You must answer all questions and earn a grade of 90% or higher to receive the extra credit.
Commonwealth V. Snyder
Snyder was a high school student at Monument Mountain Regional High School in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. An unnamed student reported to an unnamed teacher that Snyder had approached her and asked if she wanted to buy some marijuana for twenty-five dollars. The teacher reported the conversation to the school principal, who in turn had the teacher tell the story again in the presence of the assistant principal. The teacher said that the student reported that Snyder had removed a videocassette case from his book bag, opened it, and displayed three bags of marijuana. Day, the principal, and Canning, the assistant principal, located Snyder eating lunch in the school cafeteria. Not wanting to arouse suspicion, the school official waited until Snyder went to class. Canning and Day then opened Snyder's locker using a combination obtained from school records. They discovered the book bag, the videocassette case and the three bags of marijuana.
With both Canning and Day present, Day informed Snyder that she had information that Snyder had offered to sell marijuana in the school. Day asked Snyder to confirm the truth of the allegation, and Snyder did so. Snyder indicated that a friend had given him the marijuana to sell, that he had mixed feelings and was indeed quite uncomfortable with the plan, and that on account of his reluctance to comply with the plan he had called his friend and instructed him to return to the school that same day to retrieve the marijuana that Snyder had not sold. Snyder acknowledged that he was the owner of the items that Day and Canning had seized from his locker earlier in the day. Snyder also admitted that he acquired four bags of marijuana from his friend and had already sold one of them.
Shortly thereafter, Canning called the Great Barrington Police Department. Officer Beckwith came to Monument Mountain High School. There, Day told Officer Beckwith what Snyder had said. Officer Beckwith gave Snyder Miranda warnings, and Snyder then confirmed that Day's recollection of their conversation was accurate. Officer Beckwith then took Snyder to the police station and again advised Snyder of his Miranda warnings. Snyder signed a form waiving his rights and then provided a written statement to officer Beckwith.
Prior to trial, Snyder moved to suppress the evidence discovered in the search of his locker as well as the admissions he made to the public school officials and Officer Beckwith. The motion judge denied Snyder's suppression motions, finding that Snyder had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his locker and thus his constitutional rights were not violated. Snyder was convicted of (1) illegal possession of a controlled substance; (2) possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute; and (3) possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute it in a school.
1. Who is the plaintiff?
2. Who is the defendant?
3. Is this a criminal or civil trial?
4. What constitutional rights are in question?
5. What did the school policy say about searching student lockers?
6. Was the information received by the administrators reliable?
7. Did Jefferey have an "expectation of privacy" in his locker at school? You must explain your answer.
8. Was the school's search of his locker justified and reasonable? You must explain your answer.
9. Did the school have reasonable suspicion to search the locker? You must explain your answer.
1. Commonwealth
ReplyDelete2. Snyder
3. criminal
4. the school searched his locker without warrant
5. the policy says that lockers can be searched with probable cause
6. yes because a student had reported it when he/she was offered to buy
7. no because school is considered a special place, and even though the locker was given to him to keep private things, the locker isn't considered private property
8. Yes, the school's search of his locker was justified and reasonable because they had probable cause of drugs in the locker. And because the school is a special place.
9. Yes because they had reasonable suspicion that drugs were in that locker. And while you are in school you have the right to feel safe.
1. The plaintiff is the Commonwealth.
ReplyDelete2. The defendant is Snyder.
3. This is a criminal trial because of the illegal possession of a substance.
4. The constitutional right in question is the right of protection from unreasonable searches seizures.
5. The administrators of the school are given permitted access to search the students' lockers.
6. This info could be false and unreliable because there is a chance that there is another student is selling the same substance and it was just mistaken identity.
7. Jefferey did have the "expectation of privacy" because his locker gives protection to his personal belongings.
8. The searching was justified because it is regulation to search lockers for hazardous items.
9. They did have reasonable suspicion because the students are the school's responsibility.
1.Commonwealth is the plaintiff
ReplyDelete2.the defendant would be Snyder
3.this would be a criminal trial because of the illegal possession of a substance
4.the right of protection from unreasonable searches seizures is the constitutional right that there talking about.
5.the administrators are given permission to search the student's locker
6.this could be false information because many other students could be doing the same thing.
7.the student did have expectation of privacy because it was in his locker which gives him protection of his stuff.
8.it is a justified search because it is regulation to search a students locker for dangerous objects.
9.they were right to suspect the students because they are the school responsibility, Also so others can feel safe when there in school.
1.) The plaintiff is common wealth.
ReplyDelete2.) Snyder is the defendant.
3.) Since there is a illegal possession of substances this case is a criminal trial.
4.) The right is the protection from searching.
5.) The schools can search the children if there is a probable cause .
6.)
Commonwealth
ReplyDelete2. Snyder
3. criminal
the school searched his locker without warrant
the policy says that lockers can be searched with probable cause
yes because a student had reported it when he/she was offered to buy
no because school is considered a special place, and even though the locker was given to him to keep private things, the locker isn't considered private property
Yes, the school's search of his locker was justified and reasonable because they had probable cause of drugs in the locker. And because the school is a special place.
Yes because they had reasonable suspicion that drugs were in that locker. And while you are in school you have the right to feel safe.
Commonwealth
ReplyDeleteSnyder
Criminal
The school searched through her backpack
They can search the locker when they have probable cause
No, they could have falsified there story. The school acted on an opinion.
the student did have expectation of privacy because it was in his locker which gives him protection of his stuff.
it is a justified search because it is regulation to search a students locker for dangerous objects.
they were right to suspect the students because they are the school responsibility, Also so others can feel safe when there in school.
1.)The Plaintiff is common wealth, because they are the ones who brought Snyder to trial
ReplyDelete2.) The defendant is Snyder because he is the one who is being taken to court against.
3.) A criminal trial, because Snyder has committed a crime and they want to punish him for it.
4.) The constitutional right the Fourth Amendment
5.) They are allowed to search the lockers without any reason at all, even tho in this case they had a very good reason to search the locker.
6.) No. the girl could have been lying, set him up, or planted it herself just to get him in trouble. But he admitted to it so yea
7.) Yes he did have exspectation of privacy, because his locker during school is his own property.,
8.) Yes it was, because they were given information about Snyder having and selling drugs. The information ended up being true anyway.
9.) Yes, drugs are not allowed on school grounds and since he was sellig that even worse.