CRJ 551 DRNC Scenario (for Module 8) This Scenario is aligned with the following course objectives: 2. Explain supervisory liability under the U.S. Constitution and relevant statutes. 3. Summarize the exclusionary rule’s effect on criminal prosecutions and civil liability. 4. Compare police power, authority, and responsibility with limits on police authority. 6. Determine general police authority to detain, including consensual encounters, investigative detention, and stop-and-frisk. 7. Define lawful arrest; determine situations of lawful arrest with and without a warrant. 12. Explain the circumstances under which a search may be conducted without a warrant. Background The following story is a fictional account of an incident related to the mythical Democratic-Republican National Convention (DRNC) event in Miami, Florida. The story is loosely based on an amalgamation of real-life occurrences leading up to the Free Trade Area of the Americas conference in Miami, Florida, in 2003. The names of all the characters in the story are fictional. As you read the story, keep in mind what ethical and legal issues are likely to arise. At the end of the story, you will be asked to respond to several questions related to this scenario. Case Study – Greenpeace v. Miami-Dade County One month had elapsed since the conclusion of the DRNC event in Miami-Dade County. By most accounts, the event went well. There were only a few reports of vandalism with only minor damage to some storefront businesses in Downtown Miami. The most severe injury associated with the event occurred as the result of an accidental car crash near the entrance to the Port of Miami. The driver of a cargo truck lost control of his rig as he turned onto Port Boulevard and the truck jackknifed. The driver sustained a broken leg as a result. No other serious injuries, accidental or intentional, were reported throughout the week of the event. The Miami-Dade Police reported only 25 event-related arrests during the entire week. By comparison, there were 234 reported arrests during the FTAA event in 2003. As expected, there were several citizen complaints filed against the Miami-Dade Police officers during the event. The MDPD Police Legal Bureau had anticipated that complaints and lawsuits would be filed, and they were ready to defend against myriad litigations. This was the pattern that had occurred in all previous events such as this one, starting with the WTO civil disturbances in Seattle in 1999 and continuing with a number of similar special events over the years. Indeed, the filing of civil lawsuits against the police after these events had become part of the protest groups’ playbook. Just like the police planned for the before, during, and after of these large scale special events, so did the opposition. Political influencer groups such as Root Cause, Amnesty International, and Greenpeace (to name just a .

1. CRJ 551 DRNC Scenario (for Module 8)
This Scenario is aligned with the following course objectives:
2. Explain supervisory liability under the U.S. Constitution and
relevant statutes.
3. Summarize the exclusionary rule’s effect on criminal
prosecutions and civil liability.
4. Compare police power, authority, and responsibility with
limits on police authority.
6. Determine general police authority to detain, including
consensual encounters, investigative
detention, and stop-and-frisk.
7. Define lawful arrest; determine situations of lawful arrest
with and without a warrant.
12. Explain the circumstances under which a search may be
conducted without a warrant.
Background
The following story is a fictional account of an incident related
to the mythical Democratic-Republican
National Convention (DRNC) event in Miami, Florida. The
story is loosely based on an amalgamation of

2. real-life occurrences leading up to the Free Trade Area of the
Americas conference in Miami, Florida, in
2003. The names of all the characters in the story are fictional.
As you read the story, keep in mind what ethical and legal
issues are likely to arise. At the end of the
story, you will be asked to respond to several questions related
to this scenario.
Case Study – Greenpeace v. Miami-Dade County
One month had elapsed since the conclusion of the DRNC event
in Miami-Dade County. By most
accounts, the event went well. There were only a few reports of
vandalism with only minor damage to
some storefront businesses in Downtown Miami. The most
severe injury associated with the event
occurred as the result of an accidental car crash near the
entrance to the Port of Miami. The driver of a
cargo truck lost control of his rig as he turned onto Port
Boulevard and the truck jackknifed. The driver
sustained a broken leg as a result. No other serious injuries,
accidental or intentional, were reported
throughout the week of the event. The Miami-Dade Police
reported only 25 event-related arrests
during the entire week. By comparison, there were 234 reported

3. arrests during the FTAA event in 2003.
As expected, there were several citizen complaints filed against
the Miami-Dade Police officers during
the event. The MDPD Police Legal Bureau had anticipated that
complaints and lawsuits would be filed,
and they were ready to defend against myriad litigations. This
was the pattern that had occurred in all
previous events such as this one, starting with the WTO civil
disturbances in Seattle in 1999 and
continuing with a number of similar special events over the
years. Indeed, the filing of civil lawsuits
against the police after these events had become part of the
protest groups’ playbook. Just like the
police planned for the before, during, and after of these large
scale special events, so did the opposition.
Political influencer groups such as Root Cause, Amnesty
International, and Greenpeace (to name just a
few) consider civil litigation after the event to be an important
tactic at their disposal. The post-event
litigation is viewed as a continuation of a never-ending political
struggle against the establishment
authorities. One of those civil suits was filed by the ACLU on
behalf of the organization Greenpeace.

