Page 3 of 8 b. Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. c. Sixth Amendment guarantee of the assistance of counsel at critical phases of the case. d. Eight Amendment protection against cruel and unjust treatment. 9. In Utah when eyewitness identification is critical to a criminal case: a. the prosecution is in trouble because eyewitness testimony is inherently false. b. the case must be dismissed unless the police have either conducted a photo lineup or a physical line-up involving the defendant. c. the case may be decided without further hearing if the Court finds at a pre-trial hearing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the identification is reliable. d. a jury must be warned that eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable. 10. When a capital offense is committed by a person under the age of 18 or by an older person who is developmentally disabled (mentally retarded): a. the death penalty can be imposed. b. the death penalty may not be imposed. c. the death penalty may not be imposed until the defendant=s chronological or mental age exceeds 18. d. the death penalty may only be imposed in states where such executions have occurred in the past. Essay Section (Part II) Instructions: The first essay section includes two essay questions, designed to test the material covered since the last exam. Each question is worth 15 points. You need not re-state the facts but you should identify a legal issue, outline the law, do an analysis and state a conclusion (ILAC). The final section should include two IFLAC essays, each worth 25 points. This portion of the exam is comprehensiveBmeaning the answer may be drawn from any doctrine or topic we have covered during this course. More detailed instructions are included, below. ESSAY SECTION I: (2 essays, 15 points eachB30 POINTS TOTAL) Consider these facts for question 1: On May 2, 2001, Deputy Wayne Keith was patrolling the Provo Dike Road, which is a public road. Deputy Keith observed a convertible vehicle that was parked on the side of the road. Deputy Keith noticed that the registration was expired on the vehicle and subsequently stopped his vehicle behind the parked convertible. Deputy Keith did not activate his overhead lights or his siren when he parked behind the vehicle. Furthermore, he did not block their vehicle from moving or leaving with the position of his vehicle. Deputy Keith observed three occupants sitting in the car. Deputy Keith approached the vehicle on foot and observed several open containers of alcohol in plain view in both the front and rear area of the passenger compartment Ahmed Alanazi Page 4 of 8 of the vehicle. Deputy Keith asked for the three passengers' identification. Defendant was determined to be the individual sitting in the driver's seat. Deputy Keith asked the occupants to step out of the vehicle and explained that he was going to search for more open containers. Deputy.

1. Page 3 of 8
b. Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination.
c. Sixth Amendment guarantee of the assistance of counsel at
critical phases of the case.
d. Eight Amendment protection against cruel and unjust
treatment.
9. In Utah when eyewitness identification is critical to a
criminal case:
a. the prosecution is in trouble because eyewitness testimony is
inherently false.
b. the case must be dismissed unless the police have either
conducted a photo lineup or a
physical line-up involving the defendant.
c. the case may be decided without further hearing if the Court
finds at a pre-trial hearing,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that the identification is reliable.
d. a jury must be warned that eyewitness testimony is inherently
unreliable.
10. When a capital offense is committed by a person under the
age of 18 or by an older person
who is developmentally disabled (mentally retarded):
a. the death penalty can be imposed.
b. the death penalty may not be imposed.
c. the death penalty may not be imposed until the defendant=s

2. chronological or mental age
exceeds 18.
d. the death penalty may only be imposed in states where such
executions have occurred
in the past.
Essay Section (Part II)
Instructions:
The first essay section includes two essay questions, designed
to test the material
covered since the last exam. Each question is worth 15 points.
You need not re-state the facts
but you should identify a legal issue, outline the law, do an
analysis and state a conclusion
(ILAC).
The final section should include two IFLAC essays, each worth
25 points. This portion
of the exam is comprehensiveBmeaning the answer may be
drawn from any doctrine or topic we
have covered during this course. More detailed instructions are
included, below.
ESSAY SECTION I: (2 essays, 15 points eachB30 POINTS
TOTAL)
Consider these facts for question 1:
On May 2, 2001, Deputy Wayne Keith was patrolling the
Provo Dike Road, which is a public
road. Deputy Keith observed a convertible vehicle that was
parked on the side of the road.
Deputy Keith noticed that the registration was expired on the

3. vehicle and subsequently stopped
his vehicle behind the parked convertible. Deputy Keith did not
activate his overhead lights or
his siren when he parked behind the vehicle. Furthermore, he
did not block their vehicle from
moving or leaving with the position of his vehicle. Deputy
Keith observed three occupants
sitting in the car. Deputy Keith approached the vehicle on foot
and observed several open
containers of alcohol in plain view in both the front and rear
area of the passenger compartment
Ahmed Alanazi
Page 4 of 8
of the vehicle. Deputy Keith asked for the three passengers'
identification. Defendant was
determined to be the individual sitting in the driver's seat.
Deputy Keith asked the occupants to
step out of the vehicle and explained that he was going to
search for more open containers.
Deputy Keith began searching the vehicle for open containers.
In the center console, which was
large enough to house an open container, Deputy Keith smelled
the odor of marijuana and
observed a metal "socket" that was fashioned into a pipe. The
socket smelled of marijuana and
appeared to have marijuana residue in the "pipe." In a back-
pack in the back seat, Deputy Keith
found three plastic bags that were determined to contain
marijuana. The rear-seated passenger

