Class 4. Distinguishing Case Law Exercise

Transcription

1 Class 4 Distinguishing Case Law Exercise

2 Scenario 1:You are a defense attorney. State v. Dopey: Our client, Dopey, was pulled over in his Honda Civic by the police for a broken tail light. Noticing that our client had bloodshot eyes, and looked spacey, the policeman ordered our client out of the car to perform a sobriety test, which he failed. We moved to have the charges dropped because the police violated Dopey s FourthAmendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The State argues that the police had probable cause (of illegality) to order Dopey out of the car to perform a sobriety test, because they saw his bloodshot eyes and his spacey look.

3 Only precedent: State v. Boozer: The police pulled over Boozer in his hot-red Corvette for a broken headlight. Upon speaking to Boozer through the window, the police smelled a strong smell of alcohol on Boozer s breath and noticed slurred speech. The policeman ordered Boozer out of the car to perform a sobriety test, which he failed. Boozer s motion to have the charges dropped because of the violation of his FourthAmendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was denied by the court, which explained that the strong smell of alcohol on Boozer s breath, combined with the slurred speech, was enough probable cause of illegality to justify ordering Boozer to perform a sobriety test. Can you distinguish State v. Boozerfrom our case?

4 Possible answer: State v. Boozeris not applicable to our case since the Boozerdecision involved telltale signs of drunkenness, which served as the necessary probable cause of illegality to justify a search of Boozer. Our case, by contrast, involved no such telltale signs. Neither Dopey s bloodshot eyes or spaciness is a telltale sign of drunkenness or drug use. His bloodshot eyes could be caused by lack of sleep, allergies, or contact lens problems. His spaciness could be caused by stress or lack of sleep.

5 Scenario 2:You are a State prosecutor State v. Dopey: Defendant, Dopey, was pulled over in his Honda Civic by the police for a broken tail light. Noticing a strong smell of alcohol on his breath and his slurred speech, the police ordered Dopey out of the car to perform a sobriety test, which he failed. Dopey moved to have the charges dropped because the police violated Dopey s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. You argued that the police had probable cause (of illegality) to order Dopey out of the car to perform a sobriety test because they noticed a strong smell of alcohol on his breath and his slurred speech.

6 Our state s only precedent: State v. Boozer(As described in Scenario 1) Dopey s defense counsel argued that the Boozercase is distinguishable from our scenario because Dopey was pulled over in a Honda Civic, while the defendant in Boozerwas pulled over in a hot-red Corvette. Appearing drunk in a hot-red Corvette provides probable cause that justified a sobriety test; Being pulled over in a Honda Civic does not. How would you counter-argue against Dopey s argument that the Boozer case is distinguishable?

7 Possible answer: Dopey s attempt to distinguish Boozeris dopey! [No I would not write that in motion papers!] Boozer is exactly on point. That Dopey s car was different than the defendant s car in Boozeris irrelevant. It is a distinction without a difference. Boozer s car was not even mentioned in the Boozercourt s reasoning. The only facts mentioned in Boozerjustifying the court s finding of probable cause was the smell of alcohol and the defendant s slurred speech. Those exact elements are identical in this case, and the court must follow the Boozer precedent and reject Dopey s motion.