Updated Tuesday, September, 2011 3:44 p.m.

DRAFT –SUBJECT TO CHANGE

Birmingham School of Law

Criminal Procedure I

Fall 2011

Tuesday and Saturday Sections

6:30 – 8:45 p.m. 9:00 a.m. – 11:15 a.m.

FNB – 3^rd or 2^nd Floor Classrooms (or wherever there is HVAC and no water).

Course Website:

www.bsolcrimpro.com

BSOL CRIM PRO 1 Draft of Lecture Slides.pdf

Updated as of August 20, 2011 – Does not include cases released after the start of the semester.

Instructor:

V. Michelle Obradovic, Esq.

205 20^th Street North, Ste. 319

Birmingham, AL 35203

Office: 205-414-7589

Cell or Text Message: 205-602-5014

Michelle@WiseResolution.com

Also - Room 540-1 JCC (716 Richard Arrington Blvd. N.)

CLASS PROTOCOL for MICHELLE O.’S SECTIONS

Attendance and class participation for every class is mandatory. Specific students have been given case assignments each week. These cases are due to be briefed and discussed in class. Students may coordinate amongst themselves on these case briefing assignments, however the students who received the case assignment and are absent or unprepared will be docked ½ letter grade off their final course grade as a penalty, no exceptions.

Each lecture class will include a PowerPoint slide presentation and other digital materials designed to emphasize key points. The slides will be made available to students in digital form and students are encouraged to follow along with them during the lecture and to revisit them in their individual study groups.

Saturday students who miss a lecture class may attend the Tuesday class as a make-up and Tuesday students who anticipate missing class may attend the Saturday class in advance. It does not work in revers because the Saturday class always gets that week’s lecture first.

Guest BSoL students and instructors are welcome in our sections. On a situation by situation basis, a student may be given permission to participate in class by teleconference or by webcam. The student who receives such permission must coordinate the technology themselves and the arrangements must not disrupt the other students. Example emergencies would be: a local weather event such as a tornado; hospitalization/recovery; travel for work or with your family; car trouble on the way to school or a documented highly contagious disease.

Students are free to move about during class and to engage in whatever activities support their alertness so long as they are not disruptive to other students. Example disruptive activities would be smelly food, noisy food, reeking of alcohol, side conversations (written, verbal or electronic) and doing things on your computer that everyone around you wants to see.

CLASS MEMBER OBLIGATIONS for MICHELLE O.’S SECTIONS

Students are responsible for understanding all of the material included in the following publications and for having a working recollection of the 4th 5th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. 12/15/1791

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. 12/15/1791

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. 12/15/1791

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

TEXTBOOKS:

Title: Criminal Procedure - Investigation

Imprint: Aspen Publishers
Published: 9/5/2008
ISBN: 9780735577862

2011 SUPPLEMENT:

· (available after August 15, 2011)

· ISBN-10: 0735507317

ISBN-13: 978-0735507319

The 2011 supplement will include new developments in the law from the current Supreme Court term and the materials which were previously published in the 2008 and 2009 and 2010 Supplements to our textbook. The anticipated content includes the following:

Kentucky v. King 563 U.S. _____ (2011)

Arizona v. Gant 556 U.S. _____ (2009) 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009)

Davis v. United States 564 U.S. _____ (2011)

Arizona v. Johnson 555 U.S. _____ (2009) 129 S. Ct. 781 (2009)

Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding 557 U.S. _____ (2009) 129 S. Ct. 2633 (2009)

Virginia v. Moore 553 U.S. 164 (2008) 128 S. Ct. 1598 (2008)

Herring v. United States 555 U.S. _____ (2009) 129 S. Ct. 695 (2009)

Michigan v. Fisher 558 U.S. ______ (2009) 130 S. Ct. 546 (2009)

Corley v. U.S. 556 U.S. _____ (2009) 129 S. Ct. 1558 (2009)

Montejo v. Louisiana 556 U.S. ______ (2009) 129 S. Ct. 2079 (2009)

Maryland v Shatzer 559 U.S. _____ (2010) 130 S. Ct. 1213 (2010).