4. stated it was his back-pack. Deputy Keith asked Defendant
about the socket that was found in
the center console between the driver's and passenger seats.
Defendant stated he did not know it
was there and insisted that he had not smoked any marijuana. At
this time, Defendant was not
under arrest nor was he handcuffed. Within a short time, two
other officers arrived. Because
Defendant was in the driver's seat, Defendant was asked to
perform some field sobriety tests.
The officer that conducted the field sobriety tests on Defendant,
Deputy Todd Orton, was a
certified Drug Recognition Expert. After the conclusion of the
field sobriety tests, Deputy Orton
believed Defendant was possibly under the influence of
marijuana; however, it was felt that he
was not impaired to the point that he could not safely operate a
motor vehicle. Deputy Orton
informed Deputy Keith of his belief that the Defendant was
possibly under the influence of
marijuana but that he was not impaired to the point that he
could not safely operate a motor
vehicle.
Deputy Keith then told Defendant that he "knew he had
smoked marijuana." This was not
phrased in the form of a question or was the deputy confronting
the Defendant or "in his face."
No evidence was attained that was anything more than a
statement casually made to Defendant.
Up to this point, Defendant had maintained a lack of knowledge
of the marijuana or the pipe.
However, Defendant then told Deputy Keith that he had only
taken a couple of hits of marijuana
while at that location. He stated that both he and the back seated
passenger had smoked out of a
pipe. Deputy Keith was surprised when Defendant stated he had

5. smoked marijuana while at that
location. Deputy Keith testified that he did not expect
Defendant to say anything in response.
Defendant, along with the other occupants of the vehicle, was
never arrested, never handcuffed
and was merely given a citation. Defendant was then allowed to
drive the vehicle away from the
location with his friends as passengers.
Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress statements he
made at the time of his citation,
claiming that Deputy Keith had subjected him to custodial
interrogation without informing him
of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed.
2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966)
Assuming you are the trial judge, how would you rule on the
motion to suppress? (15
points)
Here are the facts for question 2:
On a dark and stormy night . . . officers got a call about a
gunshot in the area of 400 West
and 1000 South in Orem. Three separate calls to dispatch
described a Apopping [email protected] like a
handgun within a few minutes of 6 a.m. followed by yelling,
loud crying and screeching tires.
Officer B. Ludhaund arrived at the scene and found copious
amounts of what appeared to be
blood in a parking lot but no people. Upon careful examination
with a very bright flashlight, the
Page 5 of 8

6. officer spotted fresh black tire marks. As the officer was
studying the ground, he looked up and
realized that he was in a junior high school parking lot and that
the kids would start arriving
within a couple of hours. He put orange cones and yellow tape
all around the red pools and
detailed the newest rookie to park and watch the scene.
A few hours later, at 9 a.m., Charles Goodnight appeared at the
Fourth District Court in
Orem for a pre-trial conference on a pending misdemeanor theft
charge against him. He had an
appointed attorney, Cynthia, who was in the courtroom where
she was responsible for around 30
cases that morning. Officer Ludhaund entered the courtroom
because he had a subpoena for a
traffic trial at 9:30. He was hoping to get Cynthia and the
prosecutor, Wilbur, to continue the
trial so he could get back to the junior high and help out the
rookie. While he was waiting he
looked carefully at Charles and noticed that his shoes were
caked and streaked with either very
red mud or blood. He was disheveled in appearance and seemed
extremely nervous. What really
intrigued Ludhaund, however, was that he had a shoulder
holster on under his jacket. Knowing
no weapons were allowed in the courtroom Ludhaund checked
with security at the front door and
discovered that Charles had not checked a firearm. He returned
to the courtroom and, with the
bailiff, approached Charles. Charles saw them coming and
jumped up shouting ALeave me
alone! Discrimination! You all hate [email protected]

7. Ludhaund and the bailiff tackled him as Judge Backlund calmly
looked up and said,
ACan=t we please have some order in this courtroom? Wilbur, I
want you to pursue a disorderly
charge against that [email protected] Charles was dragged from
the courtroom to the Orem Police
Department where he was handcuffed to a chair in an
interrogation room.
30 minutes later Attorney George T. Imhoff appeared at the
front counter of the Orem
Police Department and announced that he had been retained by
the sister of Charles Goodnight,
Shezariel, to represent Goodnight on the disorderly conduct
charge so he wouldn=t be held in jail.
The officer at the counter thought Mr. Imhoff had unfairly
gotten a guy he had arrested a year
before out of a charge so he was rude to Imhoff and told him to
just go see the judge about a writ
but ALittle [email protected] would have to be on his own for a
bit.
Meanwhile, in the interrogation room, Officer Ludhaund knew
nothing about Imhoff and
was speaking to Charles. The first thing he did was to ask him
about the shoulder holster. AWhy
do you have an empty holster, where is the [email protected]
Charles sullenly replied, AIt=s just a pellet gun and it=s in the
bushes by the front door of

