1 PHASE 4 INDIVIDUAL PROJECT: DISCRETION Phase 4 Individual Project Criminal Justice Capstone CJUS484-1601B-01 Instructor Randall Peterson Colorado Technical University Online March 14, 2016 ABSTRACT According to the facts of the scenario‚ the two crime suspects named Steve Chapman (Suspect #1) and Keith Hopkins (Suspect #2) committed their crimes and fled the crime scene before police officers made their arrival. Luke Roberts, victim #1, was shot in the head and pronounced deceased at the scene. Mr. Liam O’Neil, victim #2, was one of the crime victims that survived the crime incident. He was able to describe the two suspects, Keith Hopkins and Steve Chapman, to the police officers. The two suspects were later arrested and taken into police custody after being positively identified based on the surviving victim’s description. The following will discuss how would discretion affect this particular case and if it would have changed the outcome from several perspectives. It is also important to point out that according to the facts of the case scenario‚ it was only after the police interviewed Suspect 2‚ Keith Hopkins‚ that they were able to get the information regarding the property that they both stole during the robbery as well as the gun that was used in executing the robbery. The police interview revealed that the stolen property from both victims was hidden in a laundry basket in Hopkin’s bedroom within his home. He also stated that Suspect 1, Steve Chapman, hid the gun used in the robbery in the attic of his house under the insulation (CTUO, 2016). It is also suspected that there may also be additional evidence in the house, but Keith Hopkins refused to give any further information and denied consent to retrieve the items within the home(s). Under the circumstances illustrated in this scenario‚ the two criminal suspects are protected by the Fourth Amendment. With that said, the police would not go ahead to search and seize the stolen property plus the gun used in committing the crime‚ without obtaining a search warrant from a magistrate. This is because according to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution‚ every U.S. Citizen has a right to be secure in their houses‚ persons‚ effects‚ and paper against any unreasonable seizures and searches. This right cannot or should not be violated or no warrants issued unless there is a probable cause that is generally supported by oath of affirmation. The warrant must say or clearly describe the particular place(s) that will be searched as well as what property or person that needs to be seized (Galiano, 2011). It is important to point out that the police officers did not apprehend the two suspects during the robbery act that went wrong. But that the police officers arrested the two suspects after they had committed the crime upon matching the victim’s description, the admission and stated location(s) of the hidden stolen property and the gun used in t ...

1. 1
PHASE 4 INDIVIDUAL PROJECT: DISCRETION
Phase 4 Individual Project
Criminal Justice Capstone
CJUS484-1601B-01
Instructor Randall Peterson
Colorado Technical University Online
March 14, 2016
ABSTRACT
According to the facts of the scenario‚ the two crime suspects
named Steve Chapman (Suspect #1) and Keith Hopkins (Suspect
#2) committed their crimes and fled the crime scene before
police officers made their arrival. Luke Roberts, victim #1, was
shot in the head and pronounced deceased at the scene. Mr.
Liam O’Neil, victim #2, was one of the crime victims that
survived the crime incident. He was able to describe the two

2. suspects, Keith Hopkins and Steve Chapman, to the police
officers. The two suspects were later arrested and taken into
police custody after being positively identified based on the
surviving victim’s description. The following will discuss how
would discretion affect this particular case and if it would have
changed the outcome from several perspectives.
It is also important to point out that according to the facts of the
case scenario‚ it was only after the police interviewed Suspect
2‚ Keith Hopkins‚ that they were able to get the information
regarding the property that they both stole during the robbery as
well as the gun that was used in executing the robbery. The
police interview revealed that the stolen property from both
victims was hidden in a laundry basket in Hopkin’s bedroom
within his home. He also stated that Suspect 1, Steve Chapman,
hid the gun used in the robbery in the attic of his house under
the insulation (CTUO, 2016). It is also suspected that there
may also be additional evidence in the house, but Keith Hopkins
refused to give any further information and denied consent to
retrieve the items within the home(s).
Under the circumstances illustrated in this scenario‚ the two
criminal suspects are protected by the Fourth Amendment. With
that said, the police would not go ahead to search and seize the
stolen property plus the gun used in committing the crime‚
without obtaining a search warrant from a magistrate. This is
because according to the Fourth Amendment of the United
States Constitution‚ every U.S. Citizen has a right to be secure
in their houses‚ persons‚ effects‚ and paper against any
unreasonable seizures and searches. This right cannot or should
not be violated or no warrants issued unless there is a probable
cause that is generally supported by oath of affirmation. The
warrant must say or clearly describe the particular place(s) that
will be searched as well as what property or person that needs
to be seized (Galiano, 2011). It is important to point out that
the police officers did not apprehend the two suspects during
the robbery act that went wrong. But that the police officers
arrested the two suspects after they had committed the crime

