Con Law, Crim, & Crim Pro Practice Problems

Congress enacted a statute that purported to ban all discrimination against African-Americans in any commercial transaction taking place within the United States. The statute would most likely be held: •(A) Constitutional, under Thirteenth Amendment provisions barring badges or incidents of slavery. •(B) Constitutional, because the federal government has an important interest in furthering the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. •(C) Unconstitutional, because Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause do not extend so far as the statute would require. •(D) Unconstitutional, because commercial transactions are not among the privileges or immunities of national citizenship.

(A) Constitutional, under Thirteenth Amendment provisions barring badges or incidents of slavery.

A fashionista purchased a wardrobe closet at an antique auction. Three days later, while cleaning the inside of the closet, she discovered a small quantity of a white powder inside a box. She showed the box to her boyfriend, a paralegal. He identified the powder as driscamine, a controlled substance. He told her that it was illegal to buy driscamine, but because she did not know that it was in the closet when she purchased it, it was okay to keep it, which she did. A state statute prohibits "willful and unlawful possession of a controlled substance." If the fashionista is charged with violating this statute, she should be found: •(A) Guilty, because she knowingly possessed the driscamine. •(B) Guilty, because she acquired the driscamine when she intentionally purchased the wardrobe closet and, in doing so, committed the requisite unlawful act. •(C) Not guilty, because she thought she was acting lawfully. •(D) Not guilty, because she did not willfully acquire the driscamine and, hence, committed no unlawful act. •

(A) Guilty, because she knowingly possessed the driscamine.

A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a large-screen TV from a neighbor's house. The friend was angry with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the neighbor's house. The young man broke in while the friend remained outside. The friend called the police on his cell phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the back door. The jurisdiction defines crimes as at common law. Of what crime, if any, can the friend properly be convicted? •(A) No crime. •(B) Conspiracy. •(C) Burglary. •(D) Conspiracy and larceny.

(A) No crime.

Under a state law, a drug company that makes a false factual claim about a prescription drug is strictly liable in tort to any user of the drug. In an advertisement promoting sales of a particular drug, a drug company claimed that the drug was safe for children. Suit was filed against the company on behalf of a child who allegedly was harmed as a result of taking the drug. At the time the child took the drug, the available medical studies supported the company's claim that the drug was safe for children, but later research proved that the drug actually was harmful to children. The company has moved to dismiss the suit on First Amendment grounds. Should the court grant the motion? •(A) No, because false or misleading commercial speech is not constitutionally protected. •(B) No, because the drug business is subject to extensive health and safety regulation. •(C) Yes, because liability cannot be imposed for false statements without a showing of actual malice. •(D) Yes, because the company's claims about the drug were a matter of public concern.

(A) No, because false or misleading commercial speech is not constitutionally protected.

A state university adopted a new regulation prohibiting certain kinds of speech on campus. Students, staff, and faculty convicted by campus tribunals of violating the regulation were subject to penalties that included fines, suspensions, expulsions, and termination of employment. The regulation was widely unpopular, and there was a great deal of public anger directed toward the two tenured professors who had drafted and promoted it. The following year, the state legislature approved a severable provision in the appropriations bill for the university declaring that none of the university's funding could be used to pay the two professors, who were specifically named in the provision. In the past, the professors' salaries had always been paid from funds appropriated to the university by the legislature, and the university had no other funds that could be used to pay them. If the professors challenge the constitutionality of the appropriations provision, is the court likely to uphold the provision? •(A) No, because it amounts to the imposition by the legislature of a punishment without trial. •(B) No, because it is based on conduct the professors engaged in before it was enacted. •(C) Yes, because the Eleventh Amendment gives the state legislature plenary power to appropriate state funds in the manner that it deems most conducive to the welfare of its people. •(D) Yes, because the full faith and credit clause requires the court to enforce the provision strictly according to its terms.

(A) No, because it amounts to the imposition by the legislature of a punishment without trial.

A state law that restricted abortion was challenged in state court as a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and as a violation of a similar due process provision of the state constitution. The case made its way to the state's highest court, which ruled that "the law violated the due process provisions of both the U.S. and the state constitutions." If petitioned to do so, may the U.S. Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction to review the state court decision? •(A) No, because the state court's decision in this case rests on adequate and independent state law grounds. •(B) No, because the U.S. Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction only over state court decisions that determine the constitutionality of federal laws. •(C) Yes, because the U.S. Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over any ruling of a state's highest court based on an interpretation of federal law. •(D) Yes, because the U.S. Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over decisions that find state laws in violation of the federal Constitution.

(A) No, because the state court's decision in this case rests on adequate and independent state law grounds.

In the wake of massive terrorist attacks carried out inside the United States by foreign citizens, Congress declared war on the terrorists' nation of origin. It also passed a statute requiring every alien who is a citizen of the enemy nation to either immediately leave the United States voluntarily or be subject to deportation. An inseverable provision of the new statute provides that the United States Supreme Court will have original and exclusive jurisdiction over any action brought to challenge the validity of the statute. Is the new statute constitutional? (A) No, because the statute does not fall within the categories of cases specified in Article III as those over which the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. (B) No, because the statute violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. (C) Yes, because among the powers of Congress enumerated in Article I, Section 8, is the power to enact laws governing immigration and naturalization. (D) Yes, because Article III specifically provides that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall be subject to such exceptions and regulations as Congress shall make.

(A) No, because the statute does not fall within the categories of cases specified in Article III as those over which the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.

James and Mary Green were walking to their car one evening after having seen a movie. As they were passing a dark alleyway, Davis leaped out brandishing a gun. He pushed Mary against the wall of a nearby building, held the gun to her head, and demanded money from James. James handed over his cash. Davis grabbed the cash and ran away. Which of the following, listed in descending order of seriousness, is the most serious crime for which Davis may be convicted? •(A) Robbery from James Green. •(B) Larceny from James Green. •(C) Assault on James and Mary Green. •(D) Assault on Mary Green.

(A) Robbery from James Green.

The President issued an executive order in an effort to encourage U.S. citizens to use the metric (Celsius) system of temperatures. Section 1 of the executive order requires the U.S. Weather Bureau, a federal executive agency, to state temperatures only in Celsius in all weather reports. Section 2 of the executive order requires all privately owned radio and television stations giving weather reports to report temperatures only in Celsius. No federal statute is applicable. Is the President's executive order constitutional? •(A) Section 1 is constitutional, but Section 2 is not. •(B) Section 2 is constitutional, but Section 1 is not. •(C) Sections 1 and 2 are constitutional. (D) Sections 1 and 2 are unconstitutional.

(A) Section 1 is constitutional, but Section 2 is not.

Congressional committees heard testimony from present and former holders of licenses issued by state vocational licensing boards. According to the testimony, the boards had unfairly manipulated their disciplinary proceedings in order to revoke the licenses of some license holders as a means of protecting favored licensees from competition. In response, Congress enacted a statute prescribing detailed procedural requirements for the disciplinary proceedings of all state vocational licensing boards. The statute requires the state boards to provide licensees with adequate notice and opportunity for an adjudicatory hearing in all disciplinary proceedings. The statute also prescribes membership criteria for state vocational licensing boards, designed to ensure that the boards are likely to be neutral. Which of the following provides the best source of authority for this federal statute? •(A) Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. •(B) The general welfare clause of Article I, Section 8. •(C) The privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 2. •(D) The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

(A) Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The open-air amphitheater in the city park of Rightville has been utilized for concerts and other entertainment programs. Until this year, each of the groups performing in that city facility was allowed to make its own arrangements for sound equipment and sound technicians. After recurring complaints from occupants of residential buildings adjacent to the city park about intrusive noise from some performances held in the amphitheater, the Rightville City Council passed an ordinance establishing city control over all sound amplification at all programs held there. The ordinance provided that Rightville's Department of Parks would be the sole provider in the amphitheater of sound amplification equipment and of the technicians to operate the equipment "to ensure a proper balance between the quality of the sound at such performances and respect for the privacy of nearby residential neighbors." Which of the following standards should a court use to determine the constitutionality on its face of this content-neutral ordinance? •(A) The ordinance is narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest, and does not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of expression. •(B) The ordinance is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, and does not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of expression. •(C) The ordinance is rationally related to a legitimate government interest and restricts the expressive rights involved no more than is reasonable under the circumstances. •(D) The ordinance is substantially related to a legitimate governmental interest and restricts the expressive rights involved no more than is reasonable in light of the surrounding circumstances. •

(A) The ordinance is narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest, and does not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of expression.

A federal statute enacted pursuant to the powers of Congress to enforce the 14th Amendment prohibits any state from discriminating against state employees on the basis of race. The statute expressly authorizes employees to sue the state government in federal district court for any damages resulting from that state action. On the basis of this federal statute, Employee sues State X in federal district court. State X moves to dismiss the suit on the ground that Congress lacks authority to authorize such suits against a state. Which of the following is the strongest argument that Employee can offer in opposition to the state's motion to dismiss this suit? •(A) When Congress exercises power vested in it by the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress may enact appropriate remedial legislation expressly subjecting states to private suits for damages in federal court. •(B) When Congress exercises power vested in it by any provision of the Constitution, Congress has unlimited authority to authorize private actions for damages against a state. •(C) While the Eleventh Amendment restrains the federal judiciary, that amendment does not limit the power of Congress to modify the sovereign immunity of the states. •(D) While the Eleventh Amendment applies to suits in federal court by citizens of one state against another state, it does not apply to such suits by citizens against their own states.

(A) When Congress exercises power vested in it by the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress may enact appropriate remedial legislation expressly subjecting states to private suits for damages in federal court.

The defendant became very intoxicated one night. As he was staggering home, he came upon a construction site in which several large pieces of heavy equipment were parked. Having had heavy equipment training in the military, the defendant decided it would be fun to rearrange all of the machines so that the operators would be very surprised when they returned to work the next day. He started up the largest piece of heavy equipment and drove it to the edge of the site, but because he was so intoxicated, he lost control of it, and it rumbled out into the street, weaved along for about a quarter mile, and then crashed into a house, flattening it. In this jurisdiction, it is a misdemeanor to tamper with heavy equipment on a construction site. The defendant is prosecuted on the tampering charge, as well as for reckless damage of the house. Should he be convicted of the reckless damage charge? •(A) Yes, because he was tampering with heavy equipment on a construction site, in violation of the law, when he damaged the house. •(B) Yes, because he was intoxicated and driving a huge piece of earth moving equipment. •(C) No, because at most he could be found guilty of criminal negligence. •(D) No, because he must have been aware that his conduct would cause damage to the house in order to be found guilty of reckless damage.

(A) Yes, because he was tampering with heavy equipment on a construction site, in violation of the law, when he damaged the house.

A federal officer had probable cause to believe that a woman had participated in a bank robbery. Two days after the robbery, the woman checked into a local hotel. When the woman left her room for the evening, the hotel manager opened the hotel room door so that the officer could enter the room and look inside. The officer did not find any of the stolen money but did see, lying open on the bed, the woman's diary. The diary contained an entry describing the woman's involvement in robbing the bank. The woman was charged in federal court with bank robbery. She has moved to suppress the diary. Should the court suppress the diary? •(A) Yes, because the officer had no warrant. •(B) Yes, because admitting the diary would violate the woman's privilege against self-incrimination. •(C) No, because the hotel manager had actual authority to allow the officer into the hotel room. •(D) No, because the officer reasonably relied on the hotel manager's apparent authority to allow the officer into the hotel room.

(A) Yes, because the officer had no warrant.

Police Officer stopped Dexter for reckless driving late one night. Noting that Dexter was nervous, Police Officer ordered him from the car and placed him under arrest for reckless driving. By state law, Police Officer was empowered to arrest Dexter and take him to the nearest police station for booking. Police Officer searched Dexter's person and discovered a package of heroin in his jacket pocket. Dexter is charged with possession of heroin. At trial, Dexter's motion to prevent introduction of the heroin into evidence, on the ground that the search violated his federal constitutional rights, will most probably be •(A) denied, because the search was incident to a valid custodial arrest. •(B) denied, because Police Officer acted under a reasonable suspicion and legitimate concern for his own personal safety. •(C) granted, because there was no reasonable or proper basis upon which to justify conducting the search. •(D) granted if Police Officer was not in fear and had no suspicion that Dexter was transporting narcotics.

(A) denied, because the search was incident to a valid custodial arrest.

D was short of money. He decided to go into Winston's house to take Winston's silverware and then to sell it. That night, while Winston was away, D entered by picking the lock on the front door. He picked up a chest of silverware from the dining room and went out the front door of the house to his car. As he was putting the chest of silverware into the trunk, he had second thoughts and decided that he did not wish to become a thief. He reentered the house and replaced the chest of silverware where he had found it. As he came out of the house the second time, he was arrested by the police, who had been called by a neighbor. D is •(A) guilty of burglary and larceny. •(B) guilty of burglary and attempted larceny. •(C) guilty of burglary but not guilty of any larceny offense. •(D) not guilty of burglary or any larceny offense.

(A) guilty of burglary and larceny.

Defendant entered a grocery store just before closing time. He went up to the clerk in the store and said, "Hand over all the money in the cash register or you will get hurt." The clerk fainted and struck her head on the edge of the counter. Defendant went behind the counter and removed $200 from the cash register. After taking a couple of steps toward the front door, defendant saw a police car pull up to the curb. Defendant then put the $200 back into the cash register and ran out the back door. On this evidence, the most serious crime(s) Defendant could be convicted of is (are): (A) robbery. (B) assault and robbery. (C) attempted robbery. (D) assault and attempted robbery.

(A) robbery.

Abigail was scheduled to undergo surgery for removal of her appendix. Doctor Smith, her family doctor, agreed to perform the operation. The day of the surgery, Doctor Smith was called out of town because of a family illness. Even though there was no emergency, it was decided by the hospital to go ahead with the operation and substitute Doctor Michaels for Doctor Smith. Doctor Michaels is considered to be an expert in appendectomies. Abigail was not informed of the switch in doctors. If Abigail sues Doctor Michaels on a battery theory, who will prevail? (A) Abigail, only if the operation was unsuccessful. (B) Abigail, regardless of whether the operation was successful. (C) Doctor Michaels, because he was at least as qualified as Doctor Smith. (D) Doctor Michaels, if Doctor Smith approved the substitution of doctors. If Abigail sues Doctor Michaels on a negligence theory, who will prevail?

(B) Abigail, regardless of whether the operation was successful. (A) Abigail, only if the operation was unsuccessful.

A man and his friend, who were both adults, went to a party. The man and the friend had many drinks at the party and became legally intoxicated. They decided to play a game of chance called "Russian roulette" using a gun loaded with one bullet. As part of the game, the man pointed the gun at the friend and, on her command, pulled the trigger. The man shot the friend in the shoulder. What common law crime, if any, did the man commit? •(A) Attempted murder. •(B) Battery. •(C) No crime, because the man was legally intoxicated. •(D) No crime, because the friend consented to the offense.

(B) Battery.

Davis decided to kill Adams. He set out for Adams' house. Before he got there he saw Brooks, who resembled Adams. Thinking Brooks was Adams, Davis shot at Brooks. The shot missed Brooks but wounded Case, who was some distance away. Davis had not seen Case. In a prosecution under a statute that proscribes attempt to commit murder, the district attorney should indicate that the intended victim(s) was (were): •(A) Adams only. •(B) Brooks only. •(C) Case only. •(D) Adams and Brooks.

(B) Brooks only.

An appropriations act passed by Congress over the President's veto directs that one billion dollars "shall be spent" by the federal government for the development of a new military weapons system, which is available only from the Arms Corporation. On the order of the President, the Secretary of Defense refuses to authorize a contract for purchase of the weapons system. The Arms Corporation sues the Secretary of Defense alleging an unlawful withholding of these federal funds. The strongest constitutional argument for the Arms Corporation is that •(A) passage of an appropriation over a veto makes the spending mandatory. •(B) Congress's power to appropriate funds includes the power to require that the funds be spent as directed. •(C) the President's independent constitutional powers do not specifically refer to spending. •(D) the President's power to withhold such funds is limited to cases where foreign affairs are directly involved.

(B) Congress's power to appropriate funds includes the power to require that the funds be spent as directed.

In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be guilty of the crime charged? •(A) Without the permission of Owner, Defendant takes Owner's car with the intention of driving it three miles to a grocery store and back. Defendant is charged with larceny. •(B) Defendant gets permission to borrow Owner's car for the evening by falsely promising to return it, although he does not intend to do so. Two days later, he changes his mind and returns the car. Defendant is charged with larceny by trick. •(C) Defendant gets permission to borrow Owner's car for the evening by misrepresenting his identity and falsely claiming he has a valid driver's license. He returns the car the next day. Defendant is charged with obtaining property by false pretenses. •(D) With permission, Defendant, promising to return it by 9 p.m., borrows Owner's car. Later in the evening, Defendant decides to keep the car until the next morning and does so. Defendant is charged with larceny.

(B) Defendant gets permission to borrow Owner's car for the evening by falsely promising to return it, although he does not intend to do so. Two days later, he changes his mind and returns the car. Defendant is charged with larceny by trick.

A state grand jury investigating a murder learned that the key suspect might have kept a diary. The grand jury issued a subpoena duces tecum requiring the suspect to produce any diary. The subpoena made clear that the grand jury was seeking only the diary and not any testimony from the suspect. The suspect refused to produce the diary, citing his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Under what circumstances, if any, may the grand jury compel production of the diary over the suspect's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege? •(A) It may compel production without granting immunity, because the suspect was not compelled to write a diary. •(B) It may compel production if the suspect is granted use and derivative use immunity from the act of production. •(C) It may compel production only if the suspect is granted transactional immunity. •(D) It may not compel production of a private diary under any circumstances.

(B) It may compel production if the suspect is granted use and derivative use immunity from the act of production.

The police suspected a woman of growing marijuana in her private residence. Narcotics officers went to her neighborhood in the middle of the night. Nothing unlawful could be seen from the street, so the officers walked into her neighbors' yard and looked in through the woman's kitchen window, which had neither drapes nor shades. The officers observed what appeared to be marijuana plants being cultivated under grow lights in the kitchen. Using this information, the officers obtained a search warrant. The execution of the warrant netted numerous marijuana plants. The woman was charged with possession of marijuana. She has moved to suppress the marijuana plants recovered when the warrant was executed, claiming that the evidence supporting the warrant was obtained through a search that violated the Fourth Amendment. Should the marijuana plants be suppressed? •(A) No, because regardless of the lawfulness of the police conduct beforehand, they did obtain a warrant to search the woman's home. •(B) No, because the woman could have no reasonable expectation of privacy concerning activities that she exposed to the view of her neighbors. •(C) Yes, because the officers' clandestine observation of the plants violated the woman's reasonable expectation of privacy concerning activities occurring in her home. •(D) Yes, because no unlawful activities could be observed by the officers from any public vantage point.

(B) No, because the woman could have no reasonable expectation of privacy concerning activities that she exposed to the view of her neighbors.

The defendant was walking down a street when he realized that a long-lost friend was walking in the opposite direction. The defendant started waving his arms in a desperate attempt to get his friend's attention. The defendant did not notice an old woman, who was walking past him, and negligently struck her with his elbow with sufficient force to cause her to stumble to the pavement. The fall did not, however, cause her any major injury. If the defendant is prosecuted for criminal battery, he will probably be found: •(A) Not guilty, because his act did not cause serious bodily injury. •(B) Not guilty, because he did not have the mental state required for criminal battery. •(C) Guilty, because he failed to exercise due care in flailing his arms near a public sidewalk. •(D) Guilty, because he caused an offensive touching.

(B) Not guilty, because he did not have the mental state required for criminal battery.

A woman charged with murder has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. At her trial, in which the questions of guilt and sanity are being tried together, the evidence shows that the woman stalked the victim for several hours before following him to an isolated hiking trail where she shot and killed him. Expert witnesses for the defense have testified that the woman knew that killing was illegal and wrong, but that she suffered from a serious mental illness that left her in the grip of a powerful and irresistible compulsion to kill the victim. If the jury believes the testimony of the defense experts, under what circumstances could the jury properly acquit the woman of murder? •(A) Only if the jurisdiction follows the M'Naghten test for insanity. •(B) Only if the jurisdiction follows the ALI Model Penal Code test for insanity. •(C) If the jurisdiction follows either the M'Naghten or the ALI Model Penal Code test for insanity. •(D) Even if the jurisdiction has abolished the insanity defense.

(B) Only if the jurisdiction follows the ALI Model Penal Code test for insanity.

Senator makes a speech on the floor of the United States Senate in which she asserts that William, a federal civil servant with minor responsibilities, was twice convicted of fraud by the courts of State X. In making this assertion, Senator relied wholly on research done by Frank, her chief legislative assistant. In fact, it was a different man named William and not William the civil servant, who was convicted of these crimes in the state court proceedings. This mistake was the result of carelessness on Frank's part. No legislation affecting the appointment or discipline of civil servants or the program of the federal agency for which William works was under consideration at the time Senator made her speech about William on the floor of the Senate. William sues Senator and Frank for defamation. Both defendants move to dismiss the complaint. As a matter of constitutional law, the court hearing this motion should •(A) grant it as to Frank, because he is protected by the freedom of speech guarantee against defamation actions by government officials based on his mere carelessness; but deny it as to Senator, because, as an officer of the United States, she is a constituent part of the government and, therefore, has no freedom of speech rights in that capacity. •(B) grant it as to both defendants, because Senator is immune to suit for any speech she makes in the Senate under the speech or debate clause of Article I, Section 6, and Frank may assert Senator's immunity for his assistance to her in preparing the speech. •(C) deny it as to both defendants, because any immunity of Senator under the speech or debate clause does not attach to a speech that is not germane to pending legislative business, and Frank is entitled to no greater immunity than the legislator he was assisting. •(D) deny it as to Frank, because he is not a legislator protected by the speech or debate clause; but grant it as to Senator, because she is immune from suit for her speech by virtue of that clause.

(B) grant it as to both defendants, because Senator is immune to suit for any speech she makes in the Senate under the speech or debate clause of Article I, Section 6, and Frank may assert Senator's immunity for his assistance to her in preparing the speech.

Dent, while eating in a restaurant, noticed that a departing customer at the next table had left a five-dollar bill as a tip for the waitress. Dent put it in his pocket. As he stood up to leave, another customer who had seen him take the money ran over to him and hit him in the face with her umbrella. Enraged, Dent choked the customer to death. Dent is charged with murder. He requests an instruction allowing the jury to find him guilty of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder. Dent's request should be •(A) granted, because the jury could find that Dent acted recklessly and not with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm. •(B) granted, because the jury could find that being hit in the face with an umbrella constitutes adequate provocation. •(C) denied, because the evidence shows that Dent intended to kill or to cause serious bodily harm. •(D) denied, because the evidence shows that Dent provoked the assault on himself by his criminal misconduct.

(B) granted, because the jury could find that being hit in the face with an umbrella constitutes adequate provocation.

Several years ago, the State of Nevada issued bonds in order to pay for new road construction. In offering these bonds for sale, Nevada stated in its public offering material that tolls collected from the roads built with these bonds would not be used, by statute, for any purpose other than repayment of the bonds or for general improvement of the roads built with the bonds. Nevada knew this limitation on the use of tolls was important to bond holders because it protected state revenue designated for repayment of the bonds. Several years later, but before the bonds had been repaid, Nevada repealed the statute discussed above, and passed new legislation that allowed use of the tolls for a light rail project. At that time, other methods of financing the light rail were available that would not impair existing contracts, but the legislature rejected these other alternatives. This action by Nevada: •(A) likely violates the Contracts Clause because it alters the underlying assumptions relied upon by the bond holders. •(B) likely violates the Contracts Clause because the statutory change does not seem necessary to funding a light rail project. •(C) likely does not violate the Contracts Clause because that Clause only applies when a contract is between private parties, and does not apply when, as here, the contract is between a state and a private party. •(D) likely does not violate the Contracts Clause because the Supreme Court has displayed great deference in allowing states to exercise their police power without running afoul of the Contracts Clause.

(B) likely violates the Contracts Clause because the statutory change does not seem necessary to funding a light rail project.

One evening, Parnell had several drinks and then started to drive home. As he was proceeding down Main Boulevard, an automobile pulled out of a side street to his right. Parnell's car struck this automobile broadside. The driver of the other car was killed as a result of the collision. A breath analysis test administered after the accident showed that Parnell satisfied the legal definition of intoxication. If Parnell is prosecuted for manslaughter, his best chance for acquittal would be based on an argument that •(A) the other driver was contributorily negligent. •(B) the collision would have occurred even if Parnell had not been intoxicated. •(C) because of his intoxication he lacked the mens rea needed for manslaughter. •(D) he did not act with malice.

(B) the collision would have occurred even if Parnell had not been intoxicated.

A woman promised to pay $10,000 to a hit man if he would kill her neighbor in any manner that could not be traced to her. The hit man bought a gun and watched the neighbor's house for an opportunity to shoot him. One evening, unaware of the hit man's presence, the neighbor tripped as he was walking toward his house, falling and hitting his head against the front steps. Believing that the neighbor was unconscious, the hit man ran over to him and shot him twice in the chest. When the woman learned of the neighbor's death, she paid the hit man $10,000. A medical examiner determined that the neighbor was already dead when the hit man shot him. For which of the following crimes could the woman properly be convicted? •(A) Murder and conspiracy. •(B) Attempted murder, conspiracy, and solicitation. •(C) Attempted murder and conspiracy. •(D) No crimes.

(C) Attempted murder and conspiracy.

A woman was arrested outside of a house shortly after she had broken in and stolen some jewelry. She was indicted for larceny and later for burglary. She was tried on the larceny indictment and convicted. Thereafter, she was brought to trial on the burglary indictment. Relying on the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution, the woman moves to dismiss the indictment. Her motion should be: •(A) Granted, because the Double Jeopardy Clause requires that all offenses arising out of the same transaction be adjudicated in the same trial. •(B) Granted, because the Double Jeopardy Clause allows the imposition of separate sentences for separate offenses occurring during the same criminal episode only if the offenses are tried together. •(C) Denied, because larceny and burglary are offenses that may constitutionally be tried and punished separately, even if they arise out of the same transaction, because each requires proof of a fact that the other does not. •(D) Denied, because the only protection double jeopardy affords to a defendant charged with multiple counts is under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

(C) Denied, because larceny and burglary are offenses that may constitutionally be tried and punished separately, even if they arise out of the same transaction, because each requires proof of a fact that the other does not.

A man bought an antique car from a car dealer in State A. Under State A law, a person who buys from such a dealer acquires good title, even if the property was stolen from a previous owner. The man showed the car at an antique car show in State B. A woman recognized the car as having been stolen from her. Under State B law, a person whose property is stolen may reclaim it, even if the current possessor is an innocent purchaser. The woman sued the man in a State B court to reclaim the car. In his defense, the man claimed that he had good title under the law of State A. Nevertheless, the State B court applied State B law, and the woman prevailed. The man did not appeal. The sheriff had the car returned to State B and gave the woman possession of the car. Several months later, the woman moved to State A, bringing the car with her. The man brought a new suit against the woman in a State A court, claiming that the State B court in the prior suit should have applied State A law, which protects innocent purchasers. The woman appeared and moved to dismiss the suit. What should the State A court do? •(A) Apply the federal law of sale of goods, because the car has moved in interstate commerce. •(B) Apply State A law, because the car is currently located in State A. •(C) Dismiss the suit, because the State A court must give full faith and credit to the State B judgment. •(D) Remove the case to federal court, because the car has moved in interstate commerce, and therefore the case raises a federal question.

(C) Dismiss the suit, because the State A court must give full faith and credit to the State B judgment.

A defendant was tried for armed robbery. The state introduced evidence that a man, identified by witnesses as the defendant, entered a convenience store at 11 p.m. on March 5, threatened the clerk with a gun, and took $75 from the cash register. The defendant did not testify, but his sister did. She testified that on March 5, at the time of the robbery, the defendant was with her in a city 300 miles away. On cross-examination, the sister admitted having given a statement to the police in which she had said that the defendant was not with her on March 5, but she claimed that the earlier statement was mistaken. The court instructed the jury that in order to convict the defendant, they had to find all of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. As to the defendant's claim of alibi, which of the following additional instructions would be proper? •(A) Alibi is a matter of defense and so must be established by the defendant; however, the burden of persuasion is by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. •(B) Before you may consider the defendant's claim of alibi, you must decide whether he has produced sufficient evidence to raise the issue. •(C) If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was present at the convenience store at about 11 p.m. on March 5, you must find him not guilty. •(D) If the defendant's evidence has caused you to have a reasonable doubt as to whether he was the robber, you must find him not guilty.

(C) If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was present at the convenience store at about 11 p.m. on March 5, you must find him not guilty.

