a search warrant to use a common sense approach to determine if, given all of the known facts and circumstances, there is enough probable cause to justify the search. The Court stated clearly that the Aguilar Spinelli standard is "abandoned". 

Here is a quote from the Court's holding: 

"The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. This flexible, easily applied standard will better achieve the accommodation of public and private interests that the Fourth Amendment requires than does the approach that has developed from Aguilar and Spinelli. 

3. The judge issuing the warrant had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause to search respondents' home and car existed. Under the "totality of the circumstances" analysis, corroboration of details of an informant's tip by independent police work is of significant value. Cf. Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307. Here, even standing alone, the facts obtained through the independent investigation of the Bloomingdale police officer and the DEA at least suggested that respondents were involved in drug trafficking. In addition, the judge could rely on the anonymous letter, which had been corroborated in major part by the police officer's efforts. "

QUESTION 5

YOUR THOUGHTS OR OPINION: I want your opinion or ideas about the case. Make this at least a paragraph, but more is better. Is this a good/bad decision? Why? Remember to use legal arguments and not social media arguments. You are not confined to any particular issues in this section as long as you explain and justify your opinion and stay away from AI or what someone else thinks about the case. You can also use this section to explain what you have learned by doing case studies or this case. How is this different from the general way society talks about legal issues? I want to see that this is "you" and not AI or someone else's words. Even if I disagree with you, I don't take off points for that. As always, I'll let you know what I think and explain why, but I don't judge and certainly won't punish you for your opinion. 

Here is some hints about this section. If you disagree with the Court's majority decision, read and use the dissenting opinion of the Justices who dissented in the case as your argument or reason why you disagree. Quote them and then use your own words to comment on what they said. All of the justices are brilliant and make good legal arguments whether you agree with them or not. 

Good luck!

Here is my thoughts and comments on the Illinois v. Gates (1983) decision by the Supreme Court.

I have drafted many search warrants as an investigator in the Killeen Police Department's Organized Crime Division. In college, I studied the 1983 Gates decision, a landmark case regarding the probable cause standard used by magistrates and police to determine probable cause. The "totality of circumstances" approach to determining probable cause is much more practical than the rigid two-prong test standard based on the previous cases of Aguilar and Spinelli. Many investigations begin with anonymous information. What students should know about the Gates case and other cases is that the anonymous tip or information is only the beginning of the investigation. If someone called the fire department and said a building is on fire, should the fire department not respond or investigate if the caller refuses to give his name? Of course not. In the Gates case, the police did not seek a search warrant until they investigated and viewed the activity. The police corroborated the information in the anonymous letter and detailed their investigation in the search warrant affidavit that was presented to the judge along with the anonymous letter. This does not mean that police don't always try to determine the credibility of the information they receive. Most informants are not anonymous, and I always described why I believe my informant's information was reliable and credible, and I articulated my informant's basis for knowledge.