3. upon matching the victim’s description, the admission and
stated location(s) of the hidden stolen property and the gun used
in the robbery by Keith Hopkins in Keith Hopkins’s home. This
is a typical scenario for which a court issued search warrant is
needed to be obtained in order to carry out a search and seizure
of the stolen property and the gun from the suspects’ home(s).
By obtaining a court ordered search warrant, the evidence
retrieved will be admissible in court and not risk the possibility
of the evidence not being admitted into evidence as exhibits
before the court.
On the other hand‚ using discretion to get consent does not
require an officer to have a search warrant for him/her to carry
out a search and seize and individual or an individual’s
property. It is important to point out that probable cause is a
vital element that is always required to be demonstrated by the
prosecution during a court trial for which an individual’s house
was searched and property seized. The officers could have
therefore searched the two suspects using their discretion if they
could have found them in a number of different circumstances‚
which would generally give them the consent to carry out the
search and seize the appropriate property.
One of such circumstances is plain view. Plain view refers to
when there is a certain object connected with a crime‚ which
has been committed by a suspect‚ can generally be seen by the
involved police officer from a given place where that officer
has a right to be. In this case‚ if the officers could have
stopped and frisked the two suspects and found the stolen
property and the gun in their car or in Steve Chapman’s
possession‚ the police officers could not have needed any search
warrant‚ but they would have used their discretion to get the
consent to seize these property. The second circumstances
where the officers would have had carried out a search and
seizure of the suspects’ property would have been if the
scenario involving a hot pursuit. A hot pursuit normally takes
place when police officers are chasing crime suspects and know
where the crime suspects are. This would change this case

4. scenario in that if the police had arrived at the crime scene
while the two suspects were still carrying out the robbery‚ they
were then chased by the police and then hid themselves at
Hopkins’ apartment. Only then would the police officers would
have gotten the consent from their discretion and they could
have carried out the search and seize property that would have
been used as evidence against the two suspects in the court of
law. These are the two circumstances that are applicable to this
scenario and could have changed the scenario if discretion was
to be used by police officers to get the legally required consent
to search and seize the property of the suspects.
It is important to point out that a state attorney has
prosecutorial discretion. This would allow the prosecution to
look at all the involved circumstances of this case; which may
include the criminal record of the suspect‚ the suspects’ ability
to show remorse to the victims of the crime‚ and the suspects’
corporation during the process in deciding whether to charge as
well as what to charge (Hall, 2014). It is thus important to
point out that in this case scenario‚ the state attorney could
have used his/her discretion to charge the two suspects with
charges that are less or more severe that the charges that had
been levied by the involved police officers. The state attorney
would have to file charges for the specific crimes for which the
involved police officers arrested the two suspects‚ or the state
attorney could use his/her consent to decide to drop certain
charges for which the two suspects had been charged by the
involved police officers. For instance‚ considering the fact that
Suspect 2 was able to show cooperation‚ he did show remorse
for the victims‚ and since he had no past criminal history‚ the
state attorney could use his/her discretion to charge him with
robbery instead of aggravated robbery. One of the aspects of
prosecutorial discretion is that it provides a state attorney with
some significant opportunity for mercy and leniency in a
criminal justice system that may be marked by harsh and broad
criminal laws.
In a case involving a suspect that was a gate away driver‚ it

5. would be better to use discretion as a leverage against such
suspect because the suspect was not involved in the actual
crime. It could be fact that the suspect could have been
carjacked by the actual offenders of the crime and been forced
to drive away from the crime scene to enable the actual suspects
to avoid arrest. If the state attorney was to decide not to seek
death penalty charge for this case‚ then the severity of the
sentences of the two suspects could significantly be reduced.
This is because Suspect #1, Steve Chapman, could receive a life
sentence in prison‚ while the sentence for Suspect #2, Keith
Hopkins, could range from a fine of $5‚000 to about 5 years in
prison considering that he has no past criminal record and his
ability to show remorse to crime victims. From a corrections
view, discretion would not be applied to this case. Correctional
facilities, prisons, and any other formal name used to describe a
prison, houses the criminals and the presiding judge of the
courts decides what level of security prison or correctional
facility the convicted offender is sentenced to. This could range
from a minimal to a maximum security facility. Determined by
a judge during sentencing proceedings, the offender may be able
to be in a “community” setting and share prison cells with other
prison mates or they may be in solitary confinement with no
interaction with other inmates. Certain prisons may give
“rewards” to those prisoners for “good” behavior.
References:
CTUO. (2016). Course Scenario. Accessed March 16, 2016
from Colorado Technical University Online Scenario link:
https://studentlogin.coloradotech.edu/portal/6/pages/mainframe.
aspx?contentframe=/portal/6/pages/Home.aspx
Galiano, D. (2011). The Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable
Search and Seizure. New York: Rosen Central.
Hall, D. (2014). Criminal Law and Procedure. Fifth Edition.
Delmar Cengage Learning. Clifton Park, New York.
Scheb, J. M. (2012). Criminal law. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