Insurance is provided in the State of Shoshone only by private companies. Although the state insurance commissioner inspects insurance companies for solvency, the state does not regulate their rates or policies. An insurance company charges higher rates for burglary insurance to residents of one part of the county in Shoshone than to residents of another section of the same county because of the different crime rates in those areas. Foster is a resident who was charged the higher rate by the insurance company because of the location of her residence. Foster sues the insurance company, alleging that the different insurance rates unconstitutionally deny her the equal protection of the law. Will Foster's suit prevail? •(A) Yes, because the higher crime rate in Foster's neighborhood demonstrates that the county police are not giving persons who reside there the equal protection of the laws. •(B) Yes, because the insurance rate differential is inherently discriminatory. •(C) No, because the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is not applicable to the actions of these insurance companies. •(D) No, because there is a rational basis for the differential in insurance rates.

(C) No, because the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is not applicable to the actions of these insurance companies.

A man on probation after pleading guilty to possession of cocaine was suspected of selling cocaine out of his home. His probation officer came to his house and rang the bell. As soon as the man opened the door to see who was there, the officer entered the home, despite the man's protests. After searching the home, the probation officer discovered several bags of marijuana in a drawer. The man was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana with intent to sell. A statute in the jurisdiction in which the search took place provides that, as a condition of probation, a probationer is on notice that his probation officer may conduct a search of the probationer's person or home, without probable cause, at any time of the day or night. The man moved to have evidence of the marijuana suppressed by the court, claiming that the state statute that authorized the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Will he prevail? •(A) Yes, unless probable cause was established by the officer's tip in conjunction with other circumstances. •(B) Yes, because a search warrant was not obtained and no exception to the warrant requirement applies. •(C) No, because the man had a diminished expectation of privacy and the government has a heightened need to search probationers' homes. (D) No, because the search was incident to a lawful arrest.

(C) No, because the man had a diminished expectation of privacy and the government has a heightened need to search probationers' homes.

A con artist asked his friend to introduce him to the town's banker so that he could apply for a loan to set up a hardware business. The friend, also a friend of the banker, arranged a meeting and later gave the con artist a glowing recommendation based on their long and deep friendship. When the banker approved a $25,000 loan, the friend was present at the signing of the loan papers and co-signed on the con artist's behalf. Unbeknownst to the friend, the con artist intentionally misrepresented his intentions as to the proceeds of the loan and his financial status, forging some documents used to verify his solvency. The con artist has been tried and convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses (a felony) and sentenced to state prison. If the friend is charged as an accessory to obtaining money by false pretenses, he should be found: •(A) Guilty, because he was present when the crime was committed and was thus a principal in the second degree. •(B) Guilty, because he encouraged and aided the con artist, and his ignorance of the con artist's insolvency is no defense to the charged crime. •(C) Not guilty, because he lacked the requisite mental state to be an aider and abettor. •(D) Not guilty, because his encouragement and aid was not the legal cause of the offense.

(C) Not guilty, because he lacked the requisite mental state to be an aider and abettor.

A prosecutor presented to a federal grand jury the testimony of a witness in order to secure a defendant's indictment for theft of government property. The prosecutor did not disclose to the grand jury that the witness had been convicted four years earlier of perjury. The grand jury returned an indictment, and the defendant pleaded not guilty. Shortly thereafter, the prosecutor took the case to trial, calling the witness to testify before the jury. The prosecutor did not disclose the witness's prior perjury conviction until the defense was preparing to rest. Defense counsel immediately moved for a mistrial, which the court denied. Instead, the court allowed the defense to recall the witness for the purpose of impeaching him with this conviction, but the witness could not be located. The court then allowed the defense to introduce documentary evidence of the witness's criminal record to the jury before resting its case. The jury convicted the defendant. The defendant has moved for a new trial, arguing that the prosecutor's failure to disclose the witness's prior conviction in a timely manner violated the defendant's right to due process of law. If the court grants the defendant's motion, what will be the most likely reason? •(A) The defendant was unable to cross-examine the witness about the conviction. •(B) The prosecutor failed to inform the grand jury of the witness's conviction. •(C) The court found it reasonably probable that the defendant would have been acquitted had the defense been given timely access to the information about the witness's conviction. •(D) The court found that the prosecutor had deliberately delayed disclosing the witness's conviction to obtain a strategic advantage.

(C) The court found it reasonably probable that the defendant would have been acquitted had the defense been given timely access to the information about the witness's conviction.

A state law made it a criminal offense for any state employee to "knowingly provide educational services or extend welfare benefits" to a foreign national who was in the United States in violation of U.S. immigration laws. The principal of a public elementary school was prosecuted under the law for enrolling and providing education to several foreign nationals he knew to be in the country illegally. All of these actions took place before the new law was adopted. No federal statute applied to the principal's actions. What constitutional provision would be most helpful to the principal's defense? •(A) The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. •(B) The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. •(C) The ex post facto clause of Article I, Section 10. •(D) The privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(C) The ex post facto clause of Article I, Section 10.

After the release of various news stories about the President's possible violation of political campaign funding laws, a federal grand jury investigation was initiated. The grand jury subpoenaed documents and records from several top officers of the executive branch. Learning of the subpoenas, the President ordered all executive officials to refuse to turn over materials, claiming "executive privilege." Which of the following statements is most accurate? •(A) The subpoena violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers. •(B) The President's executive privilege is absolute, except in cases of impeachment. •(C) The presidential papers are presumptively privileged, but the privilege must yield to a demonstrated specific need for evidence in a grand jury investigation. •(D) The President's executive privilege applies only to congressional investigations.

(C) The presidential papers are presumptively privileged, but the privilege must yield to a demonstrated specific need for evidence in a grand jury investigation.

A state legislature received complaints from traffic accident victims who, in the days immediately following their accidents, had received unwelcome and occasionally misleading telephone calls on behalf of medical care providers. The callers warned of the risks of not obtaining prompt medical evaluation to detect injuries resulting from accidents and offered free examinations to determine whether the victims had suffered any compensable injuries. In response to these complaints, the legislature enacted a law prohibiting medical care providers from soliciting any accident victim by telephone within 30 days of his or her accident. Which of the following arguments would be most helpful to the state in defending the constitutionality of the law? •(A) Because the commercial speech that is the subject of the law includes some speech that is misleading, the First Amendment does not limit the state's power to regulate that speech. •(B) Because the law regulates only commercial speech, the state need only demonstrate that the restriction is rationally related to achieving the state's legitimate interests in protecting the privacy of accident victims and in regulating the medical profession. •(C) The state has substantial interests in protecting the privacy of accident victims and in regulating the practice of medical care providers, and the law is narrowly tailored to achieve the state's objectives. •(D) The law is a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation.

(C) The state has substantial interests in protecting the privacy of accident victims and in regulating the practice of medical care providers, and the law is narrowly tailored to achieve the state's objectives.

A state statute requires that all buses which operate as common carriers on the highways of the state shall be equipped with seat belts for passengers. Transport Lines, an interstate carrier, challenges the validity of the statute and the right of the state to make the requirement. What is the best basis for a constitutional challenge by Transport Lines? •(A) Violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. •(B) Violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. •(C) Unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. •(D) Difficulty of enforcement.

(C) Unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

A city owned and operated a municipal bus system. The city sold space on its buses for the posting of placards. Under the relevant city ordinance, the administrator of the bus system had sole discretion to decide which placards could be posted on the buses, and the administrator's decision was final. Although most of the placards that appeared on city buses were commercial advertisements, the administrator had often sold space on the buses for placards promoting various political, charitable, and religious causes. After a circus bought space on the buses for placards advertising its upcoming performances, an animal rights organization asked to buy space for a placard with photographs showing the mistreatment of animals in circus shows. The administrator denied the organization's request, stating that the proposed placard would be offensive to the circus, which had paid a substantial sum to place its placards on the buses, and that a circus employee had told her that none of the photographs on the organization's placard depicted animals belonging to this particular circus. The organization sued the administrator in an appropriate court for a declaration that her denial of the organization's request for placard space for the reasons she gave violated the First Amendment as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Is the organization likely to prevail? •(A) No, because the administrator's denial of space to the organization was a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction of speech. •(B) No, because a public official may not allow the use of public facilities for the propagation of a message that he or she believes may create a false or misleading impression. •(C) Yes, because a public official may not refuse to permit the dissemination of a message in a public forum solely on the basis of its content unless that denial is necessary to serve a compelling government interest. •(D) Yes, because a public official may not refuse to allow the use of any public facility to publish a message dealing with an issue of public concern.

(C) Yes, because a public official may not refuse to permit the dissemination of a message in a public forum solely on the basis of its content unless that denial is necessary to serve a compelling government interest.

A man intensely disliked his neighbors. One night, intending to frighten them, he spray-painted their house with racial epithets and threats to kill them. The man was arrested and prosecuted under a state law providing that "any person who threatens violence against another person with the intent to cause that person to fear for his or her life or safety may be imprisoned for up to five years." In defense, the man claimed that he did not intend to kill his neighbors, but only to scare them so that they would move away. Can the man constitutionally be convicted under this law? •(A) No, because he was only communicating his views and had not commenced any overt action against the neighbors. •(B) Yes, because he was engaged in trespass when he painted the words on his neighbors' house. •(C) Yes, because his communication was a threat by which he intended to intimidate his neighbors. •(D) Yes, because his communication was racially motivated and thus violated the protections of the Thirteenth Amendment.

(C) Yes, because his communication was a threat by which he intended to intimidate his neighbors.

Donna was arrested and taken to police headquarters, where she was given her Miranda warnings. Donna indicated that she wished to telephone her lawyer and was told that she could do so after her fingerprints had been taken. While being fingerprinted, however, Donna blurted out, "Paying a lawyer is a waste of money because I know you have me." At trial, Donna's motion to prevent the introduction of the statement she made while being fingerprinted will most probably be •(A) granted, because Donna's request to contact her attorney by telephone was reasonable and should have been granted immediately. •(B) granted, because of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. •(C) denied, because the statements were volunteered and not the result of interrogation. •(D) denied, because fingerprinting is not a critical stage of the proceeding requiring the assistance of counsel.

(C) denied, because the statements were volunteered and not the result of interrogation.

Dillon held up a gasoline station. During the robbery he shot and killed a customer who attempted to apprehend him. Dillon was prosecuted for premeditated murder and convicted. Thereafter, he was indicted for armed robbery of the station. Before the trial, his attorney moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that further proceedings were unconstitutional because of Dillon's prior conviction. The motion to dismiss should be •(A) granted, because once Dillon was convicted on any of the charges arising out of the robbery, the prosecution was constitutionally estopped from proceeding against Dillon on any charge stemming from the same transaction. •(B) granted, because the double jeopardy clause prohibits a subsequent trial on what is essentially a lesser included offense. •(C) denied, because there is no constitutional requirement that all known charges against Dillon be brought in the same prosecution. •(D) denied, because estoppel does not apply when the defendant is charged with violating two different statutes.

(C) denied, because there is no constitutional requirement that all known charges against Dillon be brought in the same prosecution.

The legislature of the state of Gray recently enacted a statute forbidding public utilities regulated by the Gray Public Service Commission to increase their rates more than once every two years. Economy Electric Power Company, a public utility regulated by that commission, has just obtained approval of the commission for a general rate increase. Economy Electric has routinely filed for a rate increase every 10 to 14 months during the last 20 years. Because of uncertainties about future fuel prices, the power company cannot ascertain with any certainty the date when it will need a further rate increase; but it thinks it may need such an increase sometime within the next 18 months. Economy Electric files an action in the federal district court in Gray requesting a declaratory judgment that this new statute of Gray forbidding public utility rate increases more often than once every two years is unconstitutional. Assume no federal statute is relevant. In this case, the court should •(A) hold the statute unconstitutional, because such a moratorium on rate increases deprives utilities of their property without due process of law. •(B) hold the statute constitutional, because the judgment of a legislature on a matter involving economic regulation is entitled to great deference. •(C) dismiss the complaint, because this action is not ripe for decision. •(D) dismiss the complaint, because controversies over state regulated utility rates are outside of the jurisdiction conferred on federal courts by Article III of the Constitution.

(C) dismiss the complaint, because this action is not ripe for decision.

Suspecting that students were using narcotics, the president of a private college arranged for local police to place concealed microphones in several suites of the dormitory. Using these microphones, the police recorded a conversation in which Green, a student, offered to sell marijuana to another student. The tape was played for a local judge. The judge issued a warrant to search Green's room. The room was searched by police, and marijuana was discovered. Green is charged with unlawful possession of narcotics. At trial, Green's motion to prevent the introduction of the marijuana into evidence will most probably be •(A) denied, because the college president, in loco parentis, had the responsibility of preventing unlawful activity by students under the president's supervision. •(B) denied, because there was probable cause to make the search and police obtained a warrant before commencing the search. •(C) granted, because Green's privacy was unreasonably invaded. •(D) granted, because the electronic surveillance was "fundamentally unfair."

(C) granted, because Green's privacy was unreasonably invaded.

Police were concerned about an increase in marijuana traffic in Defendant's neighborhood. One night, Police Officers, accompanied by dogs trained to sniff out marijuana, went into the backyard of Defendant's house and onto his porch. Defendant and his friend were inside having dinner. The dogs acted as if they smelled marijuana. Police Officers knocked on the back door. Defendant answered the door and let them in. Defendant was immediately placed under arrest. After a brief search, Police Officers confiscated a large quantity of marijuana which they found in Defendant's linen closet. Defendant's motion to prevent introduction of the marijuana into evidence will most probably be •(A) denied, because the search was incident to a valid arrest. •(B) denied, because Defendant permitted Police Officers to enter his house. •(C) granted, because the police activity violated Defendant's right to be free from unreasonable searches. •(D) granted, because this kind of detection by trained dogs has not been scientifically verified and cannot be the basis for probable cause.

(C) granted, because the police activity violated Defendant's right to be free from unreasonable searches.

Congress passed a bill prohibiting the President from granting a pardon to any person who had not served at least one-third of the sentence imposed by the court which convicted that person. The President vetoed the bill, claiming that it was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Congress passed it over his veto by a two-thirds vote of each house. This act of Congress is •(A) constitutional, because it was enacted over the President's veto by a two-thirds vote of each house. •(B) constitutional, because it is a necessary and proper means of carrying out the powers of Congress. •(C) unconstitutional, because it interferes with the plenary power of the President to grant pardons. •(D) unconstitutional, because a Presidential veto based upon constitutional grounds may be overridden only with the concurrence of three-fourths of the state legislatures.

(C) unconstitutional, because it interferes with the plenary power of the President to grant pardons.

A bartender promised to pay her friend $100 if he would take her color television and stereo from her house, so that she could report the items as being stolen to collect a settlement from the insurance company. Although the friend had visited the bartender's house on two previous occasions, he mistakenly broke into and entered her neighbor's house and took the neighbor's color television and stereo. When he returned to the bar where the bartender was waiting for him, both were arrested by the police. If the bartender and her friend are tried for conspiracy, the court will find them: •(A) Not guilty, because the friend failed to take the bartender's property. •(B) Not guilty, because the friend, being in the wrong house, could not take the bartender's property. •(C) Guilty, because they actually took the neighbor's property. •(D) Guilty, because they intentionally agreed to defraud the insurance company.

(D) Guilty, because they intentionally agreed to defraud the insurance company.

A husband and wife took their 12-year-old son to a political rally in an auditorium to hear a controversial United States senator speak. The speaker was late, and the wife stepped outside the auditorium to smoke a cigarette. While there, she saw a man placing what she believed to be a bomb against the back wall of the auditorium. She went back inside and told her husband what she had seen. Without alerting anyone, they took their son and left. Some 20 minutes later, the bomb exploded, killing 8 persons and injuring 50. In the jurisdiction, murder in the first degree is defined as an intentional homicide committed with premeditation and deliberation; murder in the second degree is defined as all other murder at common law; and manslaughter is defined as either a homicide in the heat of passion arising from adequate provocation or a homicide caused by gross negligence or reckless indifference to consequence. As to the deaths of the eight persons, what crime, if any, did the wife commit? (A) Manslaughter. (B) Murder in the first degree. (C) Murder in the second degree. (D) No crime.

(D) No crime.

Acting on information from reliable informants that drugs were being sold by residents at a certain fraternity house, the police obtained a search warrant that entitled them to search the entire premises for illegal narcotics. The police arrived at the house when a party was in progress and were admitted to the house by the fraternity president after showing the warrant. Officers proceeded to search the house. In an upstairs bedroom, they found a young woman who was a guest of a fraternity member sleeping on the bed. No one else was in the room. The police found a footlocker under the bed and opened it, finding a variety of illegal drugs. The police then awakened the woman and seized her purse from her. They found a small quantity of marijuana in the purse. The woman was charged with a drug possession offense. At her trial, the prosecution seeks to admit the marijuana seized from her purse over the objection of her attorney. Should the court admit the marijuana? •(A) Yes, because the footlocker was within the woman's reach. •(B) Yes, because the woman was present in a room where drugs were found. •(C) No, because the woman had no possessory interest in the premises. •(D) No, because the police had no reason to believe that the woman had drugs on her person.

(D) No, because the police had no reason to believe that the woman had drugs on her person.

A federal grand jury that was investigating drug trafficking in the jurisdiction subpoenaed a witness to testify. The prosecutor advised the witness that he had a Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify if he so chose. The witness asked that his attorney be allowed to advise him inside the grand jury room, but the prosecutor refused to allow the attorney inside. After speaking with his attorney outside the grand jury room, the witness decided to testify. During his testimony, he made self-incriminating statements. The witness was subsequently indicted for drug crimes. The indictment was based on the witness's grand jury testimony and on evidence seized in an unconstitutional search of the witness's home. The witness has moved to dismiss the indictment. Should the court dismiss the indictment? •(A) Yes, because the witness was denied his constitutional right to advice of counsel. •(B) Yes, because the indictment was based upon illegally seized evidence. •(C) No, because the witness waived his constitutional rights by testifying. •(D) No, because the witness had no right to counsel inside the grand jury room and the illegally seized evidence did not affect the validity of the indictment.

(D) No, because the witness had no right to counsel inside the grand jury room and the illegally seized evidence did not affect the validity of the indictment.

A consultant operated a consulting firm from an office in his home. An employee asked if she could stay late one night to use one of the firm's computers. The consultant replied that she could consider the computer hers. The employee mistakenly believed that the consultant was giving her the computer. Late the next night, when the employee could borrow her roommate's car, she drove to the consultant's house to pick up the computer. She went to the door leading directly to the office, which was unlocked. She let herself in and took the computer. The next day, the consultant reported the computer as stolen, and the police arrested the employee. The employee can be convicted of: •(A) Burglary. •(B) Attempted burglary. •(C) Larceny. •(D) None of the above.

(D) None of the above.

The Federal Family Film Enhancement Act assesses an excise tax of 10% on the price of admission to public movie theaters when they show films that contain actual or simulated scenes of human sexual intercourse. Which of the following is the strongest argument against the constitutionality of this federal act? •(A) The act imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. •(B) The act is not rationally related to any legitimate national interest. •(C) The act violates the equal protection concepts embodied in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment because it imposes a tax on the price of admission to view certain films and not on the price of admission to view comparable live performances. •(D) The act imposes a tax solely on the basis of the content of speech without adequate justification and, therefore, it is prohibited by the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment.

(D) The act imposes a tax solely on the basis of the content of speech without adequate justification and, therefore, it is prohibited by the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment.

The defendant and his friend entered a convenience store wearing ski masks and demanded all the money in the register, claiming they had a gun. The clerk promptly complied with that demand. The pair grabbed the money and ran out the door. A police officer saw them running through the parking lot, still wearing their masks, and surmised that a robbery had taken place. Without any warning, the police officer drew out his gun and fired two shots, one of which shattered the defendant's kneecap and sent him tumbling to the ground. The other bullet struck the friend in the head, killing him instantly. The defendant is placed on trial for the friend's death on a felony-murder theory. Which of the following is the best argument for the defendant to make in order to gain an acquittal: (A) Both the defendant and his friend were unarmed. (B) The police officer failed to warn the pair before firing. (C) The felony had already been completed when the friend was killed. (D) The friend was a co-felon.

(D) The friend was a co-felon.

A state statute provides as follows: "In all criminal cases, whenever the U.S. Constitution permits, the burden of proof as to a defense claimed by the defendant shall rest on the defendant, and the magnitude of the burden shall be as great as the Constitution permits." The same state defines the crime of forcible rape as follows: "Forcible rape consists of sexual penetration inflicted on an unconsenting person by means of force or violence. Consent of the victim is a complete defense to a charge of rape." At a defendant's trial for forcible rape, he testified that the alleged victim had consented to having sexual intercourse with him. How should the trial judge instruct the jury regarding the burden of proof on the issue of consent? •(A) The defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the victim consented. •(B) The defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the victim consented. •(C) The defendant must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim consented. •(D) The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim did not consent.

(D) The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim did not consent.

The State of Missoula has enacted a new election code designed to increase voter responsibility in the exercise of the franchise and to enlarge citizen participation in the electoral process. Which of the following is the strongest reason for finding unconstitutional a requirement in the Missoula election code that each voter must be literate in English? •(A) The requirement violates Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which provides that representatives to Congress be chosen "by the People of the several States." •(B) The requirement violates Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to "make or alter" state regulations providing for the "Times" and "Manner" of holding elections for senators and representatives. •(C) the requirement violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. •(D) The requirement violates the equal protection of the laws clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(D) The requirement violates the equal protection of the laws clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Acting on an anonymous telephone call (i.e., without probable cause or a warrant), police went to Desmond's apartment, knocked on the door, and demanded to search the apartment for narcotics. When Desmond refused, the police forced the door open and placed him under arrest. As they were removing him from the apartment, Desmond offered to give the officers "valuable information" in exchange for his release. Before he could say anything else, Desmond was given Miranda warnings by the police. Thereafter he told the police that he had stored some heroin in his friend's apartment and that he and his friend had been going to sell it. The heroin was recovered, and Desmond was prosecuted for conspiracy to sell narcotics and for possession of narcotics. At his trial, Desmond moved to suppress his statements. Which of the following is Desmond's best argument in support of the motion to suppress? •(A) Desmond is entitled to know the identity of his accuser, and the state cannot supply this information. •(B) The police should have given Desmond Miranda warnings prior to entry into the apartment, and the warnings were ineffectual once Desmond offered to give the police information. •(C) Desmond was intimidated by the forced entry into the apartment, and since the statements were involuntary and coerced, their use against him would violate due process of law. •(D) The statements were fruits of an unlawful arrest, and though the Miranda warnings may have been sufficient to protect Desmond's right against self- incrimination, they were not sufficient to purge the taint of the illegal arrest.

(D) The statements were fruits of an unlawful arrest, and though the Miranda warnings may have been sufficient to protect Desmond's right against self- incrimination, they were not sufficient to purge the taint of the illegal arrest.

Congress enacted a statute directing U.S. ambassadors to send formal letters to the governments of their host countries, protesting any violations by those governments of international treaties on weapons sales. The President prefers to handle violations by certain countries in a less formal manner and has directed ambassadors not to comply with the statute. Is the President's action constitutional? •(A) No, because Congress has the power to implement treaties, and therefore the statute is binding on the President. •(B) No, because Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and therefore the statute is binding on the President. •(C) Yes, because Congress has no jurisdiction over matters outside the U.S. borders. •(D) Yes, because the President and his subordinates are the exclusive official representatives of the United States in foreign affairs.

(D) Yes, because the President and his subordinates are the exclusive official representatives of the United States in foreign affairs.

A purchaser bought land in the mountain foothills just outside a resort town and planned to build a housing development there. Soon thereafter, the county in which the land was located unexpectedly adopted a regulation that, for the first time, prohibited all construction in several foothill and mountain areas, including the area of the purchaser's property. The purpose of the county's regulation was "to conserve for future generations the unique natural wildlife and plant habitats" in the mountain areas. Since the adoption of the regulation, the purchaser has been unable to lease or sell the property at any price. Several realtors have advised the purchaser that the property is now worthless. The purchaser has sued the county, claiming that the regulation has effected a taking of the purchaser's property and that the county therefore owes the purchaser just compensation. Is the court likely to rule in favor of the purchaser? •(A) No, because the county did not take title to the property from the purchaser. •(B) No, because the regulation has not caused or authorized any uninvited physical invasion or intrusion onto the property. •(C) Yes, because the conservation objective of the county ordinance is not sufficiently compelling to justify the substantial diminution in the property value. •(D) Yes, because the effect of the county's regulation is to deny the purchaser essentially all economically beneficial use of the property.

(D) Yes, because the effect of the county's regulation is to deny the purchaser essentially all economically beneficial use of the property.

A protester entered an IRS office during business hours. He denounced the income tax and set fire to pages from his copy of the Internal Revenue Code. The fire was extinguished before it caused any other damage. The protester was arrested and charged with violating a federal law that prohibited igniting a fire in a public building. He claimed that his prosecution was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. May the protester constitutionally be convicted? •(A) No, because he was exercising his right to freedom of speech by burning a copy of the code. •(B) No, because the copy of the code belonged to him, and thus burning it did not infringe upon a legitimate government interest. •(C) Yes, because the burning of the code was conduct rather than speech. •(D) Yes, because the state law is narrowly drawn to further a substantial government interest in prohibiting the non-communicative aspects of the act in question.

(D) Yes, because the state law is narrowly drawn to further a substantial government interest in prohibiting the non-communicative aspects of the act in question.

During the night, Defendant broke into a house with the intention of stealing a typewriter. On not finding a typewriter, she became angry, poured lighter fluid onto a couch, and set it on fire. The flames destroyed the couch and also burned a portion of the ceiling in the room. In a common law jurisdiction, Defendant is guilty of •(A) burglary only. •(B) arson only. •(C) burglary and attempted arson. •(D) burglary and arson.

(D) burglary and arson.

Downs was indicted in state court for bribing a public official. During the course of the investigation, police had demanded and received from Downs's bank the records of Downs's checking account for the preceding two years. The records contained incriminating evidence. On the basis of a claim of violation of his constitutional rights, Downs moves to prevent the introduction of the records in evidence. His motion should be •(A) granted, because a search warrant should have been secured for seizure of the records. •(B) granted, because the records covered such an extensive period of time that their seizure unreasonably invaded Downs's right of privacy. •(C) denied, because the potential destructibility of the records, coupled with the public interest in proper enforcement of the criminal laws, created an exigent situation justifying the seizure. •(D) denied, because the records were business records of the bank in which Downs had no legitimate expectation of privacy.

(D) denied, because the records were business records of the bank in which Downs had no legitimate expectation of privacy.

A federal statute requires U.S. civil service employees to retire at age 75. However, that statute also states that civil service employees of the armed services must retire at age 65. P, a 65-year-old civil service employee of the Department of the Army, seeks a declaratory judgment that would forbid his mandatory retirement until age 75. The strongest argument that P can make to invalidate the requirement that he retire at age 65 is that the law: (A) denies him a privilege or immunity under Article IV of the Constitution. (B) deprives him of a property right without just compensation under the Takings Clause. (C) is not within the scope of any of the enumerated powers of Congress under Article I of the Constitution. (D) invidiously discriminates against him on the basis of age in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

(D) invidiously discriminates against him on the basis of age in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

While testifying as a witness in a civil trial, Walters was asked on cross-examination if he had been convicted in the circuit court of Jasper County of stealing $200 from his employer on August 16, 2017. Walters said, "No, I have never been convicted of any crime." In fact, Walters had pleaded guilty to such a charge and had been placed on probation. Walters was then charged with perjury on the ground that his statement denying the conviction was false. A statute in the jurisdiction defines perjury as knowingly making a false statement while under oath. At trial, the state proved Walters' statement and the prior conviction. Walters testified that the attorney who represented him in the theft case had told him that, because he had been placed on probation, he had not been convicted of a crime. Walters had served his probationary period satisfactorily and been discharged from probation. The alleged advice of the attorney was incorrect. If the jury believes Walters, it should find him •(A) guilty, because his mistake was one of law. •(B) guilty, because reliance on the advice of an attorney is not a defense. •(C) not guilty if the jury also finds that his reliance on the attorney's advice was reasonable. (D) not guilty, because he lacked the necessary mental state.

(D) not guilty, because he lacked the necessary mental state.

Congress enacts a law providing that all disagreements between the United States and a state over federal grant-in-aid funds shall be settled by the filing of a suit in the federal district court in the affected state. "The judgment of that federal court shall be transmitted to the head of the federal agency dispensing such funds who, if satisfied that the judgment is fair and lawful, shall execute the judgment according to its terms." This law is •(A) constitutional, because disagreements over federal grant-in-aid funds necessarily involve federal questions within the judicial power of the United States. •(B) constitutional, because the spending of federal monies necessarily includes the authority to provide for the effective settlement of disputes involving them. •(C) unconstitutional, because it vests authority in the federal court to determine a matter prohibited to it by the Eleventh Amendment. •(D) unconstitutional, because it vests authority in a federal court to render an advisory opinion.