4. The case was filed as Greenpeace v. Miami-Dade County. Also
named in the lawsuit were Major Louis
Warren (Incident Commander for the DNRC special event) and
Captain Earl Bishop (Commander of Task
Force 5).
The Circumstances Leading Up to the Case
On the fourth day of the DRNC event, there was an AFL-
CIO/Teamsters rally that was scheduled to
occur at the Amphitheater within the secured Bayfront Park area
(refer to the map attachment titled
DRNC Area of Operations PowerPoint). The event planners had
reluctantly agreed to open the
Amphitheater for a one-hour “pep rally” for up to a thousand
participants. Months earlier, police
planners, including Major Warren and Captain Bishop had
argued against this move because the
Amphitheater was located within the fenced-in secure
exclusionary zone that had been designated
months before. Allowing a crowd of 1,000 participants to enter
the middle of the exclusionary zone was
thought to be an unnecessarily risky move. Once inside the
exclusionary zone, such a large number of
protestors could be difficult to control. Their proximity to the

5. main venue at the American Airlines
Arena and to the sole entrance into the Port of Miami was also a
concern. This was a critical choke point
where the slightest disruption by protestors could lead to
considerable chaos in the entire area.
Another reason why the police planners opposed the idea of
allowing a rally at the Amphitheater was
that they considered it as being unnecessary. The police
planners had already designated a “First
Amendment Zone” directly north of the American Airlines
Arena. This First Amendment Zone was ideal
in that it was only 300 feet from the AA arena, thus allowing
the protestors a nearby area where they
had direct line-of-sight to the main venue. In this location the
protestors were near enough to see and
been seen by the many TV cameras covering the event. The
First Amendment Zone was set up in the
City’s Bicentennial Park, which had adequate restroom facilities
and shade. It was an ideal location to
stage a protest, while at the same time, it was separated from
the AA arena by a deep-water cut-in. This
300 foot separation between the First Amendment Zone and the
AA arena provided a safe buffer zone
that kept the convention attendees separate and safe from the

6. protestors.
Despite the advice of Major Warren and other police planners,
the policy makers at the political level
decided to press the issue and allow for a one-hour event at the
Amphitheater within the exclusionary
zone. As a concession, the police planners were at least able to
get the policy makers to agree to make
this a ticketed event, where only people with the proper tickets
and credentials would be allowed to
enter. This allowed the police and security guards to make all
participants in the rally be subject to a
limited search as a condition of entry into the venue. This was
a compromise that all parties (including
the AFL-CIO and Teamsters) agreed to, but not everyone was in
complete agreement with the idea of
allowing potential protestors inside the exclusionary zone.
On the day of the AFL-CIO/Teamster rally at the Bayfront Park
Amphitheater, there were very few
incidents of note. Approximately one-thousand ticketed
participants passed through entry gates
without any problems. Similar to a ticketed sporting event or
concert, the people going inside the venue

7. had provided tacit consent to a limited body and package search
as a condition of entry. This was an
acceptable practice used at football games, concerts, and theme
parks such as Disney World and
Universal Studios.
Despite the mostly uneventful rally, there was one incident
which proved problematic, and eventually
led to the lawsuit by Greenpeace against Miami-Dade Police.
Earlier that day there had been several
reports of protestors hanging banners from the Metro-rail
station in Overtown. There was another
report of a small group of protestors chaining themselves to
each other with contraptions called
“Sleeping Dragons.” Arrests were made in both incidents.
As the rally at the Amphitheater commenced, there were still
about a hundred people standing in line
waiting to get in. Security guards at the entry gate called for
Miami-Dade Police to respond, as a minor
disturbance had broken out. Two males wearing Greenpeace t-
shirts were attempting to gain entry into
the rally. Both of them had entry tickets on their possession
and were wearing school-type backpacks.
When the security guards asked them to open the backpacks so
that they could inspect the contents

8. inside, the two gentlemen from Greenpeace refused. At that
point, the guards advised the two
gentlemen that they would not be allowed into the venue unless
they agreed to the search. For a few
brief moments, the two Greenpeace protestors became irate and
argued with the security guards.
Meanwhile, the people in line waiting to get into the event were
becoming increasingly impatient since
the rally had already commenced. After a brief argument, the
two Greenpeace protestors decided to
walk away as they saw two Miami-Dade Police officers walking
toward the entry gate.
Moments later, the security guard who had called for the police
pointed out the two Greenpeace
protestors to the two police officers. The guard stated,
“officers… those two guys who are leaving… I
think they may have something in their backpacks that they
don’t want me to see.”
The two officers followed the two Greenpeace protestors and
were able to catch up to them as they
walked away at a brisk pace. The officers ordered the two
protestors to stop and they did. One officer
asked the Greenpeace protestors, “What’s in the backpack?”