6. Private Movie Co. v. Lee - Simulation
The Objective
You will write a logical and persuasive argument as to whether
a person commits to a business arrangement contractually, when
allowing others to negotiate it. In this case, the video
illuminates the particulars of a negotiation that led to a verdict
regarding such liability.
After watching the videos (5 - 10 minute youtube segments) and
taking careful notes, you will analyze whether the judge made a
mistake in reaching that verdict, based on the law you have
learned. In that way, you will learn how to anticipate whether
business arrangements you make will lead to legal
consequences. You will understand what you need to do to get a
binding agreement when you want one, or to avoid a binding
agreement when you do not want to be in one.
The purpose of a trial is to determine whether the defendant is
liable or not. Here, the judge had to decide whether Pamela Lee
faced contract liability because she entered into, and was thus
bound by a contract with Private Movie. When a judge renders a
verdict on liability, the losing side often considers whether to
appeal it and have it reversed. The basis of the appeal will be
that the judge made an error. Sometimes the error the judge
makes is in choosing the wrong rule of law to apply to the
evidence. Imagine, for example, a baseball game in which the
umpire allows one team to have four outs in an inning, instead
of three. The losing side would appeal because the umpire
incorrectly applied the rule of baseball which states “there are
three outs in an inning”.
In the Lee case, there was a losing side. That side will look for
an error in the rules the judge applied in order to appeal. The
winning side will attempt to defend the judge’s use of the rules
that produced the winning verdict. It may also argue that, even

7. if the judge made a mistake in using the rules, the outcome was
correct because other rules, overlooked by the judge, mandate
the same result. Your job is to isolate any weaknesses in the
judge’s analysis. You do this by comparing his version of the
rules of law to what you know from class and textbook are the
rules of law. You then determine whether his analysis or yours
is the most correct
The Format
This is not like any “paper” you have ever written. This is your
introduction to the persuasive structure of reasoning. This is the
structure used when CEOs explain their directives to executives,
managers write emails and memos to their employees, when
lawyers argue their cases orally and in writing to the judges –
and ultimately, when judges explain their decisions in written
opinions to the public. The structure of all of these is the same.
The good news is that you already “know” this structure! Bad
news is, no one probably has ever asked to you to follow it.
Doing so is the key to success in this assignment and in life. By
harnessing it as part of your skill set now you should find that
pays immediate dividends in making essay questions and written
assignments for other classes both easier and more effective, as
well as this one. It will help you be more effecitve in any career
you pursue.
The Greeks called this logical structure the “syllogism. It has
four elements: Issue, Rule, Facts, Conclusion. In the classic
example, the question was: Is Socrates mortal (or will he live
forever?) Here is the logical structure for a bullet-proof, iron-
clad answer:
You have used this structure since you were a child, and in your
mind, you use it subconsciously all of the time, each and every
day. You learned the laws of the Traffic and Vehicle Code, for
example, when you were small.
Or a little later in life for logical business decisions that do not
have to do with “law” ..
At work, at school, with friends, or anywhere, when thinking
about any policies, choices, or issues you will be able to get to