(D) unconstitutional, because it vests authority in a federal court to render an advisory opinion.

While running from police, Fred, a suspected felon, enters Joe's house and the police follow Fred into the house. The police did not have any warrants. Fred and Joe have never met. While in Joe's house, police notice illegal drugs in plain view. •1. If the police arrest Joe, may the drugs be introduced in evidence? •2. If the police did not have an arrest warrant for Fred, must he be acquitted of any crimes?

1. Yes. Once the police enter a structure in hot pursuit of a felon, any contraband in plain view is admissible. 2. No. An arrest warrant is not required for the arrest of a felon in a public place (i.e., any place other than the felon's home). Moreover, an "illegal" arrest is never a basis for acquittal.

A federal law provides that all motor vehicle tires discarded in this country must be disposed of in facilities licensed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Pursuant to this federal law and all proper federal procedural requirements, that agency has adopted very strict standards for the licensing of such facilities. As a result, the cost of disposing of tires in licensed facilities is substantial. The state of East Dakota has a very large fleet of motor vehicles. It disposes of its used tires at a state-owned and operated facility. This state facility is unlicensed, but its operation in actual practice meets most of the standards imposed by the federal EPA on facilities it licenses to dispose of tires. Consistent with United States Supreme Court precedent, may the state of East Dakota continue to dispose of its used tires in this manner? •A) No, because a state must comply with valid federal laws that regulate matters affecting interstate commerce. •B) No, because some of the tires come from vehicles that are used by the state solely in its commercial activities. •C) Yes, because some of the tires come from vehicles that are used by the state in the performance of core state governmental functions such as law enforcement. •D) Yes, because the legitimate needs of the federal government are satisfied by the fact that the unlicensed state disposal scheme meets, in actual practice, most of the federal standards for the licensing of such facilities.

A) No, because a state must comply with valid federal laws that regulate matters affecting interstate commerce.

Congress declared war on a nation in Asia. Congress also passed a statute making it a crime "to make public statements in support of the Asian nation and against the United States." A United States citizen subsequently spoke out against the war at a rally in front of a federal building. During her speech, the citizen urged people to "smash the windows of the federal building like U.S. troops are doing" in the Asian nation. Several members of the frenzied crowd did as the speaker urged. The speaker was immediately arrested and charged with violating the statute. Can the speaker successfully defend by asserting that the statute violates her First Amendment speech rights? •A) Yes, because the statute is substantially overbroad. •B) Yes, because her speech involved core political speech. •C) No, because she incited imminent lawless action. •D) No, because the ongoing war constitutes a compelling interest that justifies the statute.

A) Yes, because the statute is substantially overbroad.

Based on Supreme Court precedent, which of the following most accurately describes the state of law regarding the "right to die": •A. A majority of the justices have opined that a competent individual has a fundamental right to end his or her life by refusing life-sustaining medical treatment. •B. The court has held that an incompetent individual has a fundamental right to end his or her life by refusing life-sustaining food and hydration. •C. The court has held that terminally ill individuals have a fundamental right to commit suicide with the assistance of a physician. •D. Both a and b.

A. A majority of the justices have opined that a competent individual has a fundamental right to end his or her life by refusing life-sustaining medical treatment.

A patient was late for an appointment with her doctor across town. Because of this, she was driving recklessly through traffic at a high speed and ran through a red light. There were a number of people crossing the street at that time, and the patient accidentally hit one of them. The person she hit was seriously injured and was rushed to the hospital, but recovered. The patient was arrested and charged with attempted murder. The patient should be: •A. Acquitted, because she did not intend to hit anyone with her car. •B. Acquitted, because she had not gone far enough in her actions to constitute attempt. •C. Convicted, because a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of her act. •D. Convicted, because of her recklessness, intent to inflict serious bodily harm will be presumed.

A. Acquitted, because she did not intend to hit anyone with her car.

Phillips bought a new rifle and wanted to try it out by doing some target shooting. He went out into the country to an area where he had previously hunted. Much to his surprise, he noticed that beyond a clearing contained several newly constructed houses that had not been there before. Between the houses there was a small playground where several children were playing. Nevertheless, Phillips nailed a paper target to a tree and went to a point where the tree was between himself and the playground. He then fired several shots at the target. One of the shots missed the target and the tree and hit and killed one of the children in the playground. Phillips was convicted of murder. He appealed, contending that the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction of murder. The appellate court should •A. Affirm the conviction, as the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction of murder. •B. Reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial, because the evidence is not sufficient for murder but will support a conviction of voluntary manslaughter. •C. Reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial, because the evidence is not sufficient for murder but will support a conviction of involuntary manslaughter. •D. Reverse the conviction and order the case dismissed, because the evidence is sufficient only for a finding of negligence and negligence alone cannot support a criminal conviction.

A. Affirm the conviction, as the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction of murder.

Phillips bought a new rifle and wanted to try it out by doing some target shooting. He went out into the country to an area where he had previously hunted. Much to his surprise, he noticed that beyond a clearing contained several newly constructed houses that had not been there before. Between the houses there was a small playground where several children were playing. Nevertheless, Phillips nailed a paper target to a tree and went to a point where the tree was between himself and the playground. He then fired several shots at the target. One of the shots missed the target and the tree and hit and killed one of the children in the playground. Phillips was convicted of murder. He appealed, contending that the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction of murder. The appellate court should A. Affirm the conviction, as the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction of murder. B. Reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial, because the evidence is not sufficient for murder but will support a conviction of voluntary manslaughter. C. Reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial, because the evidence is not sufficient for murder but will support a conviction of involuntary manslaughter. D. Reverse the conviction and order the case dismissed, because the evidence is sufficient only for a finding of negligence and negligence alone cannot support a criminal conviction.

A. Affirm the conviction, as the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction of murder. *Rule of thumb = shoot a gun in a direction where you know there is people, it's murder.*

In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be guilty of common law murder? •A. Angered because his neighbor is having a noisy party, Defendant fires a rifle into the neighbor's house. The bullet strikes and kills a guest at the party. •B. During an argument, Harry slaps Defendant. Angered, Defendant responds by shooting and killing Harry. •C. Defendant drives his car through a red light and strikes and kills a pedestrian who is crossing the street. •D. Using his fist, Defendant punches Walter in the face. As a result of the blow, Walter falls and hits his head on a concrete curb, suffers a concussion, and dies.

A. Angered because his neighbor is having a noisy party, Defendant fires a rifle into the neighbor's house. The bullet strikes and kills a guest at the party.

Noticing that D's car was weaving, Officer pulled her over on suspicion of driving under the influence. As Officer approached the car, he detected the odor of burnt marijuana. When Officer asked for D's license and registration, D slurred out the words, "Sure, just a minute." She then started laughing in an exaggerated fashion while combing through the papers in her glove box. Unable to find them, D apologized, commenting, "Sorry, man. I think I've been smoking too much weed tonight." Officer placed D under arrest for driving under the influence and seated her in the back of the squad car for transportation to the station house. Before they left, Officer called the station house so that the desk sergeant could arrange for D's car to be removed from the roadside. Ordinarily, the car would have been taken to the impound lot on the outskirts of town, but Officer asked the desk sergeant to deliver the car to the station house. "I want to search this one myself," Officer explained, "to make sure it gets a thorough going over. I'm going to find this lady's stash and that's a promise." When the car arrived 30 minutes later, Officer searched it and discovered two baggies of marijuana inside a gym bag placed on the floor behind the driver's seat. If D moves to suppress the marijuana, on which warrantless search exception should the prosecution rely to justify the search? A. Automobile exception. B. Inventory search exception. C. Vehicle frisk. D. Search incident to arrest.

A. Automobile exception.

When Dave saw his girlfriend Sally walking down the street holding hands with Abel, he was infuriated. Dave drove to Sally's house, hid in the bushes and waited. A short time later, Dave saw Abel and Sally sitting at the kitchen table drinking coffee. Still angry, Dave went to his car and got a pistol. When he returned, Abel and Sally were still seated at the kitchen table. Intending to scare Abel by shooting in his direction, Dave fired through the window. If the bullet from Dave's pistol missed Abel but struck the coffee cup Abel was holding, which of the following crimes did Dave commit? •A. Battery •B. Attempted Murder •C. Battery and Attempted Murder •D. None of the above.

A. Battery

The defendant, who worked as a gardener for the victim, decided to break into the victim's home to steal some valuables one night when he knew the victim would not be at home. The defendant, taking a key that the victim hid under a rock for emergencies, unlocked the front door and stepped into the doorway. At that moment, however, a security alarm sounded. On hearing the alarm, the defendant immediately left the premises. The crimes below are listed in descending order of seriousness. What is the most serious crime for which the defendant may be convicted? •A. Burglary. •B. Attempted burglary. •C. Attempted larceny. •D. No crime.

A. Burglary.

Congress passes the following statute: "The appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court shall not extend to any case involving the constitutionality of any state statute limiting the circumstances in which a woman may obtain an abortion." The strongest argument against the constitutionality of this statute is that •A. Congress may not exercise its authority over the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a way that seriously interferes with the establishment of a supreme and uniform body of federal constitutional law. •B. Congress may only regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over cases initially arising in the federal courts. •C. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may only be altered by constitutional amendment. •D. The statute violates the equal protection clause.

A. Congress may not exercise its authority over the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a way that seriously interferes with the establishment of a supreme and uniform body of federal constitutional law.

Donald was arrested in Marilyn's apartment after her neighbors had reported sounds of a struggle and the police had arrived to find Donald bent over Marilyn's body. Marilyn was rushed to the hospital where she lapsed into a coma. Despite the explanation that he was trying to revive Marilyn after she suddenly collapsed, Donald was charged with attempted rape and assault after a neighbor informed the police that she had heard Marilyn sobbing, "No, please no, let me alone." At trial, the forensic evidence was inconclusive. The jury acquitted Donald of attempted rape but convicted him of assault. While he was serving his sentence for assault, Marilyn, who had never recovered from the coma, died. Donald was then indicted and tried on a charge of felony-murder. In this common-law jurisdiction, there is no statute that prevents a prosecutor from proceeding in this manner, but Donald argued that a second trial for felony murder after his original trial for attempted rape and assault would violate the double jeopardy clause. His claim is •A. Correct, because he was acquitted of the attempted rape charge. •B. Correct, because he was convicted of the assault charge. •C. Incorrect, because Marilyn had not died at the time of the first trial and he was not placed in jeopardy for murder. •D. Incorrect, because he was convicted of the assault charge.

A. Correct, because he was acquitted of the attempted rape charge.

Juanita was the manager of the flower store. As such, she had full responsibility for ordering and pricing goods, hiring and firing employees, and promoting the store generally. One day she took home a fancy plant, sold it to her friend and kept the money. What crime has she committed? •A. Embezzlement. •B. Larceny. •C. False pretenses. •D. Robbery.

A. Embezzlement.

A statute of the state of Texona prohibits any retailer of books, magazines, pictures, or posters from "publicly displaying or selling to any person any material that may be harmful to minors because of the violent or sexually explicit nature of its pictorial content." Violation of this statute is a misdemeanor. Corner Store displays publicly and sells magazines containing violent and sexually explicit pictures. The owner of this store is prosecuted under the above statute for these actions. In defending against this prosecution in a Texona trial court, the argument that would be the best defense for Corner Store is that the statute violates the •A. First Amendment as it is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, because the statute is excessively vague and overbroad. •B. First Amendment as it is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, because a state may not prohibit the sale of violent or sexually explicit material in the absence of proof that the material is utterly without any redeeming value in the marketplace of ideas. •C. equal protection of the laws clause, because the statute irrationally treats violent and sexually explicit material that is pictorial differently from such material that is composed wholly of printed words. •D. equal protection of the laws clause, because the statute irrationally distinguishes between violent and sexually explicit pictorial material that may harm minors and such material that may harm only adults.

A. First Amendment as it is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, because the statute is excessively vague and overbroad.

A public high school publishes a weekly newspaper as part of its journalism class. The student editor-in-chief of the paper wrote an article supporting the legalization of marijuana and showed it to his faculty advisor. The advisor told the editor that while the issue was receiving a lot of media attention in their community, in order to discourage drug use, school policy prohibited the paper from including any drug-related articles. The advisor then told the editor not to include the article in any edition of the paper. A few days later, the editor and faculty advisor were preparing to upload the electronic files for the paper to their printer. The advisor was momentarily called away, and the editor quickly replaced an article on clothing styles with his article on the legalization of marijuana. When the paper came out, the article was the talk of the school. After a brief investigation, the student was removed from his position as editor-in-chief. The student brought suit against the school, claiming that his removal was in violation of his First Amendment rights. How should the court rule on this issue? •A. For the high school, because the newspaper involved was a public high school newspaper published as part of a journalism class. •B. For the high school, because students do not have constitutional rights while the school is acting as parens patriae. •C. For the student, because the issue involved a matter of public concern. •D. For the student, unless the school can show that the removal was necessary to achieve a compelling interest.

A. For the high school, because the newspaper involved was a public high school newspaper published as part of a journalism class.

Defendant was upset because he was going to have to close his liquor store due to competition from a discount store in a new shopping mall nearby. In desperation, he decided to set fire to his store to collect the insurance. While looking through the basement for flammable material, he lit a match to read the label on a can. The match burned his finger and, in a reflex action, he dropped the match. It fell into a barrel and ignited some paper. Defendant made no effort to put out the fire but instead left the building. The fire spread and the store was destroyed by fire. Defendant was eventually arrested and indicted for arson. In a jurisdiction that includes commercial structures (including those owned and possessed by the defendant) in its definition of arson, Defendant is •A. Guilty, if he could have put out the fire before it spread and did not do so because he wanted the building destroyed. •B. Guilty, if he was negligent in starting the fire. •C. Not guilty, because even if he wanted to burn the building there was no concurrence between his mens rea and the act of starting the fire. •D. Not guilty, because his starting the fire was the result of a reflex action and not a voluntary act.

A. Guilty, if he could have put out the fire before it spread and did not do so because he wanted the building destroyed.

Daniela is a skilled karate master and drug dealer. Solly is the neighborhood Good Samaritan; he does not know Daniela or her background. One day, Solly sees Daniela struggling with two men. Honestly believing the men are trying to mug Daniela, Solly rushes to her rescue. He pounces on the men and injures them. As it turns out, the men are undercover narcotics officers and they were trying to arrest Daniela but she was resisting. If Solly is charged with assaulting the officers in a jurisdiction that follows the majority approach •A. He can argue the defense of another. •B. He can argue self-defense. •C. He cannot argue defense of another because Daniela did not have the right to resist the officers. •D. He cannot argue defense of another because Daniela was not under an immediate threat of harm.

A. He can argue the defense of another.

John is a licensed barber in State A. The State A barber licensing statute provides that the Barber Licensing Board may revoke a barber license if it finds that a licensee has used his or her business premises for an illegal purpose. John was arrested by a federal narcotics enforcement agent on a charge of selling cocaine in his barbershop in violation of federal laws. However, the local United States Attorney declined to prosecute and the charges were dropped. Nevertheless, the Barber Licensing Board commenced a proceeding against John to revoke his license on the ground that John used his business premises for illegal sales of cocaine. At a subsequent hearing before the board, the only evidence against John was affidavits by unnamed informants, who were not present or available for cross-examination. Their affidavits stated that they purchased cocaine from John in his barbershop. Based solely on this evidence, the board found that John used his business premises for an illegal purpose and ordered his license revoked. In a suit by John to have this revocation set aside, his best constitutional argument is that •A. John's inability to cross-examine his accusers denied him a fair hearing and caused him to be deprived of his barber license without due process of law. •B. the administrative license revocation proceeding was invalid, because it denied full faith and credit to the dismissal of the criminal charges by the United States Attorney. •C. Article III requires a penalty of the kind imposed on John to be imposed by a court rather than an administrative agency •D. the existence of federal laws penalizing the illegal sale of cocaine preempts state action relating to drug trafficking of the kind involved in John's case.

A. John's inability to cross-examine his accusers denied him a fair hearing and caused him to be deprived of his barber license without due process of law.

Calvin is a chronic alcoholic. Seldom does a day pass when he doesn't end up drunk by lunchtime. As a result of his problem, Calvin has had some encounters with law enforcement. In particular, he is facing charges for breaking a beer bottle over a security officer's head, larceny, and driving without a license. Which of these crimes, if any, is Calvin likely to be able to argue an intoxication defense? •A. Larceny. •B. Battery of the security officer. •C. Driving without a license. D. All of the above.

A. Larceny.

Eddie worked as the cashier in a restaurant. One night after the restaurant had closed, Eddie discovered that the amount of cash in the cash register did not match the cash register receipt tapes. He took the cash and the tapes, put them in a bag, gave them to Rita, the manager of the restaurant, and reported the discrepancy. Rita immediately accused him of taking money from the register and threatened to fire him if he did not make up the difference. Rita placed the bag in the office safe. Angered by what he considered to be an unjust accusation, Eddie waited until Rita left the room and then reached into the still open safe, took the bag containing the cash, and left. Eddie is guilty of •A. Larceny. •B. Embezzlement. •C. Either larceny or embezzlement but not both. •D. Neither larceny nor embezzlement.

A. Larceny.

Police officers had probable cause to believe that drug dealing was routinely taking place in a particular room at a local motel. The motel manager authorized the officers to enter the room and provided them with a passkey. Without obtaining a warrant, the officers knocked on the room's door, announced their presence, and told the occupants that they would like to speak with them. The officers then heard yelling and repeated flushing of the toilet. They then used the passkey and entered the room, where they saw the occupants dumping drugs into the toilet. The occupants of the room were charged with drug dealing and have moved to suppress the drugs. Should the court grant the motion to suppress? •A. No, because exigent circumstances justified the officers' entry. •B. No, because the motel manager consented to the officers' entry. •C. Yes, because exigent circumstances cannot excuse the lack of a warrant. •D. Yes, because the officers cannot benefit from exigent circumstances that they created.

A. No, because exigent circumstances justified the officers' entry.

Several public high school students asked the superintendent of their public school district whether the minister of a local church could deliver an inter-denominational prayer at their graduation ceremony in the school auditorium. None of the students or their guests at graduation would be required to pray while the minister delivered the prayer. Would the minister's delivery of such a prayer at the public high school graduation be constitutional? •A. No, because it would be an unconstitutional establishment of religion. •B. No, because it would deny attendees who are not members of the minister's denomination the right to freely exercise their religion. •C. Yes, because none of the students or their guests would be required to pray at the graduation ceremony. •D. Yes, because the idea for the prayer originated with the students and not with school officials.

A. No, because it would be an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

A federal statute authorizes a federal agency to issue rules requiring that state legislatures adopt laws of limited duration to reduce water pollution from gasoline-powered boat motors. The purpose of these rules is to assist the agency in attaining the clean water standards required by the statute. After the agency issued such rules, several states filed an action challenging the rules on the sole ground that they are unconstitutional. Should the court uphold the constitutionality of the agency's rules? •A. No, because the federal government may not compel a state legislature to enact into state law a federally mandated regulatory program. •B. No, because the Tenth Amendment grants states immunity from all direct federal regulation. •C. Yes, because the rules serve an important purpose, and the requirements they impose on the states are only temporary and do not excessively interfere with the functioning of the state governments. •D. Yes, because the supremacy clause of Article VI requires states to enforce federal law.

A. No, because the federal government may not compel a state legislature to enact into state law a federally mandated regulatory program

State troopers lawfully stopped a car for exceeding the speed limit by four miles per hour. One trooper approached the car to warn the driver to drive within the speed limit. The other trooper remained in the patrol car and ran a computer check of the car's license number. The computer check indicated that there was an outstanding warrant for the driver's arrest for unpaid traffic tickets. The troopers then arrested the driver based on the warrant, and they proceeded to search the driver. During the search, they discovered a package of heroin in one of the driver's pockets. Later, it was learned that the driver had paid the outstanding traffic tickets 10 days earlier and that the warrant had been quashed, but the clerk of the court had failed to update the computer, which continued to list the warrant as outstanding. The driver was charged with unlawful possession of heroin. Her attorney has filed a motion to suppress the use of the heroin as evidence. Should the motion be granted? •A. No, because the troopers could reasonably rely on the computer report and the search was incident to arrest. •B. No, because troopers may lawfully search a driver incident to a valid traffic stop. •C. Yes, because there was no arrest for the traffic violation and no lawful arrest could be made on the basis of the warrant. •D. Yes, because there was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver possessed drugs.

A. No, because the troopers could reasonably rely on the computer report and the search was incident to arrest.

The victim was walking out of a store when she saw someone suddenly fall to the street with an apparent heart attack. However, that person was in fact an accomplice of the defendant. With the victim's attention momentarily diverted, the defendant removed the victim's wallet from her purse. Another passerby shouted to the victim, who turned and caught the defendant by his sleeve. The defendant pushed her hand away and started to run, but tripped over a curb and dropped the wallet when he fell, and the victim was able to recover it. The crimes below are listed in descending order of seriousness. The most serious crime for which the defendant could be convicted is: •A. Robbery. •B. Attempted Robbery •C. Larceny by trick. •D. Attempted larceny.

A. Robbery.

Police, who had probable cause to arrest a man for a series of armed robberies, obtained a warrant to arrest him. At 6 a.m. they entered the man's house and, with guns drawn, went to the man's bedroom, where they awakened him. Startled, the man asked, "What's going on?" and an officer replied, "We've got you now." Another officer immediately asked the man if he had committed a particular robbery, and the man said that he had. The police then informed him that he was under arrest and ordered him to get dressed. Charged with robbery, the man has moved to suppress the use of his statement as evidence. What is the man's best argument for granting his motion? •A. The police did not give him the required Miranda warnings. •B. The statement was not voluntary. •C. He was not informed that he was under arrest until after he made the statement. •D. The police did not have a search warrant authorizing entry into the house.

A. The police did not give him the required Miranda warnings.

In response to massive layoffs of employees of automobile assembly plants located in the state of Ames, the legislature of that state enacted a statute which prohibits the parking of automobiles manufactured outside of the United States in any parking lot or parking structure that is owned or operated by the state or any of its instrumentalities. This statute does not apply to parking on public streets. Which of the following is the strongest argument with which to challenge the constitutionality of this statute? •A. The statute imposes an undue burden on foreign commerce. •B. The statute denies the owners of foreign-made automobiles the equal protection of the laws. •C. The statute deprives the owners of foreign-made automobiles of their liberty or property without due process of law. •D. The statute is inconsistent with the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A. The statute imposes an undue burden on foreign commerce.

D was arrested and charged with crimes arising out of a home repair scheme to defraud elderly pensioners. Before a preliminary hearing, she was indicted by a grand jury and then arraigned on the indictment. Just prior to trial, the prosecutor had arranged a lineup. The defendant appeared in a lineup along with five other women of similar height, weight, and hair color. The four victims who showed up that morning all identified the defendant as the person who had promised extensive home repairs, got them to give her thousands of dollars in deposits, and failed to do any of the work. Later in the afternoon, three other elderly victims, who had not made it to the morning lineup, were shown a picture of the defendant along with five other women. These three victims also picked the defendant from the photo array. The prosecutor did not notify the defendant's lawyer in advance of the lineup or the photo identification. Is the pretrial identification testimony of the three victims who picked the defendant out of the photo array admissible at trial? •A. The witnesses' testimony about the pretrial photo identification is admissible because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach to a photo array identification. •B. The witnesses may identify the defendant at trial only if that identification is based upon prior contacts with the defendant other than the pretrial photo identification. •C. The witnesses' pretrial photo identification is inadmissible because the defendant's attorney should have been notified and given an opportunity to attend the presentations of the photo array to the witnesses. •D. The witnesses' pretrial photo identification is inadmissible because it was likely suggestive.

A. The witnesses' testimony about the pretrial photo identification is admissible because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach to a photo array identification.

A woman belonged to an organization that advocated for the United States to preemptively attack certain foreign countries. The organization usually used leafleting and public speeches to advance this view, but it sometimes engaged in violent demonstrations against the embassies of those countries. Although the woman had never participated in a violent demonstration, she was criminally prosecuted for being a member of the organization. In her defense, the woman claimed that her association with the organization was protected by the First Amendment. Which of the following would the prosecution need to prove to overcome that defense? •A. The woman joined the organization with the specific intent of furthering its illegal activities. •B. The woman provided material aid to the organization through the payment of dues before the violent demonstrations. •C. The woman continued to provide material aid to the organization through the payment of dues after the violent demonstrations. •D. The woman expressed public support of the organization after the violent demonstrations.

A. The woman joined the organization with the specific intent of furthering its illegal activities.

Thomas worked for a large bank as a vice-president managing trusts for wealthy clients. He personally invested his money conservatively and did not often buy large quantities of stock. Marta, a friend from college, called him one afternoon and talked with him at length about a young biotech company for which Marta worked. She mentioned some things about this company that convinced Thomas that it would be incredibly profitable within five years. Thomas also learned from another source that this company was about to have a public offering. Unfortunately, Thomas' assets were not "liquid," and by the time he would be able to raise enough capital, the opportunity to invest would be lost. Thomas decided to skew the numbers at work a bit and borrow some cash from the bank in order to purchase shares in this company. He knew he could return the money within a short time if all went well. If Thomas' dealings came to light some time later, could he be found guilty of embezzlement? •A. Yes, even if Thomas was able to return the money, he still embezzled from the company. •B. Yes, but if Thomas actually returned the money before he was caught, he will not be convicted. •C. No, because Thomas was not acting as an employee at the time. •D. No, because he was only temporarily borrowing the money.

A. Yes, even if Thomas was able to return the money, he still embezzled from the company.

Dan entered the police station and announced that he wanted to confess to a murder. The police advised Dan of the Miranda warnings, and Dan signed a written waiver. Dan described the murder in detail and pinpointed the location where a murder victim had been found a few weeks before. Later, a court-appointed psychiatrist determined that Dan was suffering from a serious mental illness that interfered with his ability to make rational choices and to understand his rights and that the psychosis had induced his confession. Dan's confession is •A. admissible, because there was no coercive police conduct in obtaining Dan's statement. •B. admissible, because Dan was not in custody. •C. inadmissible, because Dan's confession was a product of his mental illness and was therefore involuntary. •D. inadmissible, because under these circumstances, there was no valid waiver of Miranda warnings.

A. admissible, because there was no coercive police conduct in obtaining Dan's statement.

At 11:00 p.m., John and Marsha were accosted in the entrance to their apartment building by Dirk, who was armed as well as masked. Dirk ordered the couple to take him into their apartment. After they entered the apartment, Dirk forced Marsha to bind and gag her husband John and then to open a safe which contained a diamond necklace. Dirk then tied her up and fled with the necklace. He was apprehended by apartment building security guards. Before the guards could return to the apartment, but after Dirk was arrested, John, straining to free himself, suffered a massive heart attack and died. Dirk is guilty of •A. burglary, robbery, and murder. •B. robbery and murder only. •C. burglary and robbery only. •D. robbery only.

A. burglary, robbery, and murder.

Martha's high school teacher told her that she was going to receive a failing grade in history, which would prevent her from graduating. Furious, she reported to the principal that the teacher had fondled her, and the teacher was fired. A year later, still unable to get work because of the scandal, the teacher committed suicide. Martha, remorseful, confessed that her accusation had been false. If Martha is charged with manslaughter, her best defense would be that she A. committed no act that proximately caused the teacher's death. B. did not intend to cause the teacher's death. C. did not act with malice. D. acted under extreme emotional distress.

A. committed no act that proximately caused the teacher's death.

Martha's high school teacher told her that she was going to receive a failing grade in history, which would prevent her from graduating. Furious, she reported to the principal that the teacher had fondled her, and the teacher was fired. A year later, still unable to get work because of the scandal, the teacher committed suicide. Martha, remorseful, confessed that her accusation had been false. If Martha is charged with manslaughter, her best defense would be that she •A. committed no act that proximately caused the teacher's death. •B. did not intend to cause the teacher's death. •C. did not act with malice. D.acted under extreme emotional distress.

