Opinion of the Court: Johnson and Wilson v. State

See attached file. It is a “fake supreme court opinion paper” based on
hypothetical questions and fake case. Need to use seven real cases to support my opinion with page citations. Cannot use more than two direct quotes from the real cases.

Cases needed: Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. __ (2018) Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2004) Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) and Mapp v. Ohio

Hypothetical Case 1: Johnson and Wilson v. State
While driving his car, Michael Johnson, accompanied by his friend Sara Wilson, reached a checkpoint set up by local police to investigate a carjacking that occurred the day before in which five people were killed. The checkpoint was being conducted in the same location where the crime occurred at about the same time, in hopes that those typically in the area may have seen something helpful to the investigation. As with all other drivers at the checkpoint, a police officer approached Mr. Johnson and asked if he had any information about the crime. As Mr. Johnson was replying in the negative, the officer observed that Mr. Johnson was slurring words and smelled of alcohol, causing the officer to become suspicious. In response, the officer asked Mr. Johnson for his driver’s license and car registration. Mr. Johnson attempted to hand both to the officer but dropped them, appearing to be disoriented. At this point, the officer ordered Mr. Johnson to exit the vehicle. The officer then asked Mr. Johnson if he would consent to roadside sobriety tests, including a breath test to measure blood alcohol. Mr. Johnson agreed to the tests, which conclusively indicated that he had been driving while intoxicated, a felony under state law. The officer arrested Mr. Johnson and asked Ms. Wilson to exit the vehicle.
The police officer then began a full search of Mr. Johnson and the passenger compartment of his car. No weapons or contraband were found on Mr. Johnson’s person. Inside the vehicle, the officer attempted to open the glove compartment but found it to be locked. After trying all of the
5 keys in Mr. Johnson’s possession, the officer forcibly opened it, finding several illegal devices
used to silence firearms. Mr. Johnson was arrested for possession of illegal silencers, a felony under state law.
At the same time Mr. Johnson was taking sobriety tests (before his arrest), a second officer at the scene decided to walk a drug-sniffing police dog around the outside of the vehicle. At the checkpoint, the police were using dogs to investigate every vehicle not immediately allowed to exit after questioning about the carjacking. Outside the trunk, the police dog signaled the presence of a controlled substance. The second officer opened the trunk and searched it, discovering a small amount of illegal marijuana and a fully automatic rifle. Because even private possession of such a weapon is a felony, Mr. Johnson was arrested by the second officer for the firearms violation, just minutes after Mr. Johnson’s arrest by the first officer for drunk driving. The officers decided not to arrest Mr. Johnson for marijuana possession because the quantity was so small.
Turning now to Ms. Wilson, recall that after Mr. Johnson had been arrested for drunk driving, police ordered Ms. Wilson to exit the vehicle. In response, Ms. Wilson got out of the car but abruptly ran away. She was detained down the road about five minutes later by a third officer and was asked about her reasons for fleeing. In response, Ms. Wilson was evasive, appeared to be extremely nervous, and refused to identify herself. The officer decided to frisk her for weapons. During the frisk, the officer felt a small soft package in Ms. Wilson’s shirt pocket. The officer removed the object, which was a pliable very thin opaque plastic bag about two inches wide and two inches long. The officer opened the package, examined the contents, and found a small quantity of heroin. After explaining that possession of heroin in any quantity is illegal, the officer arrested Ms. Wilson. Because Ms. Wilson was apprehended a considerable distance from the checkpoint, this third officer was unaware of Mr. Johnson’s arrest for drunk driving or for having illegal weapons and marijuana in his vehicle, just as the first two officers were unaware of Ms. Wilson’s arrest when they conducted their searches.
The heroin seized from Ms. Wilson was later tested and was shown to be substantially higher in quality than the heroin typically found in the illegal street market, causing the police to suspect that Ms. Wilson could be connected to elite drug trafficking. The police lacked probable cause for any further searches, so they decided to investigate using two techniques that did not necessitate entering Ms. Wilson’s home.
First, without a search warrant but with the approval of a magistrate, police obtained detailed data about Ms. Wilson’s whereabouts over a one-month period based on cell site location information. Under state law, police were able to obtain the cell site data without a search warrant or probable cause when there were reasonable grounds to believe that the data would be relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation and when a magistrate approved the request. Data from Ms. Wilson’s cellphone showed that in the late hours of the evening, she regularly visited the homes of numerous convicted drug dealers, stopped by known drug houses, and frequently drove to a small private airfield in the area.
Second, but still without probable cause, police decided to deploy a police dog trained to detect illegal drugs at Ms. Wilson’s home. The officers waited for Ms. Wilson to leave her

6
Based on the cell site location data and the signals from the police dog, police obtained a warrant to search Ms. Wilson’s shed. Inside, officers noticed a sealed black plastic garbage bag and opened it. The bag did not contain any illegal drugs but did hold a large sharp knife, soiled clothing, and several human body parts. Subsequent DNA tests revealed that the human remains belonged to Ms. Wilson’s former romantic partner, who had been reported missing several days earlier. The knife was also determined to be the murder weapon. Additionally, the only other DNA and fingerprints on any items inside the bag or the shed belonged to Ms. Wilson. Based on this information, Ms. Wilson was arrested and charged with murder. The officers also found more heroin in the shed, and she was charged with a second count of heroin possession.
Based on these various searches, charges were filed in state court against Mr. Johnson for driving while intoxicated and several violations of the state firearms law. Charges were filed against Ms. Wilson for possession of heroin and murder. Both were convicted of all charges after their motions to suppress the evidence were denied by the trial court. Mr. Johnson and Ms. Wilson appealed their convictions on federal constitutional grounds raised at trial, alleging that each of the searches was illegal, including the search pursuant to the warrant for the shed. The state court of appeals and the state supreme court rejected their claims and affirmed their convictions. Mr. Johnson and Ms. Wilson then petitioned the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari and consolidated the cases for argument.
Questions to be Answered (Issues Presented)
Use the precedents from the six assigned Supreme Court cases to answer the following questions. Mr. Johnson and Ms. Wilson have asserted that each of the searches was illegal. Would the Supreme Court agree if the justices strictly adhered to stare decisis?
Importantly, you must answer each question, even if an illegal search earlier in the process would have invalidated all subsequent searches. For example, do not argue that because the initial checkpoint stop was illegal, all subsequent searches were unconstitutional and thus the remaining questions are irrelevant. Address each of the seven questions separately.
1. Did the police violate constitutional standards by stopping and questioning Mr. Johnson at the checkpoint?
2. Did police violate constitutional standards by: A. Searching Mr. Johnson?
B. Searching the glove compartment of Mr. Johnson’s car?
3. Did police violate constitutional standards by walking a trained police dog around the outside of Mr. Johnson’s vehicle at the checkpoint and then searching the trunk?
residence and then walked the dog up the paved pathway to the front door. The dog did not indicate the presence of illegal drugs at the door, so the officers walked the dog around to the back yard. At a storage shed, the dog signaled the presence of a controlled substance.

4. Did police violate constitutional standards by frisking Ms. Wilson?
5. Did police violate constitutional standards by opening Ms. Wilson’s plastic bag?
6. Did police violate constitutional standards by obtaining cell site location data?
7. Did police violate constitutional standards by walking a trained police dog up to: A. Ms. Wilson’s front door?
B. The storage shed in Ms. Wilson’s backyard?
Include in the Arguments and Analysis for Question 7 the admissibility of the evidence in the shed.

Last Completed Projects