8. the [email protected]
Ludhaund immediately spoke to the rookie on his radio who
reported after a moment that
he=d found a pellet gun that looked like a handgun in the
bushes as described. Ludhaund then
said, ASo, who=d you [email protected]
AI thought I was here cause I stole that stuff and then yelled in
[email protected]
Page 6 of 8
ANah, I=d have yelled, too. Judge Backlund=ll get over that.
But, anyway, you do have
the right to remain silent because what you say can be used in
court. You can have an attorney
help you if you want and if you can=t afford one, we=ll appoint
one to represent you. If you
decide to answer questions you can stop at any time. Do you
understand [email protected]
AYes, I want to talk to Bob before I say anything
[email protected]
AWho=s [email protected]
AHe=s my probation [email protected]
ANo. Who=d you [email protected]
AOk, I=ll talk! I shot that damn dog, ok? Now I want a

9. [email protected]
Ludhaund put Charles in a cell where, eventually, both Cynthia
and Mr. Imhoff were
allowed to interview him. Back at the school after checking
with a few neighbors Ludhaund
found a severely injured Golden Retriever a few houses away
from the school which appeared to
have puncture wounds, possibly from a pellet gun, in its neck.
Charles is now charged under a
new Utah statute with felony wounding of an animal, disorderly
conduct in the courtroom and
the theft charge. Mr. Imhoff now seeks to suppress the weapon
and the statements made to
Ludhaund under the fifth and sixth amendments.
Using the cases and principles from our studies, explain why
the evidence should or
should not be suppressed. You should identify the principle
issue under each of the two
amendments and give me a separate IFLACBor at least an ILAC
(without re-stating all the
facts) for each.
ESSAY SECTION IIB( two questions, 25 points each)
View any one of the movies listed below. Popcorn is optional.
Companions are allowed
so long as you are not unreasonably distracted. In the first
paragraph briefly summarize the plot
and principal characters of the movie. Then, using such facts or
circumstances from the movie
as you wish or need, select and discuss any two (in separate
IFLAC essays) of the following

10. principles as we discussed in this course Feel free, if
necessary, to [email protected] or suggest plot,
character or dialogue changes to enhance your ability to apply
what we have studied (I=m
not a movie critic and don=t care if you accurately describe the
movie!). Demonstrate a basic
understanding of the doctrines as you state a legal issue then
marshal the relevant facts, present
applicable legal principles, analyze the facts with the law and
come to a conclusion.
Keep in mind that I=m not really interested in the moviesBwhat
I want to see is your
proficiency with the issues we have studied during this
semester. To that end, if you select a
relatively simple principle to write about I will expect a much
more competent and complete
answer than if you take on one of the more complex concepts.
Either way, however, your task is
to demonstrate to me that you have learned to write well, think
well, and analyze thoroughly.
Page 7 of 8
Going through the mechanics, getting an IFLAC on paper and
turning it in on time is worthy of a
C. Showing me that you really get it and thoroughly wrestling
with the facts is the way to earn
an A.
Choose any two of the following principles (A through M) to

11. analyze and discuss in your
essay although your two issues must come from different
amendments. .
(First Amendment)
A. Establishment of Religion
B. Public Forum/Regulation of Speech
(Second Amendment)
C. Right to Bear Arms
(Fourth Amendment)
D Search warrants including the determination of probable
cause and
credibility of informants.
E Warrantless searches including the doctrines of inventory
search and
inevitable discovery.
F Plain View and/or plain smell doctrine
G Warrantless arrest and detention including the Utah doctrine

12. of level 1,2
and 3 detentions
H Electronic surveillance including bugs, wiretap, tracker
devices and pen
register/trap and trace equipment.
I Exclusionary Rule including the good faith exception
(Fifth Amendment)
J Interrogation (don=t confuse the Fifth Amendment rule with
the Sixth
Amendment approach!)
(Sixth Amendment)
L Interrogation (See J, above! Keep them straight!)
M Pre-trial identification
Page 8 of 8

13. Suggested Movies: Minority Report; Rush Hour, Beverly Hills
Cop (I, II or III); Dirty
Harry (or any of the ADirty [email protected] sequels); In the
Line of Fire; Bullitt; To Kill a
Mockingbird; The Thomas Crown Affair (original or remake);
Ransom; Enemy of the
State; Fargo; Lethal Weapon (1,2,3,4 or whatever); The French
Connection; The Blue
Knight; The Bourne Identity or The Bourne Supremacy (assume
all the action occurred in
the USA); After the Sunset (again, assume the action occurred
in the USA); or any
other cop/robber genre movie.
If nothing else, you will now understand why judges and
criminal lawyers have a hard
time watching and enjoying most of these movies!
It has been a genuine pleasure to spend this term with you.
Thank you for coming and
for your diligent work!
PRINTED BY: [email protected] Printing is for personal, privat
e use only. No part of this book may be
reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission.
Violators will be prosecuted.