A. committed no act that proximately caused the teacher's death.

The National Ecological Balance Act prohibits the destruction or removal of any wild animals located on lands owned by the U.S. without express permission from the Federal Bureau of Land Management. Violators are subject to fines of up to $1,000 per offense. After substantial property damage was inflicted on residents of the state of Arkota by hungry coyotes, the state legislature passed the Coyote Bounty Bill, which offers $25 for each coyote killed or captured within the state. The Kota National Forest, owned by the U.S. Government, is located entirely within the state of Arkota. Many coyotes live in the Kota National Forest. Without seeking permission of the Bureau of Land Management, Hunter shot several coyotes in the Kota National Forest and collected the bounty from the state of Arkota. As a result, he was subsequently tried in federal court, convicted, and fined $1,000 for violating the National Ecological Balance Act. Hunter appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals. On appeal, the court should hold the National Ecological Balance Act, as applied to Hunter, to be •A. constitutional, because the property clause authorizes such federal statutory controls and sanctions. •B. constitutional, because Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution authorizes Congress to enact all laws necessary and proper to advance the general welfare. •C. unconstitutional, because Congress may not use its delegated powers to override the 10th Amendment rights of the state of Arkota. •D. unconstitutional, because Congress violates the full faith and credit clause when it punishes conduct that has been authorized by state action.

A. constitutional, because the property clause authorizes such federal statutory controls and sanctions.

The King City zoning ordinance contains provisions restricting places of "adult entertainment" to two specified city blocks within the commercial center of the city. These provisions of the ordinance define "adult entertainment" as "live or filmed nudity or sexual activity, real or simulated, of an indecent nature." Sam proposes to operate an adult entertainment establishment outside the two-block area zoned for such establishments but within the commercial center of King City. When his application for permission to do so is rejected solely because it is inconsistent with provisions of the zoning ordinance, he sues the appropriate officials of King City, seeking to enjoin them from enforcing the adult entertainment provisions of the ordinance against him. He asserts that these provisions of the ordinance violate the First Amendment as made applicable to King City by the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, the court hearing Sam's request for an injunction would probably hold that the adult entertainment provisions of the King City zoning ordinance are •A. constitutional, because they do not prohibit adult entertainment everywhere in King City, and the city has a substantial interest in keeping the major part of its commercial center free of uses it considers harmful to that area. •B. constitutional, because adult entertainment of the kind described in these provisions of the King City ordinance is not protected by the free speech guarantee of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. •C. unconstitutional, because they prohibit in the commercial area of the city adult entertainment that is not "obscene" within the meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. •D. unconstitutional, because zoning ordinances that restrict freedom of speech may be justified only by a substantial interest in preserving the quality of a community's residential neighborhoods.

A. constitutional, because they do not prohibit adult entertainment everywhere in King City, and the city has a substantial interest in keeping the major part of its commercial center free of uses it considers harmful to that area.

Homer lived on the second floor of a small convenience store/gas station that he owned. One night he refused to sell Augie a six-pack of beer after hours, saying he could not violate the state laws. Augie became enraged and deliberately drove his car into one of the gasoline pumps, severing it from its base. There was an ensuing explosion causing a ball of fire to go from the underground gasoline tank into the building. As a result, the building burned to the ground and Homer was killed. In a common-law jurisdiction, if Augie is charged with murder and arson, he should be •A. convicted of both offenses. •B. convicted of involuntary manslaughter and acquitted of arson. •C. convicted of arson and involuntary manslaughter. •D. acquitted of both offenses.

A. convicted of both offenses.

Smith and Penn were charged with murder. Each gave a confession to the police that implicated both of them. Smith later retracted her confession, claiming that it was coerced. Smith and Penn were tried together. The prosecutor offered both confessions into evidence. Smith and Penn objected. After a hearing, the trial judge found that both confessions were voluntary and admitted both into evidence. Smith testified at trial. She denied any involvement in the crime and claimed that her confession was false and the result of coercion. Both defendants were convicted. On appeal, Smith contends her conviction should be reversed because of the admission into evidence of Penn's confession. Smith's contention is •A. correct, unless Penn testified at trial. •B. correct, whether or not Penn testified at trial. •C. incorrect, because Smith testified in her own behalf. •D. incorrect, because Smith's own confession was properly admitted into evidence.

A. correct, unless Penn testified at trial.

Lee contracted with Mover, an interstate carrier, to ship household goods from the state of Green to his new home in the state of Pink. A federal statute provides that all liability of an interstate mover to a shipper for loss of or damage to the shipper's goods in transit is governed exclusively by the contract between them. The statute also requires the mover to offer a shipper at least two contracts with different levels of liability. In full compliance with that federal statute, Mover offered Lee a choice between two shipping agreements that provided different levels of liability on the part of Mover. The more expensive contract provided that Mover was fully liable in case of loss or damage. The less expensive contract limited Mover's liability in case of loss or damage to less than full value. Lee voluntarily signed the less expensive contract with Mover, fixing Mover's liability at less than the full value of the shipment. Mover's truck was involved in an accident in the state of Pink. The accident was entirely a product of the negligence of Mover's driver. Lee's household goods were totally destroyed. In accordance with the contract, Mover reimbursed Lee for less than the full value of the goods. Lee then brought suit against Mover under the tort law of the state of Pink claiming that he was entitled to be reimbursed the full value of the goods. Mover filed a motion to dismiss. In this suit, the court should •A. dismiss the case, because the federal statute governing liability of interstate carriers is the supreme law of the land and preempts state tort law. •B. dismiss the case, because the contractual relationship between Lee and Mover is governed by the obligation of contracts clause of the Constitution. •C. deny the motion to dismiss, because the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution requires that state tort law be given effect. •D. deny the motion to dismiss, because it is unconstitutional for a federal statute to authorize Mover to contract out of any degree of liability for its own negligence.

A. dismiss the case, because the federal statute governing liability of interstate carriers is the supreme law of the land and preempts state tort law.

Jones, a marijuana farmer, had been missing for several months. The sheriff's department received an anonymous tip that Miller, a rival marijuana farmer, had buried Jones in a hillside about 200 yards from Miller's farmhouse. Sheriff's deputies went to Miller's farm. They cut the barbed wire that surrounded the hillside and entered, looking for the grave. They also searched the adjacent fields on Miller's farm that were within the area enclosed by the barbed wire and discovered clothing that belonged to Jones hanging on a scarecrow. Miller observed their discovery and began shooting. The deputies returned the fire. Miller dashed to his pickup to escape. Unable to start the truck, he fled across a field toward the barn. A deputy tackled him just as he entered the barn. As Miller attempted to get up, the deputy pinned his arms behind his back. Another deputy threatened, "Tell us what you did with Jones or we will shut you down and see your family on relief." Miller responded that he had killed Jones in a fight but did not report the incident because he did not want authorities to enter his land and discover his marijuana crop. Instead, he buried him behind the barn. Miller was thereafter charged with murder. If Miller moves to suppress his admission about killing his neighbor, the court should •A. grant the motion, because Miller did not voluntarily waive his right to silence. •B. grant the motion, because the statement was the product of the warrantless entry and search of Miller's farm. •C. deny the motion, because the deputy was in hot pursuit when he questioned Miller. D.deny the motion, because Miller was questioned during a police emergency search.

A. grant the motion, because Miller did not voluntarily waive his right to silence.

Joe and Marty were coworkers. Joe admired Marty's wristwatch and frequently said how much he wished he had one like it. Marty decided to give Joe the watch for his birthday the following week. In the weekend before Joe's birthday, Joe and Marty attended a company picnic. Marty took his watch off and left it on a blanket when he went off to join in a touch football game. Joe strolled by, saw the watch on the blanket, and decided to steal it. He bent over and picked up the watch. Before he could pocket it, however, Marty returned. When he saw Joe holding the watch, he said, "Joe, I know how much you like that watch. I was planning to give it to you for your birthday. Go ahead and take it now." Joe kept the watch. Joe has committed •A. larceny. •B. attempted larceny. •C. embezzlement. •D. no crime.

A. larceny.

Assume the same facts as the prior question. On a charge of murdering Vic, Tom is •A. not guilty, because mere presence, coupled with silent approval and intent, is not sufficient. •B. not guilty, because he did not tell Bill ahead of time that he hoped Bill would murder Vic. •C. guilty, because he had a duty to stop the killing and made no attempt to do so. •D. guilty, because he was present and approved of what occurred.

A. not guilty, because mere presence, coupled with silent approval and intent, is not sufficient.

An ordinance of the city of Green requires that its mayor must have been continuously a resident of the city for at least five years at the time he or she takes office. Candidate, who is thinking about running for mayor in an election that will take place next year, will have been a resident of Green for only four and one-half years at the time the mayor elected then takes office. Before he decides whether to run for the position of mayor, Candidate wants to know whether he could lawfully assume that position if he were elected. As a result, Candidate files suit in the local federal district court for a declaratory judgment that the Green five-year-residence requirement is unconstitutional and that he is entitled to a place on his political party's primary election ballot for mayor. He names the chairman of his political party as the sole defendant but does not join any election official. The chairman responds by joining Candidate in requesting the court to declare the Green residence requirement invalid. In this case, the court should •A. refuse to determine the merits of this suit, because there is no case or controversy. •B. refuse to issue such a declaratory judgment, because an issue of this kind involving only a local election does not present a substantial federal constitutional question. •C. issue the declaratory judgment, because a residency requirement of this type is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. •D. issue the declaratory judgment, because the Candidate will have substantially complied with the residency requirement.

A. refuse to determine the merits of this suit, because there is no case or controversy.

A federal statute prohibits the sale or resale, in any place in this country, of any product intended for human consumption or ingestion into the human body that contains designated chemicals known to cause cancer, unless the product is clearly labeled as dangerous. The constitutionality of this federal statute may most easily be justified on the basis of the power of Congress to •A. regulate commerce among the states. •B. enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. •C. provide for the general welfare. •D. promote science and the useful arts.

A. regulate commerce among the states.

Davison was driving through an apartment building area plagued with an unusually high incidence of burglaries and assaults. Acting pursuant to a police department plan to combat crime by the random stopping of automobiles in the area between midnight and 6 a.m., a police officer stopped Davison and asked him for identification. As Davison handed the officer his license, the officer directed a flashlight into the automobile and saw what appeared to be the barrel of a shotgun protruding from under the front seat on the passenger side of the car. The officer ordered Davison from the car, searched him, and discovered marijuana and a shotgun. At Davison's trial for unlawful possession of narcotics, his motion to suppress the use of the marijuana as evidence should be •A. sustained, because the marijuana was discovered as a result of the unlawful stopping of Davison's automobile. •B. sustained, because the use of the flashlight constituted a search of the interior of Davison's automobile without probable cause. •C. denied, because the officer's conduct was consistent with the established police plan. •D. denied, because the discovery of the gun in plain view created the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the arrest and search of Davison.

A. sustained, because the marijuana was discovered as a result of the unlawful stopping of Davison's automobile.

A federal statute provides that the U.S. Supreme Court has authority to review any case filed in a U.S. Court of Appeals, even though that case has not yet been decided by the court of appeals. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an important environmental rule. Companies that would be adversely affected by the rule filed a petition for review of the rule in a court of appeals, seeking a declaration that the rule was invalid solely because it was beyond the statutory authority of the EPA. A [second] statute specifically provides for direct review of EPA rules by a court of appeals without any initial action in a district court. The companies have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court requesting immediate review of this case by the Supreme Court before the court of appeals has actually decided the case. The EPA acknowledges that the case is important enough to warrant Supreme Court review and that it should be decided promptly, but it asks the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds. The best constitutional argument in support of the EPA's request is that •A. the case is not within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as defined by Article III, and it is not a proper subject of that court's appellate jurisdiction because it has not yet been decided by any lower court. •B. the case is appellate in nature, but it is beyond the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, because Article III states that its jurisdiction extends only to cases arising under the Constitution. •C. Article III precludes federal courts from reviewing the validity of any federal agency rule in any proceeding other than an action to enforce the rule. •D. Article III provides that all federal cases, except those within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, must be initiated by an action in a federal district court.

A. the case is not within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as defined by Article III, and it is not a proper subject of that court's appellate jurisdiction because it has not yet been decided by any lower court.

Ben was the non-marital, unacknowledged child of Fred. Fred died intestate, leaving neither spouse nor any children other than Ben. The state's law of intestate succession provides that an unacknowledged non-marital child may not inherit his father's property. The spouse, all other blood relations, and the state are preferred as heirs over the unacknowledged non-marital child. Ben filed suit in an appropriate court alleging that the state statute barring a non-marital child from sharing in a parent's estate is invalid, and that he should be declared lawful heir to his father's estate. In challenging the validity of the state statute, Ben's strongest argument would be that •A. the law violates his rights under the equal protection clause. •B. he has been deprived of property without due process because his fundamental right to inherit has been compromised without a compelling state need. •C. it violates the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. •D. it is a denial of procedural due process because it does not give the unacknowledged non-marital child an opportunity to prove paternity.

A. the law violates his rights under the equal protection clause.

Current national statistics show a dramatic increase in the number of elementary and secondary school students bringing controlled substances (drugs) to school for personal use or distribution to others. In response, Congress enacted a statute requiring each state legislature to enact a state law that makes it a state crime for any person to possess, use, or distribute, within 1,000 feet of any elementary or secondary school, any controlled substance that has previously been transported in interstate commerce and that is not possessed, used, or distributed pursuant to a proper physician's prescription. The federal statute is •A. unconstitutional, because Congress has no authority to require a state legislature to enact any specified legislation. •B. unconstitutional, because the possession, use, or distribution, in close proximity to a school, of a controlled substance that has previously been transported in interstate commerce does not have a sufficiently close nexus to such commerce to justify its regulation by Congress. •C. constitutional, because it contains a jurisdictional provision that will ensure, on a case-by-case basis, that any particular controlled substance subject to the terms of this statute will, in fact, affect interstate commerce. •D. constitutional, because Congress possesses broad authority under both the general welfare clause and the commerce clause to regulate any activities affecting education that also have, in inseverable aggregates, a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

A. unconstitutional, because Congress has no authority to require a state legislature to enact any specified legislation.

State Y has a state employee grievance system that requires any state employee who wishes to file a grievance against the state to submit that grievance for final resolution to a panel of three arbitrators chosen by the parties from a statewide board of 13 arbitrators. In any given case, the grievant and the state alternate in exercising the right of each party to eliminate five members of the board, leaving a panel of three members to decide their case. At the present time, the full board is composed of seven male arbitrators and six female arbitrators. Ellen, a female state employee, filed a sexual harassment grievance against her male supervisor and the state. Anne, the state's attorney, exercised all of her five strikes to eliminate five of the female arbitrators. At the time she did so, Anne stated that she struck the five female arbitrators solely because she believed women, as a group, would necessarily be biased in favor of another woman who was claiming sexual harassment. Counsel for Ellen eliminated four males and one female arbitrator, all solely on ground of specific bias or conflicts of interest. As a result, the panel was all male. When the panel ruled against Ellen on the merits of her case, she filed an action in an appropriate state court, challenging the panel selection process as a gender-based denial of equal protection of the laws. In this case, the court should hold that the panel selection process is •A. unconstitutional, because the gender classification used by the state's attorney in this case does not satisfy the requirements of intermediate scrutiny. •B. unconstitutional, because the gender classification used by the state's attorney in this case denies the grievant the right to a jury made up of her peers. •C. constitutional, because the gender classification used by the state's attorney in this case satisfies the requirements of the strict scrutiny test. •D. constitutional, because the gender classification used by the state's attorney in this case satisfies the requirements of the rational basis test.

A. unconstitutional, because the gender classification used by the state's attorney in this case does not satisfy the requirements of intermediate scrutiny.

Water District is an independent municipal water-supply district incorporated under the applicable laws of the state of Green. The district was created solely to supply water to an entirely new community in a recently developed area of Green. That new community is racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse, and the community has never engaged in any discrimination against members of minority groups. The five-member, elected governing board of the newly created Water District contains two persons who are members of racial minority groups. At its first meeting, the governing board of Water District adopted a rule unqualifiedly setting aside 25% of all positions on the staff to the District and 25% of all contracts to be awarded by the District to members of racial minority groups. The purpose of the rule was "to help redress the historical discrimination against these groups in this country and to help them achieve economic parity with other groups in our society." Assume that no federal statute applies. A suit by appropriate parties challenges the constitutionality of these set-asides. In this suit, the most appropriate ruling on the basis of applicable United States Supreme Court precedent would be that the set-asides are •A. unconstitutional, because they would deny other potential employees or potential contractors the equal protection of the laws. •B. unconstitutional, because they would impermissibly impair the right to contract of other potential employees or potential contractors. •C. constitutional, because they would assure members of racial minority groups the equal protection of the laws. •D. constitutional, because the function and activities of Water District are of a proprietary nature rather than a governmental nature and, therefore, are not subject to the usual requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A. unconstitutional, because they would deny other potential employees or potential contractors the equal protection of the laws.

D is a six-year-old boy who has a well-deserved reputation for bullying younger and smaller children. His parents have encouraged him to be aggressive and tough. D, for no reason, knocked down, kicked and severely injured P, a four-year old. A claim for relief has been asserted by P's parents for their medical and hospital costs and for P's injuries. If the claim is asserted against D's parents, the most likely result is they will be A. Liable, because parents are strictly liable for the torts of their children. B Liable, because D's parents encouraged him to be aggressive and tough. C. Not liable, because a six-year-old cannot commit a tort. D. Not liable, because parents cannot be held liable for the tort of a child.

B Liable, because D's parents encouraged him to be aggressive and tough.

A woman graduated from a law school in a state that does not require graduates from that state's law schools to take and pass the bar examination in order to practice law. She moved to another state and wished to practice law without taking and passing that state's bar examination. In state court, she challenges the constitutionality of that state's requirement that she pass the bar in order to practice law there. She will probably: A) Lose, because the state has plenary power regarding commerce. B) Lose, because the license requirement is within the police power of the state and infringes on no specific constitutional prohibition. C) Win, because the license requirement substantially burdens interstate commerce. D) Win, because the license requirement violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

B) Lose, because the license requirement is within the police power of the state and infringes on no specific constitutional prohibition.

At the defendant's trial for murder, facts were introduced that the defendant acted in the heat of passion. After a lengthy trial, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter. On appeal, the conviction was reversed on procedural grounds. The state immediately moved to retry the defendant, again bringing murder charges against her. The defendant moved to strike the murder charge, and the court refused to grant the motion. After the second trial, the defendant was again convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter. The defendant appeals the second conviction, claiming that it violated her constitutional rights. May the second conviction stand? •A) No, because the state could not refile charges after the acquittal. •B) No, because the state could not retry the defendant for murder under the circumstances. •C) Yes, because the state could retry the defendant because the manslaughter conviction was overturned. •D) Yes, because the defendant was reconvicted of the lesser charge again, so any error was harmless

B) No, because the state could not retry the defendant for murder under the circumstances.

Congress enacted legislation prescribing the specifications for various types of containers that all suppliers of nonprescription drugs were required to use in marketing their products. Congress's power to pass this legislation is derived from: A) The Necessary and Proper Clause. B) The Commerce Clause. C) The General Welfare Clause. D) The Tenth Amendment.

B) The Commerce Clause.

The mayor of a small city decided that he would like to start each city council meeting with a nonsectarian prayer. Several city council members and citizens objected to the proposal, claiming that it would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The mayor argued that it would not constitute the establishment of a religion because he would invite clerics from all of the different religious sects to take turns giving the prayer at the meetings. When the council members still objected, the mayor asked the city attorney to research the constitutionality of his proposal. How should the attorney advise the mayor? A) The proposal is constitutional, because by varying the clerics who will give the prayer, it does not constitute an establishment of religion. B) The proposal is constitutional, because there is a long history in this country of allowing prayer at legislative sessions. C) The proposal is unconstitutional, because it has no secular purpose. D) The proposal is unconstitutional, because its primary effect advances religion.

B) The proposal is constitutional, because there is a long history in this country of allowing prayer at legislative sessions.

A state enacted a gross receipts tax on all businesses operating in that state. The tax was a proportional tax based on revenue derived by businesses in the state. A leading manufacturer of widget assembly devices had its corporate headquarters and most of its manufacturing plants in the state. Its products were sold to widget users throughout the country. If the company challenges the constitutionality of the state's assessment of the tax against it, what is its strongest argument? •A) Eighty percent of its revenue is derived from purchases of its products by the federal government. •B) The tax applies to revenue derived from all of the company's manufacturing plants, including those not located in the state. •C) The state also imposes a use tax on component parts purchased by the company outside of the state to make its widget assembly devices that is equivalent to the state's sales tax for similar purchases within the state. •D) Sales taxes are imposed by other states on the company's widget assembly devices sold in those states.

B) The tax applies to revenue derived from all of the company's manufacturing plants, including those not located in the state.

Modality City has had a severe traffic problem on its streets. As a result, it enacted an ordinance prohibiting all sales to the public of food or other items by persons selling directly from trucks, cars, or other vehicles located on city streets. The ordinance included an inseverable grandfather provision exempting from its prohibition venders who, for 20 years or more, have continuously sold food or other items from such vehicles located on the streets of Modality City. Northwind Ice Cream, a retail vender of ice cream products, qualifies for this exemption and is the only food vendor that does. Yuppee Yogurt is a business similar to Northwind, but Yuppee has been selling to the public directly from trucks located on the streets of Modality City only for the past ten years. Yuppee filed suit in an appropriate federal district court to enjoin enforcement of this ordinance on the ground that it denies Yuppee the equal protection of the laws. In this case, the court will probably rule that the ordinance is •A) constitutional, because it is narrowly tailored to implement the city's compelling interest in reducing traffic congestion and, therefore, satisfies the strict scrutiny test applicable to such cases. •B) constitutional, because its validity is governed by the rational basis test, and the courts consistently defer to economic choices embodied in such legislation if they are even plausibly justifiable. •C) unconstitutional, because the nexus between the legitimate purpose of the ordinance and the conduct it prohibits is so tenuous and its provisions are so under-inclusive that the ordinance fails to satisfy the substantial relationship test applicable to such cases. •D) unconstitutional, because economic benefits or burdens imposed by legislatures on the basis of grandfather provisions have consistently been declared invalid by courts as per se violations of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

B) constitutional, because its validity is governed by the rational basis test, and the courts consistently defer to economic choices embodied in such legislation if they are even plausibly justifiable.

A federal statute prohibits the construction of nuclear energy plants in this country without a license from the Federal Nuclear Plant Siting Commission. The statute provides that the Commission may issue a license authorizing the construction of a proposed nuclear energy plant 30 days after the Commission makes a finding that the plant will comply with specified standards of safety, technological and commercial feasibility, and public convenience. In a severable provision, the Commission's enabling statute also provides that Congress, by simple majorities in each house, may veto the issuance of a particular license by the Commission if such a veto occurs within 30 days following the required Commission finding. Early last year, the Commission found that Safenuke, Inc. met all statutory requirements and, therefore, voted to issue Safenuke, Inc. a license authorizing it to construct a nuclear energy plant. Because they believed that the issuance of a license to Safenuke, Inc. was not in accord with the applicable statutory criteria, a majority of each of the two houses of Congress voted, within the specified 30-day period, to veto the license. On the basis of that veto, the Commission refused to issue the license. Subsequently, Safenuke, Inc. sued the Commission in an appropriate federal district court, challenging the constitutionality of the Commission's refusal to issue the license. In this suit, the court should hold the congressional veto of the license of Safenuke, Inc. to be •A) invalid, because any determination by Congress that particular agency action does not satisfy statutory criteria violates Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution because it constitutes the performance of a judicial function by the legislative branch. •B) invalid, because Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution has been interpreted to mean that any action of Congress purporting to alter the legal rights of persons outside of the legislative branch must be presented to the President for his signature or veto. •C) valid, because Congress has authority under the commerce clause to regulate the construction of nuclear energy plants. •D) valid, because there is a compelling national interest in the close congressional supervision of nuclear plant siting in light of the grave dangers to the public health and safety that are associated with the operation of such plants.

B) invalid, because Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution has been interpreted to mean that any action of Congress purporting to alter the legal rights of persons outside of the legislative branch must be presented to the President for his signature or veto.

After being fired from his job, Mel drank almost a quart of vodka and decided to ride the bus home. While on the bus, he saw a briefcase he mistakenly thought was his own, and began struggling with the passenger carrying the briefcase. Mel knocked the passenger to the floor, took the briefcase, and fled. Mel was arrested and charged with robbery. Mel should be •A. Acquitted, because he used no threats and was intoxicated. •B. Acquitted, because his mistake negated the required specific intent. •C. Convicted, because his intoxication was voluntary. •D. Convicted, because mistake is no defense to robbery.

B. Acquitted, because his mistake negated the required specific intent.

For a year, Officer Larry Welby had been investigating Marcus Van Buren, reputed to be a major link between several gangs engaged in drug trafficking in Metropolis. A member of Van Buren's gang called Welby and told him that he just left Van Buren's house. The snitch told Welby that Van Buren was on to Welby and was packing his luxury SUV to leave Metropolis with over half a million dollars in cash, the proceeds from his drug trafficking. Metropolis is situated on the U.S-Canada border; Welby put out an all points bulletin for Van Buren's Cadillac Escalade. Within minutes of the stop of Van Buren's Cadillac just twenty minutes from the border crossing, Welby made it to where Van Buren was stopped. In the Cadillac with Van Buren was his wife and in the back seat, Mr. and Mrs. Frankel, an influential Metropolis couple. The Van Burens and the Frankels were ordered out of the Cadillac. All of the luggage in the rear of the SUV was placed on the side of the road. Mr. and Mrs. Frankel's luggage was clearly tagged, and the Frankels protested Welby's intention to search their luggage. In the Van Burens' suitcases, Welby found a substantial quantity of cash, and in Mr. Frankel's suitcase Welby found a large packet of marijuana. Mr. Frankel was charged with illegal possession of marijuana. His attorney moved to suppress the marijuana. The marijuana found in Mr. Frankel's suitcase is •A. Inadmissible because Officer Welby did not have probable cause to believe that Frankel was involved in Welby's illegal trafficking. •B. Admissible because Officer Welby had probable cause to search the Cadillac. •C. Inadmissible because the Frankels were illegally seized and the search was fruit of the illegal seizure. •D. Admissible because the officer had probable cause to arrest everyone in the car, and the search was incident to the lawful arrest.

B. Admissible because Officer Welby had probable cause to search the Cadillac.

Police received a tip at 1 a.m. from an anonymous caller that a drug sale was about to take place in the parking lot at a specific Walgreen's pharmacy. The tip indicated that the buyer would be driving a black Volkswagen Jetta and would be carrying a pistol in his waistband. Police rushed to Walgreen's, which they knew was in an area where a large number of drug transactions occurred. The drug store was closed. A few minutes later, a black Jetta entered the parking lot behind the store. Police then saw Ethan Cole exit the car and stand near his vehicle. As police approached the Jetta, they saw Cole reach into his jacket. An officer reached in as well and seized a gun tucked in Cole's waistband. Cole was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. Police searched Cole but did not find any drugs. Prior to Cole's trial on the concealed weapon charge, the defense filed a motion to suppress the gun. The gun is •A. Admissible because the anonymous tip provided probable cause to arrest the defendant and thus the search was lawful. •B. Admissible even though the anonymous tip was not sufficient by itself to justify the seizure, his presence in the parking lot corroborated the tip and the search was a lawful frisk. •C. Inadmissible because the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to seize the defendant, and absent a lawful Terry stop there could be no search for a weapon. •D. Inadmissible because the officer reached into Cole's waistband, which was beyond the scope of a legitimate frisk.

B. Admissible even though the anonymous tip was not sufficient by itself to justify the seizure, his presence in the parking lot corroborated the tip and the search was a lawful frisk.

The jurisdiction defines murder in the first degree as any homicide committed with premeditation and deliberation or any murder in the commission of a common-law felony. Second-degree murder is defined as all other murder at common law. In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be found guilty of first degree murder? •A. Immediately after being insulted by Robert, Defendant takes a knife and stabs and kills Robert. •B. Angered over having been struck by Sam, Defendant buys rat poison and puts it in Sam's coffee. Sam drinks the coffee and dies as a result. •C. Intending to injure Fred, Defendant lies in wait and, as Fred comes by, Defendant strikes Fred with a broom handle. As a result of the blow, Fred dies. •D. Defendant, highly intoxicated, discovers a revolver on the table. He picks it up, points it at Alice, and pulls the trigger. The gun discharges, and Alice is killed.

B. Angered over having been struck by Sam, Defendant buys rat poison and puts it in Sam's coffee. Sam drinks the coffee and dies as a result.

A citizen who is unhappy about a recent decision of his city council stood in front of city hall and gave an extemporaneous speech belittling each member of the city council. During the diatribe, the citizen made the following statement: "if there is a God, the city council members will surely burn in hell forever." A state statute, enacted in 1898, prohibited "the public utterance of any blasphemy or sacrilege," and provided criminal penalties for its violation. On hearing the citizen's utterances, a police officer arrested him for violating the 1898 statute. The local district attorney decided to proceed with prosecution of the case, only the third recorded such prosecution in the state's history. Which of the following arguments would not be helpful for the citizen's defense? •A. Application of the statute to the citizen infringes his freedom of speech in violation of the 14th amendment. •B. Application of the statute to the citizen denies him equal protection of the law in violation of the 14th amendment. •C. The statute violates the 14th amendment because it is an establishment of religion. •D. The statute violates the 14th amendment because it is vague.