Florida v. Powell Docket: 559 U.S. _____ (2010) ___ S. Ct. _____ (2010)

Berghuis v. Thompkins Docket: 560 U.S. _____ (2010) ____ S. Ct. _____ (2010)

J.D.B. v. North Carolina 564 U.S. _____ (2011)

Yeager v. U.S. 557 U.S. _____ (2009) 129 S. Ct. 2360) (2009)

Kansas v. Ventris 556 U.S. ____ (2009) 129 S. Ct. 1841 (2009)

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts 557 U.S. ____ (2009) 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009)

Michigan v. Bryant 562 U.S. _____ (2011)

Bullcoming v. New Mexico 564 U.S. _____ (2011)

Vermont v. Brillon 556 U.S. _____ (2009) 129 S. Ct. 1283 (2009)

Bobby v. Van Hook 558 U.S. _____ (2009) 130 S. Ct. 13 (2009)

Porter v. McCollum 558 U.S. _____ (2009) 130 S. Ct. 447 (2009)

Wong v. Belmontes 558 U.S. _____ (2009) 130 S. Ct. 383 (2009)

Ontario v. Quon 560 U.S. _____ (2010) ___ S. Ct. _____ (2010)

Presley v. Georgia 558 U.S. _____ (2010) ___ S. Ct. _____ (2010)

Padilla v Kentucky 559 U.S. _____ (2010) ___ S. Ct. _____ (2010)

Statutory Material:

Selected Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Selected Sections from U.S. Code Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure

Selected Sections from U.S. Code Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure

EXAM INFORMATION

The final exam will consist of 50 questions that do not require writing and a bonus that may require short answers. There will be an alternative exam date and a regularly scheduled exam date.

COURSE SCHEDULE for MICHELLE O.’S SECTION

Week 1	September 3^rd and 6^th	Chapter 1 - Pgs. 1 – 27
Week 2	September 10^th and 13^th	Chapter 2 - Pgs. 29-82; Supplement cases: Ontario v. Quon
Week 3	September 17^th and 20^th	Chapter 2 - Pgs. 82-138
Week 4	September 24^th and 27^th	Chapter 2 - Pgs. 138-219 Supplement cases: Arizona v. Gant; Kentucky v. King, Davis v. United States, Safford Unified School District # 1 v. Redding; J.D.B. v. North Carolina
Week 5	October 2st and 4^th	Chapter 2- Pgs. 219-290 Supplement cases: Virginia v. Moore; Michigan v. Fisher Arizona v. Johnson
Week 6	October 8^thand11^th	Catch Up Class – Review
Week 7	October 15^th and 18^th	Supplement Case Reading Class
Week 8	October 22^nd and 25^th	Chapter 3 – Pgs. 291-355 Supplement case: Herring v. U.S.
Week 9	October 29^th and November 1^st	Chapter 4 - Pgs. 357-423 Supplement cases: Maryland v. Shatzer; Berghuis v. Thompkins; Florida v. Powell
Week 10	November 5^th and 8^th	Chapter 4 - Pgs. 423-514 Supplement cases: Montejo v. Louisiana, Corley v. U.S.; Yeager v. U. S.; Kansas v. Ventris, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, Michigan v. Bryant, Bullcoming v. New Mexico.
Week 11	November 12^th and 15^th	Catch Up Class – Review
Week 12	November 19^th and 22^nd	Chapter 5 Pgs. 515-546 Chapter 6, Pgs. 553 – 584 Supplement Cases: Vermont v. Brillon; Bobby v. Van Hook, Porter v. McCollum, Wong v. Belmontes, Padilla v. Kentucky
Week 13	November 26^th and 29^th	Study Week
FINAL	December 6^th and 10^th	Final Exam – Alternate Exam date is December 3rd

CASE BRIEFING ASSIGNMENTS

- The Final Exam will include, but is not guaranteed to be limited to the cases in bold. -