9. One of the protestors said, “nothing… just my personal items.”
The officer grabbed hold of one of the backpacks and pulled it
off the back of the protestor. Without
asking permission, the officer opened the backpack and pulled
out several items. Inside the bag were
two spray paint cans, a can of pepper spray, a cell phone, 20’ of
rope, a pair of leather gloves, a first-aid
kit, a pair of handcuffs, and a pocket knife. The second bag
also contained many of the same items, but
had a slingshot and ball bearings in it too. Both Greenpeace
protestors were placed under arrest for
carrying concealed weapons. The items inside both backpacks
were impounded as evidence.
The arresting officers placed the two Greenpeace protestors into
the caged backseat of one of the police
cars and transported them to the temporary booking facility
nearby. While en-route to the booking
facility, the officers raised a Homeland Security Task Force
detective on the radio and asked him to meet
them there. A protocol had been established whereby all
prisoners would be interrogated by Homeland
Security investigators prior to being booked into the jail.

10. Upon arrival at the booking facility, the two prisoners were
separated into different holding cells. This is
a standard procedure for interrogating subjects. The reason for
separating the prisoners is to keep them
from corroborating their stories, and so that the interrogating
detective can try to get them in a
contradiction that can later be used against them.
The Homeland Security detective interrogated the first prisoner
in one room, while the two arresting
officers sat in another room with the second subject as they
filled out their A-Forms (arrest affidavits)
and property reports. At no time were Miranda warnings read to
either of the two subjects in custody.
Later it was earned that the detective had wrongly assumed that
the two arresting officers had read the
subjects their Miranda warnings. Since the two officers had not
interrogated the subjects, they had not
seen any reason for reading the warnings. They had assumed
that the interrogating detective would
read the Miranda warnings at the appropriate time. Regardless
of who was at fault, the Miranda
warnings were not read to either subject.
During the course of the interrogations, the Homeland Security
detective learned from one of the

11. subjects that there were at least two other Greenpeace protestors
who were planning on chaining
themselves to the outer Amphitheater fence with handcuffs in an
attempt to disrupt the event and
attract television media coverage. According to the account of
one of the arrested protestors, the
second pair of protestors was also supposed to be wearing
Greenpeace t-shirts and had backpacks filled
with handcuffs, slingshots, and pepper spray just like they had.
Upon learning of the plan of the other Greenpeace protestors to
handcuff themselves to the exterior
fence of the Amphitheater, the Homeland Security detective
radioed a BOLO (Be On the Look Out) for
the two subjects matching the description provided by one of
the arrested protestors. Within minutes,
other officers in the area spotted the second pair of Greenpeace
protestors as they mingled with the
large crowd that was gathering outside the Amphitheater as the
rally was going on inside. Based on the
description and the account provided by one of the arrested
protestors, the officers stopped and seized
the backpack from the two new protestors. Thinking they had
sufficient probable cause, the officers

12. searched the two backpacks and found a number of items such
as handcuffs, pepper spray, slingshots,
ball bearings, and pocket knives. Based on the information
provided by one of the first two arrestees,
and the search and seizure of the weapons inside the two new
backpacks, the second pair of protestors
was arrested and charged with Carrying Concealed Weapons.
Post-Arrest
A month later, lawyers for the four defendants (the Greenpeace
protestors) filed a motion in the County
Court, Criminal Misdemeanor Division to suppress the stops
and the evidence recovered in the packs.
Written Exercise Instructions
For this assignment, you are to play the role of the Miami-Dade
County Court, Criminal Misdemeanors
Division judge who is hearing the motion to suppress on behalf
of the four defendants. Your job is to
write an opinion finding whether the physical evidence and
testimonial evidence is admissible at trial (or

13. not), and to state the law that supports your ruling. Your ruling
will be divided in two sections: one for
the two protesters who were first arrested, and a second ruling
for the second two who were arrested.
You are to include in your ruling all of the legal issues you
identify. These legal issues have been covered
in the course material. You are not required to cite cases by
name (you may if you wish), but cite the
legal theories that are relevant to resolving the motions to
suppress. The minimum length is 1,200 words.
You are to double-space the paper and use APA format. You are
to include the Saint Leo core value of
personal development within the ruling as it pertains to officer
conduct.
Written exercise grades are weighted as follows (total 80
points):
a. Organization of paper: 20 points
b. Mechanics and writing process (spelling, grammar, clarity of
thought, writing): 20 points
c. Correct statements of the law: 20 points
d. Core value integration: 20 points
Resources (click the links below)

14. DRNC Area of Operations PowerPoint (PDF file)
Related scenario from CRJ-550
http://documents.saintleo.edu/docs/CRJ551/DRNC_Area_of_Op
eration.pdf
http://documents.saintleo.edu/docs/CRJ551/Related_Scenario_D
esign_for_CRJ550.pdf