B. Application of the statute to the citizen denies him equal protection of the law in violation of the 14th amendment.

Arnold Assaulter has been charged in state court with a misdemeanor count of domestic violence assault. The domestic violence assault statute authorizes a maximum penalty of six-months' imprisonment for conviction of this misdemeanor. However, a federal law makes it unlawful for any person "who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to receive any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce." Arnold has filed a demand for a jury, and the district attorney has contested Arnold's entitlement to a jury trial in state court. The district attorney has stipulated that the federal law would effectively prohibit Arnold from possessing any firearm if he is convicted of the state domestic violence assault, thus Arnold would be subjected to an additional adverse consequence of the state conviction. Under federal constitutional law, how should the court respond to the request for a jury trial? •A. Arnold's demand for a jury trial is denied, because a misdemeanor is, by definition, not sufficiently serious to trigger a defendant's sixth amendment right to a jury trial since it signifies that the legislature did not consider the crime a serious one. •B. Arnold's demand for a jury trial is denied, because a crime carrying a six-month prison term is not by itself sufficiently serious to mandate a jury trial. The denial of any right to bear arms does not change the legislature's determination of a crime's seriousness. •C. Arnold's demand for a jury trial is granted, because a crime carrying a penalty of six months or more is a "serious offense." •D. Arnold's demand for a jury trial is granted, because the additional consequence of losing one's right to bear arms reveals the legislature's determination that an offense is "serious," despite only authorizing a six-month prison term.

B. Arnold's demand for a jury trial is denied, because a crime carrying a six-month prison term is not by itself sufficiently serious to mandate a jury trial. The denial of any right to bear arms does not change the legislature's determination of a crime's seriousness.

A homeowner decided to burn down his own home for the insurance proceeds, which constituted the crime of arson in the jurisdiction. The homeowner hired an arsonist to commit the crime so that he could establish an alibi elsewhere. On the night of the planned crime, a neighbor alerted police after seeing the arsonist pour gasoline all over the defendant's front porch, and the police apprehended the arsonist before he could start the fire. The arsonist implicated the homeowner and agreed to testify against him in exchange for the charges of conspiracy to commit arson and attempted arson being dropped against the arsonist. Which of the following best states the crimes for which the homeowner may be convicted? •A. Solicitation, attempted arson, and conspiracy to commit arson. •B. Attempted arson and conspiracy to commit arson. •C. Solicitation and attempted arson. •D. Attempted arson only.

B. Attempted arson and conspiracy to commit arson.

The police set up a sting operation targeting a resale shop that had a reputation for selling stolen goods. An undercover police officer approached the owner of the shop posing as a truck driver who was down on his luck and looking for a way to earn some extra money. The shop owner suggested that on his next load the officer should take a box of goods from the back of his truck, bring them to the shop owner to sell in exchange for cash, and then report the box lost to the trucking company. The next day the officer gave the shop owner an empty box in exchange for money. Immediately after the exchange, the shop owner was arrested. Which of the following crimes did the shop owner commit? •A. Receipt of stolen property. •B. Attempted receipt of stolen property. •C. Conspiracy and receipt of stolen property. •D. No crime.

B. Attempted receipt of stolen property.

Congress recently passed, with the President's signature, the Smog Control Act. The law creates the Smog Alert Agency, and empowers the Agency to promulgate rules and regulations governing air quality standards for the nation. Shortly thereafter, the Agency issued a regulation requiring that every new motor vehicle operating in the United States be equipped with a specified air/fuel control device. In accordance with the statute, the President is authorized to appoint six members to the Agency. The other three positions are to be appointed by the Senate. Which of the following arguments provides the strongest constitutional challenge to the law? •A. The President may not appoint a majority of members to an administrative agency. •B. Congress may not vest in itself the appointment of inferior officers. •C. An administrative agency may not promulgate regulations that unduly burden interstate commerce. •D. An administrative agency that exercises executive power may not have a majority of its members appointed by the President.

B. Congress may not vest in itself the appointment of inferior officers.

A generally applicable state statute requires an autopsy by the county coroner in all cases of death that are not obviously of natural causes. The purpose of this law is to ensure the discovery and prosecution of all illegal activity resulting in death. In the 50 years since its enactment, the statute has been consistently enforced. Mr. and Mrs. Long are sincere practicing members of a religion that maintains it is essential for a deceased person's body to be buried promptly and without any invasive procedures, including an autopsy. When the Longs' son died of mysterious causes and an autopsy was scheduled, the Longs filed an action in state court challenging the constitutionality of the state statute, and seeking an injunction prohibiting the county coroner from performing an autopsy on their son's body. In this action, the Longs claimed only that the application of this statute in the circumstances of their son's death would violate their right to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Assume that no federal statutes are applicable. As applied to the Longs' case, the court should rule that the state's autopsy statute is •A. Constitutional, because a dead individual is not a person protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. •B. Constitutional, because it is a generally applicable statute and is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. •C. Unconstitutional, because it is not necessary to vindicate a compelling state interest. D.Unconstitutional, because it is not substantially related to an important state interest.

B. Constitutional, because it is a generally applicable statute and is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.

While out walking one evening, a pedestrian was stopped at gunpoint by a robber who demanded all of her money. The pedestrian hesitated in going for her wallet, so the robber hit her over the head. In doing so, the robber accidentally dropped the gun, panicked, and started to run. The pedestrian was stunned for a second by the blow on the head, but she quickly recovered, grabbed the gun from the ground, and shot at the fleeing robber. The bullet missed the robber, but hit a bystander, killing him instantly. The pedestrian was arrested and charged with murder. If her attorney asserts at trial that the pedestrian should be charged with voluntary manslaughter rather than murder, this assertion would be: •A. Correct, because the pedestrian had no intent to kill the bystander. •B. Correct, because there was adequate provocation for the pedestrian's actions. •C. Incorrect, because the pedestrian intended to kill the robber. •D. Incorrect, because the pedestrian was in no danger when she shot at the fleeing robber.

B. Correct, because there was adequate provocation for the pedestrian's actions.

In which of the following situations is Defendant's claim of intoxication most likely to result in his being found not guilty? •A. Defendant is charged with manslaughter for a death resulting from an automobile accident. Defendant, the driver, claims he was so drunk he was unable to see the other car involved in the accident. •B. Defendant is charged with assault with intent to kill Watts as a result of his wounding Watts by shooting him. Defendant claims he was so drunk he did not realize anyone else was around when he fired the gun. •C. Defendant is charged with armed robbery. He claims he was so drunk he did not know if the gun was loaded. •D. Defendant is charged with statutory rape after he had sexual intercourse with a girl aged 15 in a jurisdiction where the age of consent is 16. Defendant claims he was so drunk he did not realize the girl was a minor.

B. Defendant is charged with assault with intent to kill Watts as a result of his wounding Watts by shooting him. Defendant claims he was so drunk he did not realize anyone else was around when he fired the gun.

In an attempt to stop the growth of North Korea's nuclear capability, the president has placed a naval blockade around North Korea, halting all ships coming into or leaving North Korea and inspecting these ships for nuclear material. Under international law, a blockade is considered an act of war. The president did not seek congressional approval of the blockade. A federal lawsuit is filed challenging the president's authority to impose a naval blockade without a congressional declaration of war. In this suit, the court will •A. Declare the president's action constitutional because the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed services. •B. Dismiss the case because it involves a nonjusticiable political question. •C. Dismiss the case because federal courts do not get involved in foreign policy matters. •D. Declare the president's action unconstitutional because the president failed to get a congressional declaration of war before imposing the blockade.

B. Dismiss the case because it involves a nonjusticiable political question.

Dawson was charged with felony murder because of his involvement in a bank robbery. The evidence at trial disclosed that Smith invited Dawson to go for a ride in his new car, and after a while asked Dawson to drive. As Smith and Dawson drove around town, Smith explained to Dawson that he planned to rob the bank and that he needed Dawson to drive the getaway car. Dawson agreed to drive to the bank and wait outside while Smith went in to rob it. As they approached the bank, Dawson began to regret his agreement to help with the robbery. Once there, Smith got out of the car. As Smith went out of sight inside the bank, Dawson drove away and went home. Inside the bank, Smith killed a bank guard who tried to prevent him from leaving with the money. Smith ran outside and, finding that his car and Dawson were gone, ran down an alley. He was apprehended a few blocks away. Dawson later turned himself in after hearing on the radio that Smith had killed the guard. The jurisdiction has a death penalty that applies to a felony murder. Consistent with the law and the Constitution, the jury may convict Dawson of •A. Felony murder and impose the death penalty. •B. Felony murder but not impose the death penalty •C. Bank robbery only •D. No crime.

B. Felony murder but not impose the death penalty.

Fixtures, Inc., in a signed writing, contracted with Apartments for the sale to Apartments of 50 identical sets of specified bathroom fixtures, 25 sets to be delivered on March 1, and the remaining 25 sets on April 1. The agreement did not specify the place of delivery, or the time or place of payment. Which of the following statements is correct? A. Fixtures must tender 25 sets to Apartments at Apartments place of business on March 1, but does not have to turn them over to Apartments until Apartments pays the contract price for the 25 sets. B. Fixtures has no duty to deliver the 25 sets on March 1 at Fixtures place of business unless Apartments tenders the contract price for the 25 sets on that date. C. Fixtures must deliver 25 sets on March 1, and Apartments must pay the contract price for the 25 sets within a reasonable time after their delivery. D.Fixtures must deliver 25 sets on March 1, but Apartments payment is due only upon the delivery of all 50 sets.

B. Fixtures has no duty to deliver the 25 sets on March 1 at Fixtures place of business unless Apartments tenders the contract price for the 25 sets on that date.

Allison, a nursing assistant in a retirement home, was arrested for battering residents in her care. Allison was transported to the police station, booked, and given Miranda warnings. Allison signed a written waiver of rights and agreed to questioning. After about half an hour, the questions became much more difficult and incriminating. At first, Allison did not respond to the tougher questions, sitting in absolute silence. She then answered a few questions. When the officer asked her specifically about her actions with one of the alleged victims, Allison replied: "I do not want to make any further comments at this time." The officer did not press Allison to answer the question; instead, he asked her questions about other incidents. Allison answered. Interrogation continued for another hour by which time Allison had confessed to battering four of the residents of the nursing home. Allison's attorney filed a motion to suppress all of her answers to questions after she informed the officer that she did "not want to make any further comments at this time." The motion should be A. Denied because Allison waived her rights. B. Granted because Allison rescinded her waiver. C. Denied because Allison continued to answer questions. D. Granted because she had the right to see an attorney prior to resumption of questioning.

B. Granted because Allison rescinded her waiver

A grand jury returned an indictment charging Daniels with bank robbery, and when he could not make bond he was jailed pending trial. He had received Miranda warnings when arrested and had made no statement at that time. The prosecutor arranged to have Innis, an informant, placed as Daniel's cellmate and instructed Innis to find out about the bank robbery without asking any direct questions about it. Innis, once in the cell, constantly boasted about the crimes that he had committed. Not to be outdone, Daniels finally declared that he had committed the bank robbery with which he was charged. At Daniels' trial, his attorney moved to exclude any testimony from Innis concerning Daniels' boast. The motion should be •A. Granted, because Daniels' privilege against self-incrimination was violated. •B. Granted, because Daniels' right to counsel was violated. •C. Denied, because Daniels had received Miranda warnings. •D. Denied, because Daniels was not interrogated by Innis.

B. Granted, because Daniels' right to counsel was violated.

The County of Guernsey adopted a Pure Milk and Dairy Act which provided that "no milk products could be sold within the County which had not gone through a pasteurization process in plants inspected by a licensed County inspector." The local inspectors had no authority to inspect pasteurization plants outside of the County. As a consequence, under the County ordinance, milk and dairy products from neighboring states were prohibited from sale within the County boundaries even though just as rigid pasteurization standards were employed in those areas. If the ordinance is constitutionally challenged in federal court by a plaintiff with proper standing, the court would most likely: •A. Uphold the ordinance as a valid exercise of the County's power to protect the local health interests of its residents. •B. Invalidate the ordinance as a discriminatory burden on interstate commerce. •C. Uphold the ordinance under the 10th Amendment which reserves to the states the power to protect the health and safety of their residents. •D. Uphold the ordinance under the Ninth Amendment.

B. Invalidate the ordinance as a discriminatory burden on interstate commerce.

Kelly County, in the state of Green, is located adjacent to the border of the state of Red. The communities located in Kelly County are principally suburbs of Scarletville, a large city located in Red, and therefore there is a large volume of traffic between that city and Kelly County. While most of that traffic is by private passenger automobiles, some of it is by taxicabs and other kinds of commercial vehicles. An ordinance of Kelly County, the stated purpose of which is to reduce traffic congestion, provides that only taxicabs registered in Kelly County may pick up or discharge passengers in the county. The ordinance also provides that only residents of Kelly County may register taxicabs in that county. Which of the following is the proper result in a suit brought by Scarletville taxicab owners challenging the constitutionality of this Kelly County Ordinance? •A. Judgment for Scarletville taxicab owners, because the fact that private passenger automobiles contribute more to the traffic congestion problem in Kelly County than do taxicabs indicates that the ordinance is not a reasonable means by which to solve that problem. •B. Judgment for Scarletville taxicab owners, because the ordinance unduly burdens interstate commerce by insulating Kelly County taxicab owners from out-of-state competition without adequate justification. •C. Judgment for Kelly County, because the ordinance forbids taxicabs registered in other counties of Green as well as in states other than Green to operate in Kelly County and, therefore, it does not discriminate against interstate commerce. •D. Judgment for Kelly County, because Scarletville taxicab owners do not constitute a suspect class and the ordinance is reasonably related to the legitimate governmental purpose of reducing traffic congestion.

B. Judgment for Scarletville taxicab owners, because the ordinance unduly burdens interstate commerce by insulating Kelly County taxicab owners from out-of-state competition without adequate justification.

In which of the following situations would Defendant's mistake most likely constitute a defense to the crime charged? •A. A local ordinance forbids the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under 18 years of age. Relying on false identification, Defendant sells champagne to a 16-year-old high school student. Defendant is charged with illegal sale of alcoholic beverages. •B. Mistaking Defendant for a narcotics suspect, an undercover police officer attempts to arrest him. Defendant, unaware that the person who has grabbed him is an officer, hits him and knocks him unconscious. Defendant is charged with assault. •C. Defendant, aged 23, has sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old prostitute who tells Defendant that she is 18. Defendant is charged with the felony of statutory rape under a statute that makes sexual relations with a child under 16 a felony. •D. Relying on erroneous advice from his attorney that, if his wife has abandoned him for more than a year, he is free to marry, Defendant remarries and is subsequently charged with bigamy.

B. Mistaking Defendant for a narcotics suspect, an undercover police officer attempts to arrest him. Defendant, unaware that the person who has grabbed him is an officer, hits him and knocks him unconscious. Defendant is charged with assault.

A state statute defines all murders as second-degree murders unless deliberation and premeditation can be shown, in which case the crime is elevated to first-degree murder. Manslaughter is defined as at common law. The defendant, just having been served with divorce papers, decided to drown his sorrows at the local pub. After drinking heavily and becoming very intoxicated, the defendant became enraged when another patron spilled a drink on him. He took a nearby glass pitcher and smashed it over the patron's head, killing him instantly. The crimes below are listed in descending order of seriousness. What is the most serious crime of which defendant could be convicted? •A. Murder in the first degree. •B. Murder in the second degree. •C. Voluntary manslaughter. •D. Involuntary manslaughter.

B. Murder in the second degree.

The legislature of State X is debating reforms in the law governing insanity. Two reforms have been proposed. Proposal A would eliminate the insanity defense altogether. Proposal B would retain the defense but place on the defendant the burden of proving insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. Opponents of the reforms argue that the proposals would be unconstitutional under the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Which of the proposed reforms would be unconstitutional? •A. Both proposals. •B. Neither proposal. •C. Proposal A only. •D. Proposal B only.

B. Neither proposal.

D left her brand new Mercedes running in front of a store while she went inside to shop. As she walked out of the store, she saw a stranger opening her car door. D yelled and pulled a handgun from her purse. She told the stranger to move away from the car. The stranger looked at D and turned to climb into the car. D shot and killed the stranger. D is charged with murder. May D successfully claim defense of property? •A. No, because shooting someone is never justified. •B. No, because deadly force is not justified solely for the protection of property. •C. Yes, because the use of deadly force is permitted to prevent the imminent theft of property. •D. Yes, because the car was very expensive so the use of deadly force was justified.

B. No, because deadly force is not justified solely for the protection of property.

Daphne told Tad, her administrative assistant, that she would fire him if he refused to improperly "cook the books." Tad reluctantly did as instructed. When the auditors find the fraudulent entries, may Tad successfully defend against a criminal fraud charge by showing that he acted under duress? •A. No, because the threat was not imminent. •B. No, because duress may only be used as a defense for threats of deadly force or great bodily injury. •C. Yes, because Daphne's threat was credible and she had the ability to carry it out. •D. Yes, because Tad was not at fault for being put in the threatening situation.

B. No, because duress may only be used as a defense for threats of deadly force or great bodily injury.

A federal statute provides states with funds for child welfare programs, subject to the condition that such programs be administered in accordance with federal standards. The United States sued a state in federal court for injunctive relief, arguing that the state's child welfare programs, which were funded in part by federal funds disbursed under this statute, failed to comply with federal standards. The state has moved to dismiss the action. Is the court likely to dismiss the action? A. No, because Congress can place any condition on the receipt of federal funds. B. No, because the Eleventh Amendment does not bar actions brought by the United States. C. Yes, because the Eleventh Amendment bars actions against a state in federal court. D. Yes, because the protection of child welfare is reserved to the states.

B. No, because the Eleventh Amendment does not bar actions brought by the United States.

A federal statute provides states with funds for elementary education, subject to the condition that such programs be administered in accordance with federal standards. The United States sued a state in federal court for injunctive relief, arguing that the state's elementary education programs, which were funded in part by federal funds disbursed under this statute, failed to comply with federal standards. The state has moved to dismiss the action. Is the court likely to dismiss the action? •A. No, because Congress can place any condition on the receipt of federal funds. •B. No, because the Eleventh Amendment does not bar actions brought by the United States. •C. Yes, because the Eleventh Amendment bars actions against a state in federal court. •D. Yes, because the education of children is a matter reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.

B. No, because the Eleventh Amendment does not bar actions brought by the United States.

Congress enacted a statute that authorized the construction of a monument commemorating the role of the United States in liberating a particular foreign nation during World War II. Another statute directed that $3 million be spent on the construction. When the United States became involved in a bitter trade dispute with the foreign nation, the President announced that he was canceling the monument's construction and that he would not spend the appropriated funds. Although the actual reason for the President's decision was the trade dispute, the announcement stated that the reason was an unexpected rise in the federal deficit. Assume that no other statutes apply. Is the President's decision constitutional? •A. No, because the President failed to invoke his foreign affairs powers in his announcement. •B. No, because the President is obligated to spend funds in accordance with congressional directions. •C. Yes, because the President is vested with inherent executive power to control federal expenditures. •D. Yes, because the President's decision is a valid exercise of his foreign affairs powers.

B. No, because the President is obligated to spend funds in accordance with congressional directions.

An officer went to an apartment to execute a properly obtained search warrant during an investigation of an operation making counterfeit watches. When he arrived he shouted, "Police, open up," but he did not wait before entering the apartment through the unlocked front door. The officer found the defendant half-asleep in a back room, with a workbench for assembling counterfeit watches nearby. Along with some completed counterfeit watches, the officer found a toolset used for making watches and receipts for various watch components in a drawer of the workbench, all of which the officer seized as evidence. The defendant was charged with illegal counterfeiting. Prior to trial, his attorney moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the search. Should the court grant this motion? •A. No, because regardless of whether the search warrant itself was valid, the evidence was in "plain view" upon entry. •B. No, because the exclusionary rule does not apply to the officer's Fourth Amendment violation. •C. Yes, because the officer failed to wait long enough prior to entering the apartment. •D. Yes, because the door was unlocked.

B. No, because the exclusionary rule does not apply to the officer's Fourth Amendment violation.

A state law provides for an award of damages against anyone who published the name of a rape victim. Pursuant to that law, a woman sued a local newspaper in state court after the newspaper identified her as a rape victim. The state trial and appellate courts rejected the claim, holding that the state law was invalid under both the state constitution and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The state supreme court affirmed, holding specifically: "We think that this well-intentioned law very likely violates the First Amendment of the federal Constitution. We need not, however, decide that issue, because the law assuredly violates our state constitution, which provides even greater protection to the right of the press to report the news." The woman petitioned for review in the U.S. Supreme Court. Is the U.S. Supreme Court likely to review the state supreme court judgment? •A. No, because the First Amendment prohibits the imposition of liability for the publication of truthful information. •B. No, because the judgment of the state supreme court rests upon an adequate and independent state law ground. •C. Yes, because the supremacy clause does not permit a state to create rights greater than those conferred by the federal Constitution. •D. Yes, because the U.S. Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction extends to cases arising under federal law.

B. No, because the judgment of the state supreme court rests upon an adequate and independent state law ground.

Police officers received a tip that illegal drugs were being sold at a certain ground-floor apartment. They decided to stake out the apartment. The stakeout revealed that a significant number of people visited the apartment for short periods of time and then left. A man exited the apartment and started to walk briskly away. The officers grabbed the man and, when he struggled, wrestled him to the ground. They searched him and found a bag of heroin in one of his pockets. After discovering the heroin on the man, the officers decided to enter the apartment. They knocked on the door, which was opened by the woman who lived there. The officers asked if they could come inside, and the woman gave them permission to do so. Once inside, the officers observed several bags of heroin on the living room table. The woman has been charged with possession of the heroin found on the living room table. She has filed a pretrial motion to suppress the heroin on the ground that it was obtained by an illegal search and seizure. Should the woman's motion be granted? •A. No, because the tip together with the heroin found in the man's pocket provided probable cause for the search. •B. No, because the woman consented to the officers' entry. •C. Yes, because the officers' decision to enter the apartment was the fruit of an illegal search of the man. •D. Yes, because the officers did not inform the woman that she could refuse consent.

B. No, because the woman consented to the officers' entry.

Judy and Donna go swimming. Judy is aware that Donna is not a great swimmer. Nonetheless, she takes Donna to a beach with strong currents. She then pushes Donna into the water. Her goal is to frighten Donna a little and show off her own swimming skills. Because of the strong currents, Donna starts to drown. However, before she actually does, Donna is rescued by a lifeguard. Judy is charged with attempted murder. Under the majority approach, Judy is •A. Guilty of attempted murder because she was aware that Donna might be overcome by the currents. •B. Not guilty of attempted murder because her goal was to frighten, not kill, Donna. •C. Guilty of attempted murder because she acted with malice when she pushed Donna into the water. •D. Not guilty of attempted murder because a reasonable person would realize that a lifeguard would probably save Judy.

B. Not guilty of attempted murder because her goal was to frighten, not kill, Donna.

Officer John arrested Clara for distributing counterfeit currency after a number of phony $20 bills were traced to her. John gave Clara her Miranda rights, which she clearly understood, and asked her what she wanted to do. "Hmmm," Clara mused, "what indeed? I'd like to talk to you, but I am going to wait until I have a lawyer. That's what my boyfriend would want me to do." "So," John retorted, "you let your boyfriend make important decisions for you?" "No," Clara responded defensively, "of course not." "Good," John said, "because I'd hate to think you're not capable of making important decisions on your own. If you talk to me, maybe we can clear everything up here and now. What do you say?" Unnerved yet charmed by John's remarks, Clara agreed to talk to him after all. John then asked Clara how she got mixed up in counterfeiting. "With the debt that I have," Clara chuckled, "I should've been pedaling fifties, not twenties." If Clara moves to suppress her last statement, she will likely: •A. Prevail, because John's remarks about her boyfriend were impermissible. •B. Prevail, because she asked for a lawyer. •C. Fail, because she never clearly requested a lawyer. •D. Fail, because she decided to talk to John.

B. Prevail, because she asked for a lawyer.

After leaving ceremonies at which the chief justice of a state supreme court had been named distinguished jurist of the year, an associate justice was interviewed by the press. The associate justice told the reporter that the chief justice "is a senile imbecile who lets his clerks write all of his opinions. He hasn't had a lucid thought in decades, and he became a judge by being on the payroll of the mob." Enraged, the chief justice brought an action for defamation against the associate justice. Which of the following, established by the chief justice in his defamation action, would permit recovery against the associate justice? A. The associate justice negligently made the statements, which were false, and caused the chief justice actual injury. B. The associate justice made the statements knowing they were false. C. The associate justice made the statements because he hated the chief justice and wished to destroy his reputation in the legal community. D. The associate justice made the statements in order to ensure that the chief justice's political career was nipped in the bud.

B. The associate justice made the statements knowing they were false.

A bookie testified before a grand jury regarding allegedly illegal gambling activities. As a result, the bookie was indicted and a warrant was issued for the bookie's arrest, along with a search warrant for the bookie's home. The police went to the bookie's home, informed him of the charges against him, and placed him in handcuffs. The officers then conducted a search of the bookie's home and found a desk calendar, which had possibly incriminating information written on it relating to appointments. They seized the desk calendar and one of the officers asked the bookie what he had to say about their find. The bookie made an incriminating statement in response. Before trial the prosecutor obtained an exemplar of the bookie's handwriting to compare it with the handwriting on the calendar. If introduced at trial, which of the following would most clearly violate the bookie's Fifth Amendment self-incrimination rights? •A. The grand jury testimony. •B. The bookie's response to the police officer. •C. The bookie's handwriting exemplar. •D. The bookie's desk calendar.

B. The bookie's response to the police officer.

Denny sold small quantities of marijuana along Main Street, which bordered on a university campus. Denny had never been arrested. On Thursday evening as he turned onto Main Street, a police officer grabbed Denny and forced him up against a wall. The officer then searched Denny and found a dozen packets of marijuana concealed in Denny's underwear. Denny was charged with possession with the intent to sell. The trial judge suppressed the evidence found in Denny's underwear as well as the testimony of the police officer who conducted the search. The prosecution produced a few university students who testified to buying small quantities of marijuana from Denny. Denny was called as the principal defense witness. On direct examination, Denny denied ever selling marijuana. He claimed never to have possessed any more than a small quantity of marijuana for personal use. On cross-examination, the prosecutor began to question Denny about the night of his arrest and the dozen packets of marijuana found on his person. The defense attorney objected to that line of questioning. How should the trial judge rule? •A. The judge should deny the motion, and the jury may treat defendant's answers as substantive evidence. •B. The judge should deny the motion because defendant had lied while testifying. •C. The judge should grant the motion because to allow the prosecution to question defendant about the seized marijuana is to allow the government to benefit from its own illegality. •D. The judge should grant the motion because the evidence was suppressed.

B. The judge should deny the motion because defendant had lied while testifying.

A woman broke off her engagement to a man but refused to return the engagement ring the man had given her. One night, the man entered the woman's house after midnight to retrieve the ring. Although the woman was not at home, a neighbor saw the man enter the house and called the police. The man unsuccessfully searched for the ring for 10 minutes. As he was walking out the front door, the police arrived and immediately arrested him. The man has been charged with burglary in a jurisdiction that follows the common law. Which of the following, if proved, would serve as the man's best defense to the charge? •A. The man knew that the woman kept a key under the doormat and he used the key to enter the house. •B. The man incorrectly and unreasonably believed that he was legally entitled to the ring. •C. The man knew that no one was at home when he entered the house. •D. The man took nothing of value from the house.

B. The man incorrectly and unreasonably believed that he was legally entitled to the ring.

Police executing a valid search warrant at the home of a mob kingpin entered the home without knocking and searched the home finding the evidence listed in the search warrant. The defense moved to suppress the evidence found during the search. Police officers testifying at the suppression hearing did not offer any reasons for failing to knock, announcing their identity, and waiting for the occupants to open the door. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? •A. The motion to suppress should be granted because the judge issuing the search warrant did not authorize a no-knock entry, and the police violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. •B. The motion to suppress should be denied because, even though the police violated the defendants Fourth Amendment rights, the evidence was seized pursuant to a valid search warrant. •C. The motion to suppress should be granted because there was no exigency to justify the no-knock entry. •D. The motion to suppress should be denied because the Fourth Amendment does not require police to knock and announce before entering to execute a valid search warrant.

B. The motion to suppress should be denied because, even though the police violated the defendants Fourth Amendment rights, the evidence was seized pursuant to a valid search warrant.