	SATURDAY	ASSIGNED STUDENTS
Week 2	Katz v. United States Oliver v. United States United States v. Dunn California v. Ciraolo Florida v. Riley Kyllo v. United States California v. Greenwood United States v. Knotts United States v. Karo United States v. White Smith v. Maryland (U.S. v. Forrester) Illinois v. Caballes (U.S. v. Place)	Students who appear on the class roll with a last name beginning with A or B or TUVWXYZ brief cases.
Week 3	Illinois v. Gates (Aguilar v. Texas & Spinelli v. U.S.) Maryland v. Pringle Whren v. United States Andresen v. Maryland Groh v. Ramirez Michigan v. Summers Muehler v. Mena Richards v. Wisconsin Wilson v. Arkansas Hudson v. Michigan (part 1) Maryland v. Garrison L. A. County, California v. Rettele Chimel v. California U.S. v. Robinson Knowles v. Iowa Warden, MD Penitentiary v. Hayden Payton v. New York Coolidge v. New Hampshire Arizona v. Hicks Horton v. California Minnesota v. Dickerson	Students who appear on the class roll with a last name beginning with C or D or E or R or S.
Week 4	Carroll v. U.S. Chambers v. Maroney California v. Carney California v. Acevedo U.S. v. Chadwick Arkansas v. Sanders U.S. v. Ross Wyoming v. Houghton New York v. Belton Thornton v. United States AZ v. Gant Davis v. United States South Dakota v. Opperman Illinois v. Lafayette United States v. Flores-Montano United States v. Montoya-Hernandez United States v. Ramsey Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz City of Indianapolis v. Edmond Illinois v. Lidster Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Georgia v. Randolph United States v. Knights Samson v. California Camara v. Muni Ct of Cty & Cty of San Francisco New York v. Burger Skinner v. Railway Executive’s Ass’n National Treasury Employees Union v. Van Rabb Vernonia School Dist. v. Acton Ontario v. Quon J.D.B. v. North Carolina Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls Ferguson v. City of Charleston Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding	Students who appear on the class roll with a last name beginning with F or G or H or I or M or N or O or P or Q.
Week 5	Welsh v. Wisconsin Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart Michigan v. Fisher Kentucky v. King United States v. Watson U.S. v. Mendenhall Florida v. Bostick California v. Hodari Atwater v. City of Lago Vista Virginia v. Moore Terry v. Ohio Dunaway v. New York Florida v. Royer US. V. Sharp Michigan v. Long Maryland v. Buie Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada United States v. Arvizu Alabama v. White Florida v. J.L. Illinois v. Wardlow United States v. Sokolow AZ v. Johnson U.S. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Eastern Dist. of Michigan	Students who appear on the class roll with a last name beginning with J or K or L or R or S.
Week 6	Catch Up Class – Review	Catch Up Class – Review
Week 7	Supplement Case Reading Class	Supplement Case Reading Class
Week 8	U.S. v Calandra Weeks v. United States Wolf v. Colorado Mapp v. Ohio Rakas v. Illinois Jones v. U.S. Rawlings v. Kentucky Minnesota v. Carter Minnesota v. Olson Brendlin v. California Murray v. United States Nix v. Williams Brown v. Illinois U.S. v. Leon Hudson v. Michigan (part 2) Arizona v. Evans Herring v. U.S.	Students who appear on the class roll with a last name beginning with H or I or TUVWXYZ.
Week 9	Brown v. Mississippi Arizona v. Fulminate Spano v. New York Colorado v. Connelly Miranda v. Arizona Dickerson v. United States Oregon v. Mathiason Yarborough v. Alvarado Maryland v. Shatzer (part 1) Berkemer v. McCarty Rhode Island v. Innis Illinois v. Perkins California v. Prysock Duckworth v. Eagan Berghuis v. Thompkins (part 1) Florida v. Powell	Students who appear on the class roll with a last name beginning with F or G or M or N.
Week 10 and Week 11	Michigan v. Tucker Oregon v. Elstad Missouri v. Seibert United States v. Patane Harris v. New York New York v. Quarles North Carolina v. Butler Burghius v. Thompkins (part 2) Moran v. Burbine Spring v. Colorado Michigan v. Mosley Edwards v. Arizona Minnick v. Mississippi Davis v. United States Maryland v. Shatzer (part 2) Corley v. U.S. Massiah v. United States Brewer v. Williams Texas v. Cobb Patterson v. Illinois Michigan v. Jackson (overruled) Montejo v. Louisiana United States v. Henry Kuhlmann v. Wilson Kansas v. Ventris Yeager v. U. S. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts Michigan v. Bryant Bullcoming v. New Mexico Briscoe v. Virginia Schmerber v. California Fisher v. United States McKune v. Lile Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada Kastigar v. United States United States v. Hubbell	Students who appear on the class roll with a last name beginning with C or D or E or J or O or P or Q.
Week 12	United States v. Wade Illinois v. Kirby United States v. Ash Stovall v. Denno Foster v. California Simmons v. United States Neil v. Biggers Manson v. Brathwaite Argersinger v. Hamlin Gideon v. Wainwright Strickland v. Washington Florida v. Nixon Faretta v. California Vermont v. Brillon Bobby v. Van Hook Padilla v. Kentucky Porter v. McCollum Wong v. Belomentes Presley v. Georgia	Students who appear on the class roll with a last name beginning with A or B or L.

- The Final Exam will include, but is not guaranteed to be limited to the cases in bold. -