8. the right conclusion, and persuade others to agree with you, by
using this same structure in your communications. This
structure undergirds the most sophisticated legal writing, and
the most effective business writing you will ever read, or
hopefully, write. Starting now.
In order to understand its importance, and to employ it to
analyze disputes, please read the three pages APPENDIX A1-A-
3 (starting after page 962, in your text): “How to Brief a Case
and Analyze Case Problems.” I have not asked to you “brief
cases”. But integral to this assignment is your “Analysis” of the
problem presented in this Private Movie v. Lee case. So read the
text as your back up support to reinforce these concepts.
Issue: Is Socrates mortal? Rule: All men are mortal Facts:
Socrates is a man Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
Issue: Mommy, can we cross the street? Rule: We can cross
when the light turns green. Facts: The light is red. Conclusion:
We cannot cross the street.
Issue: Which school should I attend? Rule: A school should
meet the following criteria.... Facts: St. John’s has...[which
meet each of the criterion] Conclusion: Therefore, I choose St.
John’s.
Note, while the text there calls (what I call the “facts” section),
“Application” and it uses the abbreviation “IRAC” – my outline
is the same, but my abbreviation would be: IRFC – in other
words, the textbook’s “A” and my “F” are equivalent.”
What the text calls for in analyzing cases in the book, you will
be utilizing to analyze the Lee case for this assignment. That is,
you will identify the issues, the rule of law applied by the
judge. Suggest what other, or better rule might have applied.
Apply his rule and your alternative rules, and see if you come
up with as conclusions. Here is the barest outline you must
follow, but there are sub issues so follow the suggested steps.
Suggested Steps
Your assignment is watch to watch the video. Take careful notes
of what Lee and her people say, as well as the commentators

9. and experts, regarding the agreement to perform in the films
“Hello She Lied”. Also pay very close attention to what the
judge ruled, and why. The rules of law were discussed in class.
See Chapt. 33 pages 590-594 of your text. (This is a case about
agent authority, it is not about fiduciary duty.) Note: when you
are writing a email to your boss, team, professor, or for the U.S.
Supreme Court, you will “hide” the IRFC labels in your final
draft – they will be invisible or embedded. In this assignment,
you will use the labels.
1. Write Your Introduction:
Main Issue: Should Pamela Anderson Lee ("PAL") be held
liable for breaching acontract to appear in the film Hello She
Lied?
Summary of what has happened: The judge awarded victory to
[winning side]. According the judge, ...the: [Issue was.., Rule
was.., Facts were.., Conclusion was..].
2. Write Your Argument
The [losing side] has an alternative argument based on the rules
of law and facts which leads to a different conclusion. Its rests
on an analysis that includes consideration of the main issue and
rules, as well as sub-issues and rules that when addressed may
lead to a more convincing conclusion. That analysis is as
follows:
MAIN ISSUE: Can PAL be held liable in a contract because she
personally agreed... or because she ....
Sub-issue #1: Did PAL personally agree ...
Rule: A party can be held liable to a contract when she
personally.....
Facts: There was .. (some [or, no ] facts showing that the PAL,
personally ...)
Conclusion: Applying this rule to these facts, it is clear that
PAL [did/ did not] bind herself to the contract ......
Sub-issue #2Is PAL liable because she ....?
Rule: A principal may be held liable when an agent acting on
her behalf possesses authority...
a) W authority exists when ....

10. b) X authority exists when ....
c) X authority exists when ....
d) Z authority exists when ...
Facts: The evidence was that ...... [all the relevant facts go here,
so that you can draw them down into the sub-conclusion
discussion below]
Sub-Conclusions:
a) There [was/was not ]W authority, because the [draw down the
relevant facts, apply them to the rule for this sub-conclusion]
b) There [was/was not ]X authority, because the [draw down the
relevant facts, apply them to the rule for this sub-conclusion]
c) There [was/was not ]Y authority, because the [draw down
the relevant facts, apply them to the rule for this sub-
conclusion]
d) There [was/was not ]Z authority, because the [draw down
the relevant facts, apply them to the rule for this sub-
conclusion]
Main conclusion: The rules and sub rules when applied to these
facts compels the conclusion that ......
3. Summarize whole case with your Final Conclusion:
According the judge PAL was bound/not bound to perform the
contract ... because the judge applied [IRFC, summarized]
According to the argument of the losing side, the verdict should
be reversed] because the judge overlooked [rules,facts that lead
to a more correct conclusion]. Under the losing side’s analysis:
[losing side’s IRFC, summarized].
In my judgment, the judge’s verdict should be [upheld/reversed]
. Here, the proper rules of law are [summarized] ..The
applicable facts are [summarized] The opposing argument loses
sight of [where did the opposing side go wrong?] The most
logical conclusion to be drawn when these rules are applied to
these facts is that Ms. Lee [is/is not liable to Private Movie Co.
Pal#1 https://youtu.be/opFVmPjQ15E
Pal#2 https://youtu.be/g0xH60KJ3H4
Pal#3 https://youtu.be/DIkciM3h4ao
Pal#4 https://youtu.be/qLMin4L9EJY

11. Pal#5 https://youtu.be/4UDUKabQR6Q