A car was pulled over for speeding and the police officer ordered the driver to step out and move away from the car. The officer subsequently searched the glove compartment of the car and found an illegal handgun. Which of the following would not be a valid basis for the search of the glove compartment? •A. The officer had a reasonable suspicion that the driver was dangerous. •B. The officer properly placed the driver under arrest and secured him in the back of the squad car before conducting the search. •C. The officer properly placed the driver under arrest, impounded the vehicle, and then conducted a standard inventory search. •D. The officer had probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained illegal narcotics.

B. The officer properly placed the driver under arrest and secured him in the back of the squad car before conducting the search.

Doctor, a resident of the city of Greenville in the state of Green, is a physician licensed to practice in both Green and the neighboring state of Red. Doctor finds that the most convenient place to treat her patients who need hospital care is in the publicly owned and operated Redville Municipal Hospital of the City of Redville in the state of Red, which is located just across the state line from Greenville. For many years Doctor had successfully treated her patients in that hospital. Early this year she was notified that she could no longer treat patients in the Redville hospital because she was not a resident of Red, and a newly adopted rule of Redville Municipal Hospital, which was adopted in conformance with all required procedures, stated that every physician who practices in that hospital must be a resident of Red. Which of the following constitutional provisions would be most helpful to Doctor in an action to challenge her exclusion from the Redville hospital solely on the basis of this hospital rule? •A. The bill of attainder clause. •B. The privileges and immunities clause of Article IV. •C. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. •D. The ex post facto clause.

B. The privileges and immunities clause of Article IV.

Eric and Carol have been getting on each other's nerves at work. Carol decides she needs to liven things up by playing a practical joke on Eric. When Eric arrives at work, Carol pretends to throw a baseball at his head. However, unbeknownst to Eric, the ball is attached to a string and rebounds to Carol before it hits Eric. Nonetheless, Eric is extremely startled and upset by the incident. Is Carol guilty of assault? •A. Yes, because Carol acted maliciously. •B. Yes, because Carol intended to and did create a reasonable apprehension in Eric that he would be hit by the ball. •C. No, because Carol never intended to hit Eric with the ball. •D. No, because Eric suffered no physical injury.

B. Yes, because Carol intended to and did create a reasonable apprehension in Eric that he would be hit by the ball.

A federal statute provides that the cities in which certain specified airports are located may regulate the rates and services of all limousines that serve those airports, without regard to the origin or destination of the passengers who use the limousines. The cities of Redville and Greenville are located adjacent to each other in different states. The airport serving both of them is located in Redville and is one of those airports specified in the federal statute. The Redville City Council has adopted a rule that requires any limousine serving the airport to charge only the rates authorized by the Redville City Council. Airline Limousine Service has a lucrative business transporting passengers between Greenville and the airport in Redville, at much lower rates than those required by the Redville City Council. It transports passengers in interstate traffic only; it does not provide local service within Redville. The new rule adopted by the Redville City Council will require Airline Limousine Service to charge the same rates as limousines operating only in Redville. Must Airline Limousine Service comply with the new rule of the Redville City Council? •A. Yes, because the airport is located in Redville and, therefore, its city council has exclusive regulatory authority over all transportation to and from the airport. •B. Yes, because Congress has authorized this form of regulation by Redville and, therefore, removed any constitutional impediments to it that may have otherwise existed. •C. No, because the rule would arbitrarily destroy a lucrative existing business and, therefore, would amount to a taking without just compensation. •D. No, because Airline Limousine Service is engaged in interstate commerce and this rule is an undue burden on that commerce.

B. Yes, because Congress has authorized this form of regulation by Redville and, therefore, removed any constitutional impediments to it that may have otherwise existed.

On July 15, in a writing signed by both parties, Fixtures, Inc., agreed to deliver to Druggist on August 15 five storage cabinets from inventory for a total price of $5,000 to be paid on delivery. On August 1, the two parties orally agreed to postpone the delivery date to August 20. On August 20, Fixtures tendered the cabinets to Druggist, who refused to accept or pay for them on the ground that they were not tendered on August 15, even though they otherwise met the contract specifications. Assuming that all appropriate defenses are seasonably raised, will Fixtures succeed in an action against Druggist for breach of contract? A. Yes, because neither the July 15 agreement nor the August 1 agreement was required to be in writing. B. Yes, because the August 1 agreement operated as a waiver of the August 15 delivery term. C. No, because there was no consideration to support the August 1 agreement. D. No, because the parol evidence rule will prevent proof of the August 1 agreement.

B. Yes, because the August 1 agreement operated as a waiver of the August 15 delivery term.

Police went to a warehouse in response to a report of a gunshot. There they found the defendant standing over the victim's body. They immediately arrested the defendant and gave him Miranda warnings. The defendant said nothing other than that he wanted an attorney. The defendant eventually was charged with murder and brought to trial. At trial, the defendant testified in his own defense. He claimed that he was in the warehouse alone when he was attacked by the victim, and that he shot the victim in self-defense. The prosecution, on cross-examination, asked the defendant why he did not tell the police when they arrived there that he had shot the victim in self-defense. The defendant's attorney objected to this question, but he was overruled. The defendant was unable to give a satisfactory answer, and the prosecution suggested that he was lying. The defendant was convicted. Does the defendant have grounds to appeal his conviction on the basis of the prosecutor's cross-examination? •A. Yes, because the defendant's request for an attorney relieved him of the obligation to talk with the police while he was in custody. •B. Yes, because the Miranda warnings carry an implicit assurance that silence will carry no penalty. •C. No, because the defendant's silence when the police arrived is tantamount to a prior inconsistent statement that may be used for impeachment purposes. •D. No, because by taking the stand, the defendant waived any right he may have had not to testify against himself.

B. Yes, because the Miranda warnings carry an implicit assurance that silence will carry no penalty.

D decided to kidnap her boss, V, in order to hold him for ransom. While V was supervising the clothing section of the large department store where they both worked, D put a knife to V's back and told him not to move. Two minutes later, D demanded that V walk slowly out to the public parking lot across the street from the store. As soon as they got to the parking lot, a police officer observed what was going on, became suspicious, and arrested D. Can D be convicted of kidnapping? •A. Yes, once she put the knife to V's back, the crime was complete. •B. Yes, the crime was complete as soon as V was moved a substantial amount against his will. •C. No, D was never able to get V away from the area of the store. •D. No, without the use of actual force against the victim, the kidnapping was not complete.

B. Yes, the crime was complete as soon as V was moved a substantial amount against his will.

Congress wishes to enact legislation prohibiting discrimination in the sale or rental of housing on the basis of the sexual orientation of the potential purchaser or renter. Congress wishes this statute to apply to all public and private vendors and lessors of residential property in this country, with a few narrowly drawn exceptions. The most credible argument for congressional authority to enact such a statute would be based upon the •A. general welfare clause of Article I, Section 8, because of the conduct the statute prohibits could reasonably be deemed to be harmful to the national interest. •B. commerce clause of Article I, section 8, because, in the aggregate, the sale or rental of almost all housing in this country could reasonably be deemed to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. •C. enforcement clause of the Thirteenth Amendment, because that amendment clearly prohibits discrimination against the class of persons protected by this statute. •D. enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because that amendment prohibits all public and private actors from engaging in irrational discrimination.

B. commerce clause of Article I, section 8, because, in the aggregate, the sale or rental of almost all housing in this country could reasonably be deemed to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

National regulation of predatory wild animals on federal lands is most likely •A. constitutional, because the protection of wild animals is important to the general welfare. •B. constitutional, because Congress has authority to make regulations respecting federal property. •C. unconstitutional, because wild animals as defined by state common law are not federal property. •D. unconstitutional, because regulation and control of wild animals is retained by the states under the Tenth Amendment.

B. constitutional, because Congress has authority to make regulations respecting federal property.

The Federal Computer Abuse Act establishes the Federal Computer Abuse Commission, authorizes the Commission to issue licenses for the possession of computers on terms that are consistent with the purposes of the act, and makes the unlicensed possession of a computer a crime. The provisions of the Federal Computer Abuse Act are inseverable. User applied to the Federal Computer Abuse Commission for a license to possess a computer. The Commission held, and User participated in, a trial-type proceeding on User's license application. In that proceeding it was demonstrated that User repeatedly and intentionally used computers to introduce computer viruses into electronic data banks without the consent of their owners. As a result, the Commission denied User's application for a license. The license denial was based on a Commission rule authorized by the Computer Abuse Act that prohibited the issuances of computer licenses to persons who had engaged in such conduct. Nevertheless, User retained and continues to use his computer. He was subsequently convicted of the crime of unlicensed possession of a computer. On appeal, he challenges the constitutionality of the licensing provision of the Federal Computer Abuse Act. In this case, the reviewing court would probably hold that act to be •A. constitutional, because the Constitution generally authorizes Congress to enact all laws that are necessary and proper to advance the general welfare, and Congress could reasonably believe that possession of computers by people like User constitutes a threat to the general welfare. •B. constitutional, because Congress may use the authority vested in it by the commerce clause to regulate the possession of computers and the provisions of this act do not violate any prohibitory provision of the Constitution. •C. unconstitutional, because Congress may not impose a criminal penalty on action that is improper only because it is inconsistent with an agency rule. •D. unconstitutional, because the mere possession of a computer is a wholly local matter that is beyond the regulatory authority of Congress.

B. constitutional, because Congress may use the authority vested in it by the commerce clause to regulate the possession of computers and the provisions of this act do not violate any prohibitory provision of the Constitution.

The Sports Championship Revenue Enhancement Act is a federal statute that was enacted as part of a comprehensive program to eliminate the federal budget deficit. That act imposed, for a period of five years, a 50% excise tax on the price of tickets to championship sporting events. Such events include the World Series, the Super Bowl, major college bowl games, and similar championship sports events. This federal tax is probably A. constitutional, because the compelling national interest in reducing the federal budget deficit justifies this tax as a temporary emergency measure. B. constitutional, because an act of Congress that appears to be a revenue raising measure on its face is not rendered invalid because it may have adverse economic consequences for the activity taxed. C. unconstitutional, because a 50% tax is likely to reduce attendance at championship sporting events and, therefore, is not rationally related to the legitimate interest of Congress in eliminating the budget deficit. D. unconstitutional, because Congress violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment by singling out championship sporting events for this tax while failing to tax other major sporting, artistic, or entertainment events to which tickets are sold.

B. constitutional, because an act of Congress that appears to be a revenue raising measure on its face is not rendered invalid because it may have adverse economic consequences for the activity taxed.

Small retailers located in the state of Yellow are concerned about the loss of business to certain large retailers located nearby in bordering states. In an effort to deal with this concern, the legislature of Yellow enacted a statute requiring all manufactures and wholesalers who sell goods to retailers in Yellow to do so at prices that are no higher than the lowest prices at which they sell them to retailers in any of the states that border Yellow. Several manufacturers and wholesalers who are located in the states boarding Yellow and who sell their goods to retailers in those states and in Yellow bring an action in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of this statute. Which of the following arguments offered by these plaintiffs is likely to be most persuasive in light of applicable precedent? The state statute •A. deprives them of their property or liberty without due process of law. •B. imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. •C. deprives them of a privilege or immunity of national citizenship. •D. denies them the equal protection of the laws.

B. imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

Assume the same facts as Question No. 9, except that the bullet from Dave's pistol struck and killed Abel. A statute in the jurisdiction defines murder in the first degree as an intentional and premeditated killing or one occurring during the commission of a common law felony, and murder in the second degree as all other murder at common law. Voluntary manslaughter is defined as a killing in the heat of passion upon an adequate legal provocation. Involuntary manslaughter is defined as a killing caused by gross negligence. The most serious crime Dave committed is: •A. murder in the first degree •B. murder in the second degree •C. voluntary manslaughter •D. involuntary manslaughter

B. murder in the second degree

At a party, Diane and Victor agreed to play a game they called "spin the barrel." Victor took an unloaded revolver, placed one bullet in the barrel, and spun the barrel. Victor then pointed the gun at Diane's head and pulled the trigger once. The gun did not fire. Diane then took the gun, pointed it at Victor, spun the barrel, and pulled the trigger once. The gun fired, and Victor fell over dead. A statute in the jurisdiction defines murder in the first degree as an intentional and premeditated killing or one occurring during the commission of a common-law felony, and murder in the second degree as all other murder at common law. Manslaughter is defined as a killing in the heat of passion upon an adequate legal provocation or a killing caused by gross negligence. The most serious crime for which Diane can properly be convicted is •A. murder in the first degree, because the killing was intentional and premeditated and, in any event, occurred during commission of the felony of assault with a deadly weapon. •B. murder in the second degree, because Diane's act posed a great threat of serious bodily harm. •C. manslaughter, because Diane's act was grossly negligent and reckless. •D. no crime, because Victor and Diane voluntarily agreed to play a game and each assumed the risk of death.

B. murder in the second degree, because Diane's act posed a great threat of serious bodily harm.

Eighteen-year-old Kenneth and his 14-year-old girlfriend, Emma, made plans to meet in Kenneth's apartment to have sexual intercourse, and they did so. Emma later told her mother about the incident. Kenneth was charged with statutory rape and conspiracy to commit statutory rape. In the jurisdiction, the age of consent is 15, and the law of conspiracy is the same as at common law. Kenneth was convicted of both charges and given consecutive sentences. On appeal, he contends that his conspiracy conviction should be reversed. That conviction should be •A. affirmed, because he agreed with Emma to commit the crime. •B. reversed, because Emma could not be a conspirator to this crime. •C. reversed, because the crime is one that can only be committed by agreement and thus Wharton's Rule bars conspiracy liability. •D. reversed, because one cannot conspire with a person too young to consent.

B. reversed, because Emma could not be a conspirator to this crime.

A federal statute with inseverable provisions established a new five-member National Prosperity Board with broad regulatory powers over the operation of the securities, banking, and commodities industries, including the power to issue rules with the force of law. The statute provides for three of the board members to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. They serve seven-year terms and are removable only for good cause. The other two members of the board were designated in the statute to be the respective general counsel of the Senate and House of Representatives Committees on Government Operations. The statute stipulated that they were to serve on the board for as long as they continued in those positions. Following all required administrative procedures, the board issued an elaborate set of rules regulating the operations of all banks, securities dealers, and commodities brokers. The Green Light Securities Company, which was subject to the board's rules, sought a declaratory judgment that the rules were invalid because the statute establishing the board was unconstitutional. In this case, the court should rule that the statute establishing the National Prosperity Board is •A. unconstitutional, because all members of federal boards having broad powers that are quasi-legislative in nature, such as rulemaking, must be appointed by Congress. •B. unconstitutional, because all members of federal boards exercising executive powers must be appointed by the President or in a manner otherwise consistent with the appointments clause of Article II. •C. constitutional, because the necessary and proper clause authorizes Congress to determine the means by which members are appointed to boards created by Congress under its power to regulate commerce among the states. •D. constitutional, because there is a substantial nexus between the power of Congress to legislate for the general welfare and the means specified by Congress in this statute for the appointment of board members.

B. unconstitutional, because all members of federal boards exercising executive powers must be appointed by the President or in a manner otherwise consistent with the appointments clause of Article II.

Congress enacted a statute prohibiting the use of mechanical power hammers on all construction projects in the U.S. Subsequently, a study conducted by a private research firm concluded that nails driven by mechanical power hammers have longer-lasting joining power than hand-driven nails. After learning about this study, the city of Green enacted an amendment to its building code requiring the use of mechanical power hammers in the construction of all buildings. This amendment to the city's building code is •A. unconstitutional, because it was enacted subsequent to the federal statute •B. unconstitutional, because it conflicts with the provisions of the federal statute •C. constitutional, because the federal statute does not expressly indicate that it supersedes inconsistent state and local laws •D. constitutional, because the long-term safety justifies some additional risk to the people engaged in the construction of the buildings

B. unconstitutional, because it conflicts with the provisions of the federal statute

The governor of the state of Green proposes to place a Christmas nativity scene, the components of which would be permanently donated to the state by private citizens, in the Green Capitol Building rotunda where the Green Legislature meets annually. The governor further proposes to display this state-owned nativity scene annually from December 1 to December 31, next to permanent displays that depict the various products manufactured in Green. The governor's proposal is supported by all members of both houses of the legislature. If challenged in a lawsuit on establishment clause grounds, the proposed nativity scene display would be held •A. unconstitutional, because the components of the nativity scene would be owned by the state rather than by private persons. •B. unconstitutional, because the nativity scene would not be displayed in a context that appeared to depict and commemorate the Christmas season as a primarily secular holiday. •C. constitutional, because the components of the nativity scene would be donated to the state by private citizens rather than purchased with state funds. •D. constitutional, because the nativity scene would be displayed alongside an exhibit of various products manufactured in Green.

B. unconstitutional, because the nativity scene would not be displayed in a context that appeared to depict and commemorate the Christmas season as a primarily secular holiday.

A fashionista purchased a wardrobe closet at an antique auction. Three days later, while cleaning the inside of the closet, she discovered a small quantity of a white powder inside a box. She showed the box to her boyfriend, a paralegal. He identified the powder as driscamine, a controlled substance. He told her that it was illegal to buy driscamine, but because she did not know that it was in the closet when she purchased it, it was okay to keep it, which she did. A state statute prohibits "willful and unlawful possession of a controlled substance." Why was the Fashionista's "mistake" not a valid defense?

Because her mistake did not negate an element of the crime; she knew she was possessing driscamine, a controlled substance.

As part of a deal to raise the federal debt limit, Congress passed a statute by a greater than two-thirds vote in both houses giving the President authority to cancel particular spending provisions that are contained within legislation that he signs into law. The statute provided that Congress could override the President's decisions only by a three-fourths vote. As soon as the statute went into effect, a Senator who had voted against the statute filed suit in federal district court challenging its constitutionality. Is the Senator likely to succeed in her lawsuit? A) Yes, because the President does not have the constitutional power to exercise a line item veto. B) Yes, because the statute requires a vote of three-fourths of Congress to override the President's decisions. C) No, because the Senator lacks standing to challenge the statute. D) No, because the statute passed by more than a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress.

C) No, because the Senator lacks standing to challenge the statute.

Hoping to help control a growing problem with violent all-male teenage gangs who frequented a youth center, a city council passed an ordinance forbidding any male between the ages of 13 and 19 to enter the center unless accompanied by a female. An 18-year-old boy who was new to the city went to the youth center to try to meet new friends. He was refused admission because he was not escorted by a female. Angered, the boy filed suit in federal district court seeking admission to the center and asking the court to strike down the ordinance as unconstitutional. Which of the following standards should the court use in determining the validity of the ordinance? A) The boy must show that the ordinance is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. B) The boy must show that the ordinance is not substantially related to an important government interest. C) The city must show that the ordinance is substantially related to an important government interest. D) The city must show that the ordinance is necessary to achieve a compelling interest.

C) The city must show that the ordinance is substantially related to an important government interest.

A state passes a law allowing terminally ill patients to use marijuana under limited circumstances. Federal law, however, provides that marijuana may not be used under any circumstances. The state sues in federal district court, arguing that marijuana is beneficial for the terminally ill and should be permitted under these circumstances, despite the federal prohibition of marijuana use throughout the United States. The federal district court should rule that: A) The issue should be certified to the court of appeals immediately because of the importance of the issue. B) The issue is a peculiarly local one that is better addressed on a state level, and should enjoin enforcement of the federal law. C) The federal statute preempts the state medical marijuana law, and the state law is invalid pursuant to the Supremacy Clause. D) The federal court has no jurisdiction to hear the case, because a state is a party and original jurisdiction lies with the United States Supreme Court.

C) The federal statute preempts the state medical marijuana law, and the state law is invalid pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.

A state statute provided that only residents of the state can be granted a license to practice medicine within the state. The statute was passed after a series of well-publicized mistakes by a nonresident physician led to a public consensus that nonresidents were less likely to be familiar with the medical standards followed in the state, making them more likely to commit malpractice. A respected surgeon who lived and was licensed in a neighboring state was offered and accepted the position of chief surgeon at a hospital in a state with the residency statute. Because he lived only 20 minutes away from the hospital, he did not wish to move. He filed an action in federal court challenging the residency requirement, alleging that the statute discriminated against nonresidents in violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. The federal court is likely to find that the statute is: A) Constitutional, because the state has a substantial justification for the discriminatory treatment. B) Constitutional, because a license to practice medicine is not a "privilege" under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. C) Unconstitutional, because the state does not have a substantial justification for the discriminatory treatment. D) Unconstitutional, because the discrimination is not necessary to promote a compelling state interest.

C) Unconstitutional, because the state does not have a substantial justification for the discriminatory treatment.

A state located in the southern half of the United States experienced a strong influx of retirees, due in part to its mild winters and in part to the generous health benefits that the state historically provided to its elderly residents who fell below the federal poverty line. The state's Office of Budget Management determined that the influx of retirees would bankrupt the state's health care benefit fund within five years. To preserve the fund and ensure the health of its citizens, the state revised its health care statute to make persons ineligible for coverage until they have lived in the state for at least one year. If a retiree who was denied benefits because she just moved to the state challenges the constitutionality of the statute in federal court, is she likely to prevail? A) No, because the state has a compelling interest in maintaining the fiscal integrity of its health care fund. B) No, because the states do not have a constitutional duty to provide health care benefits to retirees even if they fall below the federal poverty line. C) Yes, because the requirement improperly burdens the right of interstate travel in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. D) Yes, because the requirement deprives some retirees of certain privileges and immunities in violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV.

C) Yes, because the requirement improperly burdens the right of interstate travel in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

To encourage the growth of its population, the state of Axbridge established a program that awarded $1,000 to the parents of each child born within the state, provided that at the time of the child's birth the mother and father of the newborn were citizens of the United States. The Lills are aliens who are permanent residents of the United States and have resided in Axbridge for three years. When their first child was born two months ago, they applied for and were denied the $1,000 award by Axbridge officials on the sole ground that they are not citizens of the United States. The Lills filed suit in federal court contending that their exclusion from the award program was unconstitutional. Assume no federal statute addresses this question. In this case, the court should hold that the exclusion of aliens from the Axbridge award program is •(A) constitutional, because the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states plenary authority over the spending of state funds. •(B) constitutional, because Axbridge has a legitimate interest in encouraging the growth of its population, and a rational legislature could believe that families in which both parents are United States citizens are more likely to stay in Axbridge and contribute to its future prosperity than those in which one or both of the parents are aliens. •(C) unconstitutional, because strict scrutiny governs judicial review of such state classifications based on alienage, and Axbridge cannot demonstrate that this classification is necessary to advance a compelling state interest. •(D) unconstitutional, because state classifications based on alienage are impermissible, unless explicitly authorized by an act of Congress.

C) unconstitutional, because strict scrutiny governs judicial review of such state classifications based on alienage, and Axbridge cannot demonstrate that this classification is necessary to advance a compelling state interest.

A worker was in the habit of carrying a lot of cash with him after payday. His good friend was worried that some day the worker might get robbed. To teach him to be more careful, and intending only to frighten him, the friend purchased a realistic-looking toy gun and a face mask and hid in the bushes one night after payday, waiting for the worker to come home. As the worker passed by, the friend jumped out of the bushes, pointing the toy gun at him, and took all of his money. The worker was badly frightened by the incident. Shortly thereafter, the friend returned the money to the worker and explained why he had staged the holdup. The crimes below are listed in descending order of seriousness. Which of the following is the most serious crime for which the friend can be convicted? A. Armed robbery. B. Robbery. C. Assault. D. Larceny.

C. Assault.

Widgets are manufactured wholly from raw materials mined and processed in the state of Green. The only two manufacturers of widgets in the United States are also located in that state. However, their widgets are purchased by retailers located in every state. The legislature of the state of Green is considering the adoption of a statute that would impose a tax solely on the manufacture of widgets. The tax is to be calculated at 3% of their wholesale value. Which of the following arguments would be LEAST helpful to the state in defending the constitutionality of this proposed state tax on widgets? A. At the time widgets are manufactured and taxed they have not yet entered the channels of interstate commerce. B. The economic impact of this tax will be passed on to both in-state and out-of-state purchasers of widgets and, therefore, it is wholly nondiscriminatory in its effect. C. Because of the powers reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, states have plenary authority to construct their tax system in any manner they choose. D. A tax on the manufacture of widgets may be imposed only by the state in which the manufacturing occurs and, therefore, it is not likely to create the danger of a multiple tax burden on interstate commerce.

C. Because of the powers reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, states have plenary authority to construct their tax system in any manner they choose..

The defendant planned to break into a home, steal any valuables that he could easily pawn, and then burn down the home using gasoline from his lawnmower. When the defendant got to the home that night, he realized that he had forgotten the gas at home. Nonetheless, the defendant broke into the home through a basement window. Unbeknownst to him, the police were alerted by a silent alarm and arrested the defendant just as he was leaving the home with a sack filled with valuables. At common law, the defendant has committed: •A. Burglary and attempted larceny. •B. Burglary, attempted larceny, and attempted arson. •C. Burglary and larceny. •D. Burglary, larceny, and attempted arson.

C. Burglary and larceny.

The State of Tennessee recently passed a law that reduced the speed limit on its state highways from 70 to 60 miles per hour. The state highway department had just completed a 10-year study that showed overwhelmingly that traffic accidents and fatalities were lower on state highways with a 60 mile per hour speed limit. Many of Tennessee's state highways go to the Tennessee state border and connect to roadways in adjacent states. Each of the states bordering Tennessee has a speed limit of 70 mph on its state highways. A national trucking company filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the new Tennessee speed limit violates the Dormant Commerce Clause because it forces interstate traffic to slow down when it enters Tennessee. The Tennessee speed limit is most likely: A. Unconstitutional, because Tennessee has discriminated against out-of-state traffic for the benefit of in-state traffic. B. Unconstitutional, because Tennessee's legitimate interest in traffic safety does not clearly exceed the speed limit's burden on interstate commerce. C. Constitutional, because the speed limit's slight burden on interstate commerce does not clearly exceed Tennessee's legitimate interest in traffic safety. D. Constitutional, because the safety of state highways is a purely local matter that may be regulated by the states as they please.

C. Constitutional, because the speed limit's slight burden on interstate commerce does not clearly exceed Tennessee's legitimate interest in traffic safety.

The State of Tennessee recently passed a law that reduced the speed limit on its state highways from 70 to 60 miles per hour. The state highway department had just completed a 10-year study that showed overwhelmingly that traffic accidents and fatalities were lower on state highways with a 60 mile per hour speed limit. Many of Tennessee's state highways go to the Tennessee state border and connect to roadways in adjacent states. Each of the states bordering Tennessee has a speed limit of 70 mph on its state highways. A national trucking company filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the new Tennessee speed limit violates the Dormant Commerce Clause because it forces interstate traffic to slow down when it enters Tennessee. The Tennessee speed limit is most likely: •A. Unconstitutional, because Tennessee has discriminated against out-of-state traffic for the benefit of in-state traffic. •B. Unconstitutional, because Tennessee's legitimate interest in traffic safety does not clearly exceed the speed limit's burden on interstate commerce. •C. Constitutional, because the speed limit's slight burden on interstate commerce does not clearly exceed Tennessee's legitimate interest in traffic safety. •D. Constitutional, because the safety of state highways is a purely local matter that may be regulated by the states as they please.

C. Constitutional, because the speed limit's slight burden on interstate commerce does not clearly exceed Tennessee's legitimate interest in traffic safety.

The defendant was riding with this girlfriend in her father's car, a brand new Cadillac. A police officer, stopped at a red light next to the Cadillac, decided to follow the car because of the race and youth of the occupants. After following for about a mile, the officer observed the Cadillac fail to come to a full stop at a stop sign. The officer turned on his roof top light and pulled the Cadillac over. When the officer walked over to the Cadillac, the driver said, "I'm sorry, officer. You made me so nervous following us that I did not see the stop sign until I began the turn." The officer ordered the occupants out of the car and searched it. In the back seat of the vehicle, the officer found a back pack that appears to belong to the defendant. In the back pack, the officer found a significant quantity of rock cocaine. Defendant claims that he is not the owner of the back pack. The defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute. Defendant's attorney moved to suppress the evidence. The motion to suppress will be •A. Granted because the officer conducted an illegal search. •B. Granted because the officer while conducting a legal search of the vehicle did not have authority to search a passenger's belongings. •C. Denied because the defendant does not have standing to challenge a search of the vehicle. •D. Denied because the search was lawful incident to a valid stop of the vehicle.

C. Denied because the defendant does not have standing to challenge a search of the vehicle.

Devlin was charged with murder. Several witnesses testified that the crime was committed by a person of Devlin's general description who walked with a severe limp. Devlin in fact walks with a severe limp. He objected to a prosecution request that the court order him to walk across the courtroom in order to display his limp to the jury to assist it in determining whether Devlin was the person that the witness had seen. Devlin's objection will most likely be •A. Sustained, because the order sought by the prosecution would violate Devlin's privilege against self-incrimination. •B. Sustained, because the order sought by the prosecution would constitute illegal search and seizure. •C. Denied, because the order sought by the prosecution is a legitimate part of a proper courtroom identification process. •D. Denied, because a criminal defendant has no legitimate expectation of privacy.

C. Denied, because the order sought by the prosecution is a legitimate part of a proper courtroom identification process.

State X enacted a statute to regulate administratively the conduct of motor vehicle junkyard businesses in order to deter motor vehicle theft and trafficking in stolen motor vehicles or parts thereof. The statute requires a junkyard owner or operator to permit representatives of the Department of Motor Vehicles or of any law enforcement agency upon request during normal business hours to take physical inventory of motor vehicles and parts thereof on the premises. The statute also states that a failure to comply with any of its requirements constitutes a felony. Police Officers assigned to Magnolia City's Automobile Crimes Unit periodically visited all motor vehicle junkyards in town to make the inspections permitted by the statute. Janet owned such a business in Magnolia City. One summer day, the officers asked to inspect the vehicles on her lot. Janet said, "Do I have a choice?" The officers told her she did not. The officers conducted their inspections and discovered three stolen automobiles. Janet is charged with receiving stolen property. Janet moves pretrial to suppress the evidence relating to the three automobiles on the ground that the inspection was unconstitutional. Her motion should be •A. Sustained, because the statute grants unbridled discretion to law enforcement officers to make warrantless searches. •B. Sustained, because the stated regulatory purpose of the statute is a pretext to circumvent the warrant requirement in conducting criminal investigations. •C. Denied, because the statute deals reasonably with a highly regulated industry. •D. Denied, because administrative searches of commercial establishments do not require warrants.

C. Denied, because the statute deals reasonably with a highly regulated industry.

A thief sold some stolen goods to a dealer. Several weeks later, the police raided the dealer's store and arrested the dealer. In this raid, the police seized the goods the thief sold to the dealer and a record book in which the dealer had recorded this transaction. However, at the dealer's subsequent trial for receiving stolen goods, the charges against him were dismissed when the court ruled that the search warrant had been improperly issued. The police were able to trace the stolen goods to the thief because of fingerprint identification and the information contained in the dealer's record book, and thus charged the thief with larceny. Prior to trial, the thief made a motion to suppress the stolen goods and the record book. The judge should: •A. Grant the motion, because the evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree in that the search of the dealer's store was improper. •B. Grant the motion, because the trial court in the dealer's case has already ruled that the evidence was improper. •C. Deny the motion, because the thief has no standing to object to the search. •D. Deny the motion, because the thief's fingerprints on the stolen goods were what led to his identification.

C. Deny the motion, because the thief has no standing to object to the search.

•Old City police officers shot and killed J's friend as he was attempting to escape arrest for armed robbery. J brought suit in federal court against the Old City Police Department seeking only a judgment declaring unconstitutional the state statute under which the police acted. The statute authorized the police to use deadly force when necessary to apprehend a person who has committed a felony. In his suit, J alleged that the police would not have killed his friend if the use of deadly force had not been authorized by the statute. The court should •A. Decide the case on the merits, because it raise a substantial federal question. •B. Dismiss the action, because it involves a nonjusticiable political question. •C. Dismiss the action, because it does not present a case or controversy. •D. Dismiss the action, because the 11th Amendment prohibits federal courts from deciding cases of this type.

C. Dismiss the action, because it does not present a case or controversy.

Deft went to an unofficial happy hour after work. During her 45-minute stay, she had three glasses of wine. On her drive home, a small child darted out into the road in front of Deft's car. She applied her brakes but was unable to stop in time. The child was killed. At the time of her accident, Deft's blood alcohol was .09, slightly above the legal limit (i.e., .08). If she had not been intoxicated, she would have been able to avoid hitting the child. Deft is most likely to be found guilty of •A. Driving Under the Influence and Murder. •B. Driving Under the Influence and Voluntary Manslaughter. •C. Driving Under the Influence and Involuntary Manslaughter. •D. Driving Under the Influence.

C. Driving Under the Influence and Involuntary Manslaughter.

Darnell agrees to sell his car to Jamie. Darnell tells Jamie that his car has only 60,000 miles on it. In fact, Darnell has rolled back the odometer on the car from 140,000 miles. Jamie pays Darnell $12,000 for the car. The car falls apart shortly thereafter. What crime, if any, has Darnell committed? •A. Embezzlement. •B. Larceny by trick. •C. False pretenses. •D. Highway robbery.

C. False pretenses

Two partners who operated an electronics retail store hired a gangster to intimidate the owner of a discount electronics store that was undercutting their prices and drawing customers away. They told the gangster to rob the store owner but not to harm him; they only wanted to scare him out of town. The gangster loitered near the discount store, waiting for it to close. When the lights in the store went out, an employee left by the back exit. The gangster thought he was the owner and drew his gun, demanding money. The employee resisted, and in the ensuing struggle was fatally shot. The gangster ran off before he could get at the employee's money, but both he and the partners were eventually arrested. In addition to conspiracy to commit robbery, the partners are guilty of: •A. No other crime. •B. Robbery. •C. Felony murder. D.Robbery and felony murder.

C. Felony murder.

A police officer patrolling a public park stopped a group of three young men, frisked them, and found a weapon on one of the suspects. The officer arrested the person carrying the weapon. The defense moved to suppress the weapon. The officer testified at the suppression hearing that he believed it was lawful to search all persons on public recreation grounds without a warrant. The motion should be •A. Denied if the trial court finds that the officer acted in good faith reliance on his mistaken belief about the law. •B. Denied because persons in a public park have no reasonable expectation of privacy. •C. Granted because the officer stopped and frisked without reasonable suspicion. •D. Granted because the officer's belief as to the law was unreasonable and would not support an objective reasonable reliance.

C. Granted because the officer stopped and frisked without reasonable suspicion.

Plagued by neighborhood youths who had been stealing lawn furniture from his back yard, Armando remained awake nightly watching for them. One evening Armando heard noises in his backyard. He yelled out, warning intruders to leave. Receiving no answer, he fired a shotgun filled with nonlethal buckshot into bushes along his back fence where he believed the intruders might be hiding. A six-year-old child was hiding in the bushes and was struck in the eye by some of the pellets, causing loss of sight. If Armando is charged with second-degree assault, which is defined in the jurisdiction as "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another," he is •A. Not guilty, because the child was trespassing and he was using what he believed was nondeadly force. •B. Not guilty, because he did not intend to kill or to cause serious physical injury. •C. Guilty, because he recklessly caused serious physical injury. •D. Guilty, because there is no privilege to use force against a person who is too young to be criminally responsible.

C. Guilty, because he recklessly caused serious physical injury.

A 15-year-old sophomore high school student became pregnant, and the school board required her to attend a special program for pregnant students instead of her regular classes. The girl did not want to attend the special program; rather, she wanted to attend her regular classes. She sued the school district in federal district court, demanding that she be allowed to attend her regular classes. Before her case came to trial, the girl gave birth to the child. Subsequently, the district reinstated her in her regular classes. When her suit comes before the federal district court, the could should: •A. Dismiss the case, because she is no longer pregnant. •B. Dismiss the case, because she is no longer required to attend the special program. •C. Hear the case on the merits, because she may get pregnant again before she graduates from high school. •D. Hear the case on the merits, because it impacts the right of privacy, which is an important federal issue.

C. Hear the case on the merits, because she may get pregnant again before she graduates from high school.

Patrick started taking a new medication on Friday. His doctor and pharmacist warned him not to drive while taking the medication. The medicine bottle had a prominent label warning against operating machinery, including motor vehicles. Patrick noticed that he had been dropping off to sleep all weekend. Nonetheless, he decided to drive to work on Monday morning. On the way to work, Patrick fell asleep and veered into a car in the next lane. That car swerved into a concrete construction barricade. Despite the slow speeds of both vehicles, the driver of the other car was killed. Of what crime is Patrick guilty? •A. First degree murder, because the other driver's death was foreseeable. •B. Murder, because driving in that condition was grossly negligent. •C. Involuntary manslaughter, because driving in that condition was reckless. •D. No crime, because the death was caused while Patrick was asleep.

C. Involuntary manslaughter, because driving in that condition was reckless.

In a crowded football stadium, a man saw a wallet fall out of a spectator's purse. The man picked up the wallet and found that it contained $100 in cash. Thinking that he could use the money and seeing no one watching, the man put the wallet in the pocket of his coat. Just then, the spectator approached the man and asked if he had seen a missing wallet. The man said no and went home with the wallet. Of what crime, if any, is the man guilty? •A. Embezzlement. •B. False pretenses. •C. Larceny. •D. No crime.

C. Larceny.

Congress enacted a statute imposing a 2% national retail sales tax on all goods sold in the U.S. The purpose of the tax is to fund unemployment payments during the recession. An association of newspaper and book publishers sued to remove the tax from the sale of newspaper and book publications, claiming that the tax placed an unconstitutional burden on the freedom of speech and press. Assuming that the association has standing, it will: A. Win the lawsuit, because only states have taxing authority over retail sales. B. Win the lawsuit, because Congress may not impose taxes that chill the freedom of expression. C. Lose the lawsuit, because Congress has plenary power to tax. D. Lose the lawsuit, because a tax imposed to fund unemployment payments during a recession serves a compelling interest of the federal government.

C. Lose the lawsuit, because Congress has plenary power to tax.

In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be guilty of larceny? •A. Defendant took Sue's television set, with the intention of returning it the next day. However, he dropped it and damaged it beyond repair. •B. Defendant went into Tom's house and took $100 on the belief that Tom had damaged Defendant's car to that amount. •C. Mistakenly believing that larceny does not include the taking of a dog, Defendant took his neighbor's dog and sold it. •D. Unreasonably mistaking George's car for his own, Defendant got into George's car in a parking lot and drove it home.

C. Mistakenly believing that larceny does not include the taking of a dog, Defendant took his neighbor's dog and sold it.

Nelson and Bart are arrested for kicking an infant to death. Nelson is eight years old; Bart is six years old. Both boys were previously arrested for assault and shoplifting, but they were released to the supervision of their parents. The prosecution wants to charge both boys with murder. Under the common law approach, the prosecution will be •A. Successful in pursuing charges against both boys. •B. Unsuccessful in pursuing charges against both boys. •C. More likely successful in pursuing charges against Nelson than against Bart. •D. More likely successful in pursuing charges against Bart than against Nelson.

C. More likely successful in pursuing charges against Nelson than against Bart.

Bill was arrested for soliciting a prostitute. After receiving his Miranda rights, Bill signed a waiver card. Detective Mary told him she would be willing to recommend probation if Bill admitted his guilt. Bill then asked to speak to his fiancée, Marita, commenting that he did not want to admit to anything without first talking to "the woman to whom I gave my heart but have tragically wronged today." Mary suspended the interrogation while Bill telephoned Marita. After he hung up, Bill turned to Mary and stated somewhat sadly that he had cleared his conscience and felt much better now. "I was lucky to get in touch with her," Bill continued. "She had just gotten back from lunch with her fellow lawyers at the firm." "So," Mary replied, "do you want to get back to it, then?" Bill then agreed to resume the interrogation, during which he confessed, in response to a question from Mary, to soliciting the prostitute. Did Mary violate Bill's rights at any time during the interrogation? •A. Yes, because Mary failed to obtain a Miranda waiver before resuming the questioning. •B. Yes, because Mary asked Bill to resume the interrogation, knowing Marita was a lawyer. •C. No, because Bill was asking to speak to a loved one, not to a lawyer. •D. No, because Bill initiated the conversation with Mary after he spoke to Marita.

C. No, because Bill was asking to speak to a loved one, not to a lawyer.

A suspect was arrested for burglarizing an apartment. He was duly given Miranda warnings, and invoked his right to remain silent. When the suspect was put into the lockup, the police took from him his wallet, watch, and other personal possessions. Following standard procedure, a police officer immediately began to make an inventory of the suspect's personal effects. In the course of the inventory, the officer noticed that the suspect's watch bore an inscription with the name of a person whose apartment had been burglarized two days earlier. The officer concluded that the suspect had probably burglarized that apartment as well as the one for which he was arrested. She reported the inscription on the watch to the detective who had arrested the suspect, and the suspect was subsequently charged with the earlier burglary as well. Did the officer violate the suspect's constitutional rights by reading the inscription? •A. Yes, because items to be inventoried may be listed, but they may not be closely examined. •B. Yes, because no search warrant was obtained. •C. No, because the inventory was a routine procedure of the kind the police normally conduct when an incarceration takes place. •D. No, because it gave her probable cause to believe the suspect had committed the earlier burglary.

C. No, because the inventory was a routine procedure of the kind the police normally conduct when an incarceration takes place.

Dumont, a real estate developer, was trying to purchase land on which he intended to build a large commercial development. Perkins, an elderly widow, had rejected all of Dumont's offers to buy her ancestral home, where she had lived all her life and which was located in the middle of Dumont's planned development. Finally, Dumont offered her $250,000. He told her that it was his last offer and that if she rejected it, state law authorized him to have her property condemned. Perkins then consulted her nephew, a lawyer, who researched the question and advised her that Dumont had no power of condemnation under state law. Perkins had been badly frightened by Dumont's threat, and was outraged when she learned that Dumont had lied to her. If Perkins sues Dumont for damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, will she prevail? A. Yes, if Dumont's action was extreme and outrageous. B. Yes, because Perkins was frightened and outraged. C. No, if Perkins did not suffer emotional distress that was severe. D. No, if it was not Dumont's purpose to cause emotional distress. IIED does not require intentional actions; recklessness is sufficient.

C. No, if Perkins did not suffer emotional distress that was severe.

The laws of the state provided that "any person who engages in sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 shall have committed the crime of statutory rape." A waitress propositioned the defendant to have a sexual encounter at a nearby hotel. When they got up to the room, she told the defendant that she would be 16 the next week. In fact, the waitress, who had been adopted, was mistaken about her actual birth date; she had actually turned 16 the week before. The waitress and the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse, and the defendant is subsequently charged with statutory rape. The defendant should be found: •A. Guilty, because he intended to engage in sexual intercourse with a minor. •B. Guilty, because a mistake of fact is not a defense to a strict liability crime. •C. Not guilty, because the waitress was older than 16. D. Not guilty, because the waitress initiated the sexual encounter.

C. Not guilty, because the waitress was older than 16.

Assume the same facts as the prior slide. The prosecution's best argument to sustain the validity of the search of Jack's car would be that •A. the search was reasonable under the circumstances, including Paul's nervous condition. •B. the search was incident to a valid arrest. •C. Paul had, under the circumstances, sufficient standing and authority to consent to the search. •D. exigent circumstances, including the inherent mobility of a car, justified the search.

C. Paul had, under the circumstances, sufficient standing and authority to consent to the search.

In an effort to impose national speed limits, Congress recently passed the following act: "Any state that does not enact legislation creating a maximum speed limit of 55 MPH before January 1, 2019, will forfeit 10% of the federal funds it receives from the U.S. Department of Transportation." After this legislation is signed into law, the State of Tennessee challenges the constitutionality of the act. What is the most likely outcome of such challenge? A. The Act is constitutional under the Commerce Clause. B. The Act is constitutional under the Taxing Clause. C. The Act is constitutional under the Spending Clause. D. The Act violates the principles of federalism.

C. The Act is constitutional under the Spending Clause.

Which of the following acts by the United States Senate would be constitutionally IMPROPER? •A. The Senate decides, with the House of Representatives, that a disputed state ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment is valid. •B. The Senate determines the eligibility of a person to serve as a senator. •C. The Senate appoints a commission to adjudicate finally a boundary dispute between two states. •D. The Senate passes a resolution calling on the President to pursue a certain foreign policy.

C. The Senate appoints a commission to adjudicate finally a boundary dispute between two states.

In an effort to relieve serious and persistent unemployment in the industrialized state of X, its legislature enacted a statute requiring every business with annual sales in X of over one million dollars to purchase goods and/or services in X equal in value to at least half of the annual sales in X of the business. Which of the following constitutional provisions is the strongest basis on which to attack this statute? •A. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. •B. The equal protection clause. •C. The commerce clause. •D. The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

C. The commerce clause.

Assume the same facts as the prior slide. Which of the following is the strongest ground on which to challenge the requirement that candidates for barber licenses must have been residents of the state for at least two years? •A. The privileges and immunities clause of Article 4. •B. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. •C. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. D.The obligation of contracts clause.

C. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Terrorists in the foreign country of Ruritania kidnapped the United States ambassador to that country. They threatened to kill her unless the President of the United States secured the release of an identified person who was a citizen of Ruritania and was held in a prison of the state of Aurora in the United States pursuant to a valid conviction by that state. The President responded by entering into an agreement with Ruritania which provided that Ruritania would secure the release of the United States ambassador on a specified date in return for action by the President that would secure the release of the identified person held in the Aurora prison. The President then ordered the governor of Aurora to release the prisoner in question. The governor refused. No federal statutes are applicable. Which of the following is the strongest constitutional argument for the authority of the President to take action in these circumstances requiring the governor of Aurora to release the Aurora prisoner? •A. The power of the President to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States includes a plenary authority to take whatever action the President deems wise to protect the safety of our diplomatic agents. •B. The power of the President to appoint ambassadors authorizes him to take any action that he may think desirable to protect them from injury because, upon appointment, those officials become agents of the President. •C. The power of the President to negotiate with foreign nations impliedly authorizes the President to make executive agreements with them which prevail over state law. •D. The duty of the President to execute faithfully the laws authorizes him to resolve finally any conflicts between state and federal interests, making the determination of such matters wholly nonjusticiable.

C. The power of the President to negotiate with foreign nations impliedly authorizes the President to make executive agreements with them which prevail over state law.

A state law requires any lawn mower sold in the state to meet a specified minimum level of fuel efficiency. A new federal statute requires all power equipment including lawn mowers, to be labeled with energy efficiency stickers to permit purchasers to make informed choices when buying such equipment. The statute does not expressly preempt state law. Assume that no other federal statute or administrative regulation addresses the energy efficiency of power equipment. Which of the following is the best argument the state can make for the continued validity of its law? •A. Congress cannot preempt state laws requiring a specified minimum level of fuel efficiency for lawn mowers, because the use of such equipment is a wholly local event and, therefore, is beyond the regulatory authority vested in Congress by the commerce clause. •B. The law is unaffected by the federal statute, because Congress did not expressly prohibit state laws requiring power equipment to meet specified levels of fuel efficiency. •C. The purpose of the law is consistent with the purpose of the federal statute, enforcement of the law would not interfere with the full execution of the statute, and there is no evidence that Congress intended to preclude the states from enacting supplemental laws on this subject. •D. There is a very strong presumption that a specific state law on a subject normally within the state's police power prevails over a more general federal statute, because the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states primary authority over matters affecting public health, welfare, and safety.

C. The purpose of the law is consistent with the purpose of the federal statute, enforcement of the law would not interfere with the full execution of the statute, and there is no evidence that Congress intended to preclude the states from enacting supplemental laws on this subject.

Due to budgetary constraints, State X passes a law requiring individuals to reside in the state for at least one year to be eligible for welfare benefits. If a plaintiff with standing brings a constitutional challenge against the new law, the court is most likely to find: •A. The restriction does not have a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest as required by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. •B. The restriction improperly burdens the fundamental right of interstate travel in violation of the equal protection clause of the 5th Amendment. •C. The restriction improperly burdens the fundamental right of interstate travel in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. •D. The restriction deprives the plaintiff of a property interest without due process of law in violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

C. The restriction improperly burdens the fundamental right of interstate travel in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

A state owned and operated an electric power system, which included a nuclear power plant. In order to ensure the availability of sites for the disposal of spent fuel from the nuclear power plant, the state refused to supply electric power to out-of-state purchasers residing in states that would not accept spent fuel from the plant for storage or disposal. Assume that no federal statute applies. Which of the following is the strongest argument that the state's action is constitutional? •A. A state may condition the sale to out-of-state purchasers of any products produced in that state on the willingness of those purchasers to bear the fair share of the environmental costs of producing those products. •B. The generation of electricity is intrastate in nature and therefore subject to plenary state control. •C. The state itself owns and operates the power system, and therefore its refusal to supply power to out-of-state purchasers is not subject to the negative implications of the commerce clause. •D. The state's action is rationally related to the health, safety, and welfare of state citizens.

C. The state itself owns and operates the power system, and therefore its refusal to supply power to out-of-state purchasers is not subject to the negative implications of the commerce clause.

The state has a statute providing that an unsuccessful candidate in a primary election for a party's nomination for elected public office may not become a candidate for the same office at the following general election by nominating petition or by write-in votes. Sabel sought her party's nomination for governor in the May primary election. After losing in the primary, Sabel filed nominating petitions containing the requisite number of signatures to become a candidate for the office of governor in the following general election. The chief elections officer of the state refused to certify Sabel's petition solely because of the above statute. Sabel then filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the statute. As a matter of constitutional law, which of the following is the proper burden of persuasion in this suit? •A. Sabel must demonstrate that the statute is not necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. •B. Sabel must demonstrate that the statute is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. •C. The state must demonstrate that the statute is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest. •D. The state must demonstrate that the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

C. The state must demonstrate that the statute is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest.

A newly enacted federal statute appropriates $100 million in federal funds to support basic research by universities located in the United States. The statute provides that "the ten best universities in the United States" will each receive $10 million. It also provides that "the ten best universities" shall be "determined by a poll of the presidents of all the universities in the nation, to be conducted by the United States Department of Education." In responding to that poll, each university president is required to apply the well-recognized and generally accepted standards of academic quality that are specified in the statute and are inseverable. Which of the following statements about this statute is correct? •A. The statute is unconstitutional, because the reliance by Congress on a poll of individuals who are not federal officials to determine the recipients of its appropriated funds is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. •B. The statute is unconstitutional, because the limitation on recipients to the ten best universities is arbitrary and capricious and denies other high quality universities the equal protection of the laws. •C. The statute is constitutional, because Congress has plenary authority to determine the objects of its spending and the methods used to achieve them, so long as they may reasonably be deemed to serve the general welfare and do not violate any prohibitory language in the Constitution. •D. The validity of the statute is nonjusticiable, because the use by Congress of its spending power necessarily involves political considerations that must be resolved finally by those branches of the government that are closest to the political process.

C. The statute is constitutional, because Congress has plenary authority to determine the objects of its spending and the methods used to achieve them, so long as they may reasonably be deemed to serve the general welfare and do not violate any prohibitory language in the Constitution.

A state initiated a criminal prosecution against the owner of a video store for selling a video that consisted entirely of pictures of nude sunbathers on a beach in a foreign country where nude public sunbathing is common. The state charged that selling the video violated its anti-obscenity law. The store owner defended on the ground that the prosecution violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech. Should the store owner prevail in this defense? •A. No, because the store owner is engaged in the commercial sale of the video, which is not protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. •B. No, because the video consists entirely of portrayals of nudity, appeals to the prurient interest of viewers, and lacks serious social value as a whole. •C. Yes, because mere portrayals of nudity are insufficient to justify a finding that the video is obscene as a matter of constitutional law. •D. Yes, because the portrayals of nudity occurred outside the United States, and therefore the state lacks a compelling interest in applying its anti-obscenity law to the sale of the video.

C. Yes, because mere portrayals of nudity are insufficient to justify a finding that the video is obscene as a matter of constitutional law.

A plaintiff has sued a defendant in a court of the state in which both parties reside. The plaintiff alleges only a cause of action arising under a federal statute, although state law provides a similar cause of action. The federal statute provides that claims under the statute can be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction. The statute has not yet been interpreted by any federal court. Should the state court hear the case? •A. No, because cases arising under federal law must be decided in federal court. •B. No, because state courts must abstain in cases arising under federal law until a federal court has decided the federal issue. •C. Yes, because state courts may not discriminate against cases arising under federal law. •D. Yes, because the parties cannot proceed in federal court since there is no diversity of citizenship.

C. Yes, because state courts may not discriminate against cases arising under federal law.

The United States Department of Energy regularly transports nuclear materials through Centerville on the way to a nuclear weapons processing plant it operates in a nearby state. The city of Centerville recently adopted an ordinance prohibiting the transportation of any nuclear materials in or through the city. The ordinance declares that its purpose is to protect the health and safety of the residents of that city. May the Department of Energy continue to transport these nuclear materials through the city of Centerville? •A. No, because the ordinance is rationally related to the public health and safety of Centerville residents. •B. No, because the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states certain unenumerated sovereign powers. •C. Yes, because the Department of Energy is a federal agency engaged in a lawful federal function and, therefore, its activities may not be regulated by a local government without the consent of Congress. •D. Yes, because the ordinance enacted by Centerville is invalid because it denies persons transporting such materials the equal protection of the laws.

C. Yes, because the Department of Energy is a federal agency engaged in a lawful federal function and, therefore, its activities may not be regulated by a local government without the consent of Congress.

Gerald was camping in the mountains when a bad storm suddenly hit. Although it was extremely early in the year for a winter storm, several feet of snow accumulated. Gerald had no equipment, clothing or provisions to survive in such severe weather. Slowly clambering through the rocky forest, Gerald came upon a cabin. He broke in and for five days he used food and clothing he found in the cabin, until the snow had melted enough for him to hike back to town. May Gerald be excused from the crimes he committed by using the defense of necessity? •A. No, because Gerald's lack of preparation caused his predicament. •B. No, because necessity is only available in life and death situations, and Gerald probably would have survived without committing any crimes. •C. Yes, because the harm Gerald avoided (serious injury) was a lesser evil than the harm he created (trespass and theft). •D. Yes, because one may always do whatever is necessary to save one's own life.

C. Yes, because the harm Gerald avoided (serious injury) was a lesser evil than the harm he created (trespass and theft).

The state of Green imposes a tax on the "income" of each of its residents. As defined in the taxing statute, "income" includes the fair rental value of the use of any automobile provided by the taxpayer's employer for the taxpayer's personal use. The federal government supplies automobiles to some of its employees who are resident in Green so that they may perform their jobs properly. A federal government employee supplied with an automobile for this purpose may also use it for the employee's own personal business. Assume there is no federal legislation on this subject. May the state of Green collect this tax on the fair rental value of the personal use of the automobiles furnished by the federal government to these employees? •A. No, because such a tax would be a tax on the United States. •B. No, because such a tax would be a tax upon activities performed on behalf of the United States, since the automobiles are primarily used by these federal employees in the discharge of their official duties. •C. Yes, because the tax is imposed on the employees rather than on the United States, and the tax does not discriminate against persons who are employed by the United States. •D. Yes, because an exemption from such state taxes for federal employees would be a denial to others of the equal protection of the laws.

C. Yes, because the tax is imposed on the employees rather than on the United States, and the tax does not discriminate against persons who are employed by the United States.

Smart approached Johnson and inquired about hiring someone to kill his girlfriend's parents. Unknown to Smart, Johnson was an undercover police officer who pretended to agree to handle the job and secretly taped subsequent conversations with Smart concerning plans and payment. A few days before the payment was due, Smart changed his mind and called the plan off. Nevertheless, Smart was charged with solicitation to commit murder. Smart should be •A. acquitted, because he withdrew before payment and commission of the act. •B. acquitted, because no substantial acts were performed. •C. convicted, because the offense was completed before his attempt to withdraw. •D. convicted, because Johnson agreed to commit the offense.

C. convicted, because the offense was completed before his attempt to withdraw

Jones, a marijuana farmer, had been missing for several months. The sheriff's department received an anonymous tip that Miller, a rival marijuana farmer, had buried Jones in a hillside about 200 yards from Miller's farmhouse. Sheriff's deputies went to Miller's farm. They cut the barbed wire that surrounded the hillside and entered, looking for the grave. They also searched the adjacent fields on Miller's farm that were within the area enclosed by the barbed wire and discovered clothing that belonged to Jones hanging on a scarecrow. Miller observed their discovery and began shooting. The deputies returned the fire. Miller dashed to his pickup to escape. Unable to start the truck, he fled across a field toward the barn. A deputy tackled him just as he entered the barn. As Miller attempted to get up, the deputy pinned his arms behind his back. Another deputy threatened, "Tell us what you did with Jones or we will shut you down and see your family on relief." Miller responded that he had killed Jones in a fight but did not report the incident because he did not want authorities to enter his land and discover his marijuana crop. Instead, he buried him behind the barn. Miller was thereafter charged with murder. If Miller moves to exclude the introduction of Jones's clothing into evidence, the court should •A. grant the motion, because the deputies had not obtained a warrant. •B. grant the motion, because the deputies' conduct in its entirety violated Miller's right to due process of law. •C. deny the motion, because Miller had no expectation of privacy in the fields around the farmhouse. •D. deny the motion, because the clothing was not Miller's property.

C. deny the motion, because Miller had no expectation of privacy in the fields around the farmhouse.

The Missoula election code provides that in a special-purpose election for directors of a state watershed improvement district, the franchise is limited to landowners within the district, because they are the only ones directly affected by the outcome. Each vote is weighted according to the proportion of the holding of that individual in relation to the total affected property. The best argument in support of the statute and against the application of the "one person, one vote" principle in this situation is that the principle •A. applies only to elections of individuals to statewide public office. •B. does not apply where property rights are involved. •C. does not apply, because the actions of such a district principally affect landowners. •D. does not apply, because of rights reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

C. does not apply, because the actions of such a district principally affect landowners.

Alex contracted for expensive cable television service for a period of six months solely to view the televised trial of Clark, who was on trial for murder in a court of the state of Green. In the midst of the trial, the judge prohibited any further televising of Clark's trial because he concluded that the presence of television cameras was disruptive. Alex brought an action in a federal district court against the judge in Clark's case asking only for an injunction that would require the judge to resume the televising of Clark's trial. Alex alleged that the judge's order to stop the televising of Clark's trial deprived him of property - his investment in cable television service - without due process of law. Before Alex's case came to trial, Clark's criminal trial concluded in a conviction and sentencing. There do not appear to be any obvious errors in the proceeding that led to the result in Clark's case. After Clark's conviction and sentencing, the defendant in Alex's case moved to dismiss that suit. The most proper disposition of this motion by the federal court would be to A. defer action on the motion until after any appellate proceedings in Clark's case have concluded, because Clark might appeal, his conviction might be set aside, he might be tried again, and television cameras might be barred from the new trial. B. defer action on the motion until after the Green Supreme Court expresses a view on its proper disposition, because the state law of mootness governs suits in federal court when the federal case is inexorably intertwined with a state proceeding. C. grant the motion, because the subject matter of the controversy between Alex and the defendant has ceased to exist and there is no strong likelihood that it will be revived. D. deny the motion, because Alex has raised an important constitutional question—whether his investment in cable service solely to view Clark's trial is property protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

C. grant the motion, because the subject matter of the controversy between Alex and the defendant has ceased to exist and there is no strong likelihood that it will be revived.

Vance had cheated Dodd in a card game. Angered, Dodd set out for Vance's house with the intention of shooting him. Just as he was about to set foot on Vance's property, Dodd was arrested by a police officer who noticed that Dodd was carrying a revolver. A statute in the jurisdiction makes it a crime to "enter the property of another with the intent to commit any crime of violence thereon." If charged with attempting to violate the statute, Dodd should be found •A. not guilty, because the statute defines an attempted crime and there cannot be an attempt to attempt. •B. not guilty, because to convict him would be to punish him simply for having a guilty mind. •C. guilty, because he was close enough to entering the property and he had the necessary state of mind. •D. guilty, because this is a statute designed to protect the public from violence and Dodd was dangerous.

C. guilty, because he was close enough to entering the property and he had the necessary state of mind.

Bill and Chuck hated Vic and agreed to start a fight with Vic and, if the opportunity arose, to kill him. Bill and Chuck met Vic in the street outside a bar and began to push him around. Ray, Sam, and Tom, who also hated Vic, stopped to watch. Ray threw Bill a knife. Sam told Bill, "Kill him." Tom, who made no move and said nothing, hoped that Bill would kill Vic with the knife. Chuck held Vic while Bill stabbed and killed him. On a charge of murdering Vic, Sam is •A. not guilty, because his words did not create a "clear and present danger" not already existing. •B. not guilty, because mere presence and oral encouragement, whether or not he had the requisite intent, do not make him guilty as an accomplice. •C. guilty, because, with the intent to have Bill kill Vic, he shouted encouragement to Bill. •D. guilty, because he aided and abetted the murder through his mere presence plus his intent to see Vic killed.

C. guilty, because, with the intent to have Bill kill Vic, he shouted encouragement to Bill.

A statute in the state of East Dakota requires each insurance company that offers burglary insurance policies in the state to charge a uniform rate for such insurance to all of its customers residing within the same county in that state. So long as it complies with this requirement, a company is free to charge whatever rate the market will bear for its burglary insurance policies. An insurance company located in East Dakota files suit in federal district court against appropriate East Dakota officials to challenge this statute on constitutional grounds. The insurance company wishes to charge customers residing in the same county rates for burglary insurance policies that will vary because they would be based on the specific nature of the customer's business, on its precise location, and on its past claims record. In this suit, the court should: •A. hold the statute unconstitutional, because it deprives the insurance company of its liberty or property without due process of law •B. hold the statute unconstitutional, because it imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce •C. hold the statute constitutional, because it is a reasonable exercise of the state's police power •D. abstain from ruling on the merits until the state courts have had an opportunity to pass on the constitutionality of the statute

C. hold the statute constitutional, because it is a reasonable exercise of the state's police power

Rachel, an antique dealer and a skilled calligrapher, crafted a letter on very old paper. She included details that would lead knowledgeable readers to believe the letter had been written by Thomas Jefferson to a friend. Rachel, who had a facsimile of Jefferson's autograph, made the signature and other writing on the letter resemble Jefferson's. She knew that the letter would attract the attention of local collectors. When it did and she was contacted about selling it, she said that it had come into her hands from a foreign collector who wished anonymity, and that she could make no promises about its authenticity. As she had hoped, a collector paid her $5,000 for the letter. Later the collector discovered the letter was not authentic, and handwriting analysis established that Rachel had written the letter. In a jurisdiction that follows the common-law definition of forgery, Rachel has •A. committed both forgery and false pretenses. •B. committed forgery, because she created a false document with the intent to defraud, but has not committed false pretenses, since she made no representation as to the authenticity of the document. •C. not committed forgery, because the document had no apparent legal significance, but has committed false pretenses, since she misrepresented the source of the document. •D. not committed forgery, because the document had no apparent legal significance, and has not committed false pretenses, since she made no representation as to authenticity of the document.

C. not committed forgery, because the document had no apparent legal significance, but has committed false pretenses, since she misrepresented the source of the document.

The strongest constitutional basis for the enactment of a federal statute requiring colleges and universities receiving federal funds to offer student aid solely on the basis of need is the •A. police power. •B. war and defense power. •C. power to tax and spend for the general welfare. •D. power to enforce the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

C. power to tax and spend for the general welfare.

Nora, executive director of an equal housing opportunity organization, was the leader of a sit-in at the offices of a real estate management company. The protest was designed to call attention to the company's racially discriminatory rental practices. When police demanded that Nora desist from trespassing on the company's property, she refused and was arrested. In Nora's trial for trespass, the prosecution peremptorily excused all nonwhites from the jury, arguing to the court that even though Nora was white, minority groups would automatically support Nora because of her fight against racism in housing accommodations. If Nora is convicted of trespass by an all-white jury and appeals, claiming a violation of her constitutional rights, the court should •A. affirm the conviction, because Nora was not a member of the class discriminated against. •B. affirm the conviction, because peremptory challenge of the nonwhites did not deny Nora the right to an impartial jury. •C. reverse the conviction, because racially based peremptory challenges violate equal protection of the law. •D. reverse the conviction, because Nora was denied the right to have her case heard by a fair cross section of the community.

C. reverse the conviction, because racially based peremptory challenges violate equal protection of the law.

The legislature of State X enacts a statute that it believes reconciles the state's interest in the preservation of human life with a woman's right to reproductive choice. That statute permits a woman to have an abortion on demand during the first trimester of pregnancy but prohibits a woman from having an abortion after that time unless her physician determines that the abortion is necessary to protect the woman's life or health. If challenged on constitutional grounds in an appropriate court, this statute will probably be held •A. constitutional, because the state has made a rational policy choice that creates an equitable balance between the compelling state interest in protecting fetal life and the fundamental right of a woman to reproductive choice. •B. constitutional, because recent rulings by the United States Supreme Court indicate that after the first trimester a fetus may be characterized as a person whose right to life is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. •C. unconstitutional, because the state has, without adequate justification, placed an undue burden on the fundamental right of a woman to reproductive choice prior to fetal viability. •D. unconstitutional, because a statute unqualifiedly permitting abortion at one stage of pregnancy, and denying it at another with only minor exceptions, establishes an arbitrary classification in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

C. unconstitutional, because the state has, without adequate justification, placed an undue burden on the fundamental right of a woman to reproductive choice prior to fetal viability.

In an effort to impose national speed limits, Congress recently passed the following act: "Any state that does not enact legislation creating a maximum speed limit of 55 MPH before January 1, 2019, will forfeit 10% of the federal funds it receives from the U.S. Department of Transportation." After this legislation is signed into law, the State of Tennessee challenges the constitutionality of the act. •Could Congress order state legislatures to pass such laws? •Could Congress simply pass such a law itself?

Could Congress order state legislatures to pass such laws? No. Congress may not "commandeer" state legislatures. Could Congress simply pass such a law itself? Probably, because vehicular traffic is an economic activity that has a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce.

Jerome falls in love with his first cousin, Cindy. Before marrying Cindy, Jerome asked his family whether it is appropriate for him to marry a first cousin. Jerome's uncle Harry, a domestic relations lawyer, tells Jerome that the marriage is permitted. As it turns out, Harry is wrong. In fact, not only is it illegal for Jerome to marry Cindy, but such a marriage is also considered a strict liability offense, as set forth in the state's official statutory reporters. Which, if any, of the following defenses are available for Jerome? •A. Jerome reasonably relied upon the advice of counsel. •B. Jerome had an honest and reasonable mistake of law. •C. Jerome did not receive sufficient notice that marrying Cindy was illegal. •D. None of the above.

D

Congress passed a statute that established a five-member commission to investigate issues relating to gun control and to make recommendations to Congress for new gun control laws. All five members of the commission were appointed by Congress. An entity that has organizational standing brings a suit to enjoin the commission from investigating and recommending new gun control laws to Congress. The appropriate decision for the court is to: A) Forbid the commission to take any action. B) Order that all members of the commission be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. C) Allow the commission to investigate but not make recommendations regarding gun control. D) Allow the commission to continue investigating and making recommendations to Congress regarding gun control.

D) Allow the commission to continue investigating and making recommendations to Congress regarding gun control.

Road Lines is an interstate bus company operating in a five-state area. A federal statute authorizes the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to permit interstate carriers to discontinue entirely any unprofitable route. Road Lines applied to the ICC for permission to drop a very unprofitable route through the sparsely populated Shaley Mountains. The ICC granted that permission even though Road Lines provided the only public transportation into the region. Foley is the owner of a mountain resort in the Shaley Mountains, whose customers usually arrived on vehicles operated by Road Lines. After exhausting all available federal administrative remedies, Foley filed suit against Road Lines in the trial court of the state in which the Shaley Mountains are located to enjoin the discontinuance by Road Lines of its service to that area. Foley alleged that the discontinuance of service by Road Lines would violate a statute of that state prohibiting common carriers of persons from abandoning service to communities having no alternate form of transportation. The state court should •A) dismiss the action, because Foley lacks standing to sue. •B) direct the removal of the case to federal court, because this suit involves a substantial federal question. •C) hear the case on its merits and decide for Foley because, on these facts, a federal agency is interfering with essential state functions. •D) hear the case on its merits and decide for Road Lines, because a valid federal law preempts the state statute on which Foley relies.

D) hear the case on its merits and decide for Road Lines, because a valid federal law preempts the state statute on which Foley relies.

A state statute provides that the crime of assault is generally punishable by a maximum of five years in prison. It further provides that the maximum punishment increases to 10 years in prison if the defendant possessed a deadly weapon during the assault. The statute designates the deadly weapon element as a sentencing factor. A defendant charged with assault has pleaded not guilty and has requested a jury trial. The prosecutor has announced that she will be seeking a 10-year sentence based on the defendant's alleged possession of a deadly weapon. What finding regarding the defendant's possession of a deadly weapon is necessary for the court to impose a 10-year sentence? •A. A judicial finding by a preponderance of the evidence. •B. A jury finding by a preponderance of the evidence. •C. A judicial finding beyond a reasonable doubt. •D. A jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt.

D. A jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt.

K was prosecuted for selling cocaine to an undercover police agent. At his trial, he testified that he only sold the drugs to the agent, whom K knew as "Speedy," because Speedy had told him that he (Speedy) would be killed by fellow gang members unless he supplied them with cocaine. The prosecution did not cross-examine K. As rebuttal evidence, however, the prosecutor introduced records, over K's objection, showing that K had two prior convictions for narcotics-related offenses. The court instructed the jury concerning the defense of entrapment and added, also over K's objection but in accord with state law, that it should acquit on the ground of entrapment only if it found that the defendant had established the elements of the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. K was convicted. On appeal, K's conviction should be •A. Reversed, because it was an error for the court to admit the evidence of his prior convictions as substantive evidence. •B. Reversed, because it was a violation of due process to impose on the defense a burden of persuasion concerning entrapment. •C. Reversed, for both of the above reasons. •D. Affirmed, because neither of the above reasons constitutes a ground for reversal.

D. Affirmed, because neither of the above reasons constitutes a ground for reversal.

Beth wanted to make some money, so she decided to sell cocaine. She asked Albert, who was reputed to have access to illegal drugs, to supply her with cocaine so she could resell it. Albert agreed and sold Beth a bag of white powder. Beth then repackaged the white powder into smaller containers and sold one to Carol, an undercover police officer, who promptly arrested Beth. Beth immediately confessed and said that Albert was her supplier. Upon examination, the white powder was found not to be cocaine or any type of illegal substance. If Albert knew the white powder was not cocaine but Beth believed it was, which of the following is correct? •A. Both Albert and Beth are guilty of attempting to sell cocaine. •B. Neither Albert nor Beth is guilty of attempting to sell cocaine. •C. Albert is guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but Beth is not. •D. Albert is not guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but Beth is.

D. Albert is not guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but Beth is.

A city zoning ordinance requires that anyone who proposes to operate a group home obtain a special use permit from the city zoning board. The zoning ordinance defines a group home as a residence in which four or more unrelated adults reside. An individual applied for a special use permit to operate a group home for convicts during their transition from serving prison sentences to their release on parole. Although the proposed group home met all of the requirements for the special use permit, the zoning board denied the individual's application because of the nature of the proposed use. The individual sued the zoning board seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on constitutional grounds. Which of the following best states the appropriate burden of persuasion in this action? A. Because housing is a fundamental right, the zoning board must demonstrate that denial of the permit is necessary to serve a compelling state interest. B. Because the zoning board's action has the effect of discriminating against a quasi-suspect class in regard to a basic subsistence right, the zoning board must demonstrate that the denial of the permit is substantially related to an important state interest. C. Because the zoning board's action invidiously discriminates against a suspect class, the zoning board must demonstrate that denial of the permit is necessary to serve a compelling state interest. D. Because the zoning board's action is in the nature of an economic or social welfare regulation, the individual seeking the permit must demonstrate that the denial of the permit is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

D. Because the zoning board's action is in the nature of an economic or social welfare regulation, the individual seeking the permit must demonstrate that the denial of the permit is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

In a jurisdiction that has abolished the felony-murder rule, but otherwise follows the common law of murder, Sally and Ralph, both armed with automatic weapons, went into a bank to rob it. Ralph ordered all the persons in the bank to lie on the floor. When some were slow to obey, Sally, not intending to hit anyone, fired about 15 rounds into the air. One of these ricocheted off a stone column and struck and killed a customer in the bank. Sally and Ralph were charged with murder of the customer. Which of the following is correct? •A. Sally can be convicted of murder, because she did the act of killing, but Ralph cannot be convicted of either murder or manslaughter. •B. Neither can be guilty of murder, but both can be convicted of manslaughter based upon an unintentional homicide. •C. Sally can be convicted only of manslaughter, but Ralph cannot be convicted of murder or manslaughter. •D. Both can be convicted of murder.

D. Both can be convicted of murder.

Officers James and Conway spent a good part of the past year engaged in a public corruption investigation. After a long period of spinning wheels, James and Conway were able to convince Arthur O'Malley to turn state's evidence on his supervisor, Jack Thompson, in the city construction agency. O'Malley provided extensive information about a kick-back arrangement run by O'Malley and Thompson. City construction contractors paid them both hundreds of thousands of dollars. James and Conway have concluded, and their superiors have concurred, that they have probable cause to proceed with a felony arrest. Nothing further happened for two months. On December 21, James dropped Conway at the airport who was leaving town to spend Christmas with his children. James spotted Thompson heading towards the departure terminal. James intercepted Thompson and arrested him. James then searched Thompson's carry-on luggage and found five large checks made out to Jack Thompson from large construction companies working on city projects. The defense moved to suppress the checks. The motion will be •A. Granted because the warrantless arrest was illegal where police had more than ample time and opportunity to secure an arrest warrant. •B. Granted because the warrantless arrest was illegal without exigent circumstances to justify dispensing with the warrant requirement. •C. Denied because the warrantless arrest was legal based upon exigent circumstances. •D. Denied because the warrantless arrest was valid even absent exigent circumstances.

D. Denied because the warrantless arrest was valid even absent exigent circumstances.

The manager of a franchise restaurant had authority to deposit the cash earnings in the bank each day. She also had the authority to sign checks under $500 without a co-signature. Over a three-year period she skimmed about $100,000 in cash from the cash deposits and from the checking account by writing cash withdrawals to herself a few times each month. A new management firm took over and audited the books, finding the irregularities. They reported the matter to the police and, after questioning, the manager admitted to skimming the account. The police had evidence to arrest her for which of the following crimes? •A. Larceny •B. False Pretenses •C. Burglary •D. Embezzlement

D. Embezzlement

A young prosecutor was assigned to a widely publicized murder case in which many people believed the police arrested an innocent person for the crime. After interviewing the defendant and reviewing the file, the prosecutor agreed with that opinion, and told her supervising attorney that she thought the defendant was innocent. The supervisor instructed the prosecutor to keep her opinions to herself, put on the best case she could, and let the jury decide the issue of guilt. At the first hearing of the case, the prosecutor told the judge that, in her opinion, the defendant was innocent. Immediately after the hearing, the supervisor fired the prosecutor for insubordination. After exhausting all administrative remedies available to her, the prosecutor filed suit in federal court, claiming that her firing violated the First Amendment because it was triggered by her expression of belief on a matter of public concern. How should the court rule? •A. For the prosecutor, because a government employee cannot be fired for stating an opinion on a matter of public concern. •B. For the prosecutor, because the prosecutor's right to comment on a matter of public concern in this case outweighs the government's interest in efficiency. •C. For the government, because the courts give government employers wide deference whenever employees speak critically of government action. •D. For the government, because the speech occurred while the employee was performing her official duties.

D. For the government, because the speech occurred while the employee was performing her official duties.

A young man walking in a poor neighborhood called police and reported that he had been mugged and that his overcoat had been stripped from his back. The man told police that the mugger had run immediately into an adjacent small apartment house. Police entered the apartment house and knocked on the open door of a second floor apartment. Frances Todd answered the door and, when told that the police were looking for a grey overcoat, invited the officers into this apartment to look for the coat. Police opened the coat closet near the front door. The overcoat was not in the closet, but an officer saw what appeared to be a very expensive camera hanging on a hook in the closet. The officer opened the leather case of the camera and wrote down the serial number on the bottom of the camera. While still in Todd's apartment, the officer called into headquarters to inquire about the camera. He learned that the camera had been stolen during a home burglary in another part of town. The officers seized the camera and arrested Todd. Todd's attorney has filed a motion to suppress the camera. The motion will be •A. Denied because Todd had consented to the search and the camera was in plain view. •B. Granted because the officers could not lawfully look for anything but the overcoat. •C. Denied because the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that the expensive camera was stolen. •D. Granted because the officer did not have probable cause to believe that the camera was stolen and could not open the case to look for the serial number.

D. Granted because the officer did not have probable cause to believe that the camera was stolen and could not open the case to look for the serial number.

A felon intending to rob a market waited outside until there were no customers. When he saw that the market was empty, he went inside and walked up to the counter with his hand in his jacket pocket to simulate a gun. Before the clerk could turn around to see what the felon wanted, another customer entered the market startling the felon, who turned and ran out the door. On a charge of attempted robbery, the felon should be found: •A. Not guilty, because he used no actual force on the clerk nor threatened any. •B. Not guilty, because he withdrew successfully from the robbery attempt. •C. Not guilty, because he never entered the zone of perpetration. •D. Guilty, regardless of whether he totally abandoned his plan when the customer entered the market.

D. Guilty, regardless of whether he totally abandoned his plan when the customer entered the market.

Sam told Horace, his neighbor, that he was going away for two weeks and asked Horace to keep an eye on his house. Sam gave Horace a key to use to check on the house. Horace decided to have a party in Sam's house. He invited a number of friends. One friend, Lewis, went into Sam's bedroom, took some of Sam's rings, and put them in his pocket. Which of the following is true? •A. Horace and Lewis are guilty of burglary. •B. Horace is guilty of burglary and Lewis is guilty of larceny. •C. Horace is guilty of larceny and Lewis is guilty of larceny. •D. Lewis is guilty of larceny and Horace is not guilty of any crime.

D. Lewis is guilty of larceny and Horace is not guilty of any crime.

Suffering from painful and terminal cancer, Willa persuaded Harold, her husband, to kill her to end her misery. As they reminisced about their life together and reaffirmed their love for each other, Harold tried to discourage Willa from giving up. Willa insisted, however, and finally Harold held a gun to her head and killed her. The most serious degree of criminal homicide of which Harold can be legally convicted is •A. No degree of criminal homicide. •B. Involuntary manslaughter. •C. Voluntary manslaughter. •D. Murder. Could Harold use the defense of "consent" to avoid a conviction?

D. Murder. No, consent is not a defense to homicide or serious batteries.

The defendant pointed a loaded gun and shot at the victim. The bullet, however, missed the intended victim, but struck a bystander in the stomach. The bystander fully recovered. In a subsequent prosecution for attempted murder of both the victim and the bystander, the defendant testified that he had wanted only to scare the victim. Assuming that the jury believes this testimony, he may be convicted of attempted murder as to: •A. The victim. •B. The bystander. •C. Both the victim and the bystander. •D. Neither the victim nor the bystander.

D. Neither the victim nor the bystander.

As he was departing a train that originated in New York, Sammy Solicit was arrested by Connecticut state police for soliciting a prostitute. As it turned out, Sammy had traveled to New York to solicit a prostitute to accompany him back to Connecticut. Soliciting prostitution violates United States law, New York and Connecticut State law, and New York City ordinances. A local politician, with a strong family values platform, was running for re-election. The politician made frequent campaign speeches, calling for Sammy's prosecution in as many places as possible to "teach the sex fiends a lesson." Because of this attention, the head New York City prosecutor convened a meeting of representatives of the various jurisdictions whose laws Solicit violated. Which of the following sets of places could NOT prosecute Solicit without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause? •A. United States and New York State •B. Connecticut and New York State •C. United States and New York City •D. New York State and New York City

D. New York State and New York City

In order to get Art in trouble, Bob and Sam threatened him at gunpoint and told him, "If you do not immediately go into the bank and hold it up we will kill you." Bob and Sam then positioned themselves so they could observe Art's conduct of the robbery. They gave Art a gun with one bullet. Art entered the bank and pointed the gun at a teller. Before Art received any money he saw that the bank guard was about to shoot him, and Art dropped his gun and held up his hands in surrender. Is Art guilty of the crime of attempted robbery? •A. Yes, because Art threatened the use of deadly force. •B. Yes, because he took a substantial step towards the completion of the robbery. •C. No, because he surrendered before the robbery was completed. •D. No, because Art was threatened with the loss of his own life.

D. No, because Art was threatened with the loss of his own life.

•A thug approached the defendant in front of a bank, brandishing a gun. He told the defendant that he was going to rob the bank and needed a "bag man." The defendant complied at gunpoint, holding out a bag for the tellers to put money in while the thug waved the gun at everyone. The gun accidently went off, killing one of the tellers. The defendant is charged with robbery and felony-murder. The most likely result is that the defendant will be found: •A. Guilty of felony-murder, but not robbery. •B. Guilty of robbery, but not felony-murder. •C. Guilty of both robbery and felony-murder. •D. Not guilty of both crimes.

D. Not guilty of both crimes.

A music teacher purchased a piano from his neighbor for $1,500. The teacher wrote the neighbor a check for the purchase price, even though he had only about $200 in his checking account at the time. The teacher believed that he would easily be able to sell the piano for $3,000 and deposit the money in the checking account in time to cover the check he had written to the neighbor. However, the teacher was unable to sell the piano and never deposited funds sufficient to cover the check he had written to the neighbor. The teacher was arrested and charged with the crime of false pretenses. At trial, if the jury believes the teacher's story to be correct, it should find him: •A. Guilty, because the check was not paid. •B. Guilty, because at the time the teacher wrote the check, the money in his account was insufficient to cover it, and he knew it was insufficient. •C. Not guilty, but only if the jury finds that the teacher's expectation of being able to sell the piano was reasonable. •D. Not guilty, even if the jury finds that the teacher's expectation of being able to sell the piano was unreasonable.

D. Not guilty, even if the jury finds that the teacher's expectation of being able to sell the piano was unreasonable.

On October 22, Officer Jones submitted an application for a warrant to search 217 Elm Street for cocaine. In the application, Officer Jones stated under oath that he believed there was cocaine at that location because of information supplied to him on the morning of October 22 by Susie Schultz. He described Schultz as a cocaine user who had previously supplied accurate information concerning the use of cocaine in the community and summarized what Schultz had told him as follows: the previous night, October 21, Schultz was in Robert Redd's house at 217 Elm Street. Redd gave her cocaine. She also saw three cellophane bags containing cocaine in his bedroom. The warrant was issued and a search of 217 Elm Street was conducted on October 22. The search turned up a quantity of marijuana but no cocaine. Robert Redd was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana. Redd moved to suppress the use of the marijuana as evidence contending that Susie Schultz was not in 217 Elm Street on October 21 or at any other time. If, after hearing evidence, the judge concludes that the statement in the application attributed to Susie Schultz is incorrect, the judge should grant the motion to suppress •A. Because the application contains a material statement that is false. •B. Because of the false statement and because no cocaine was found in the house. •C. Only if he also finds that Susie Schultz's statement was a deliberate lie. •D. Only if he also finds that Officer Jones knew the statement was false.

D. Only if he also finds that Officer Jones knew the statement was false.

B was convicted of one count of bribery and was sentenced to two years in prison, a very light sentence under the circumstances. He successfully appealed the conviction and a new trial was granted. While on bond awaiting the new bribery trial, B was convicted of an unrelated arson. B was then convicted at the bribery retrial and the judge is now considering sentencing him to a five-year sentence, three years longer than the sentence imposed at the initial bribery trial. B's lawyer argues that the longer sentence is illegal. A harsher sentence after a successful appeal is: •A. Illegal because double jeopardy bars a harsher sentence on retrial. •B. Illegal because equal protection bars a harsher sentence on retrial. •C. Possible since any sentence authorized by state sentencing law is permitted if the defendant chooses to appeal a conviction; the appeal is a waiver of double jeopardy. •D. Possible if the defendant's conduct after the first trial justifies an increased penalty.

D. Possible if the defendant's conduct after the first trial justifies an increased penalty.

A new gang member, hoping to impress the gang's leader, pointed a gun at a pedestrian and ordered her to give him her expensive watch, which she did. The gang member then tossed the watch to the gang leader, who was standing nearby. Although totally surprised by this act, the gang leader put the watch in his pocket. The pedestrian ran away. What crime did the gang leader commit? •A. Accessory after the fact to robbery. •B. Accomplice to robbery. •C. Conspiracy to commit robbery. •D. Receiving stolen property.

D. Receiving stolen property.

Shortly before taking the oath of office as President of the United States, Jeb Bartlett is sued for damages arising out of a car accident. According to the complaint, the accident occurred two months earlier when Bartlett lost control of his SUV. After assuming office, Bartlett promptly moves the trial court to halt discovery proceedings in the case. The asserted justification for the request is that, during the time in which a President is in office, the Constitution affords him "temporary immunity" from civil litigation arising out of events that occurred prior to assuming office. How is court likely to rule on the President's motion? •A. Grant the motion, because the litigation relates to unofficial conduct. •B. Grant the motion, because civil litigation carries with it the potential to distract the President from his constitutional responsibilities. •C. Reject the motion, because Congressional silence on the matter should be construed as disapproval. •D. Reject the motion, because the trial court retains the power to manage the case in such a way as to minimize the harm imposed on the President.

D. Reject the motion, because the trial court retains the power to manage the case in such a way as to minimize the harm imposed on the President.

A woman was standing in the aisle of a subway car and put her purse on the seat next to her. A man approached the woman from behind and grabbed the purse off the seat. He then pushed the woman out of the way and ran out of the subway car while carrying the purse. The man was apprehended on the subway platform while in possession of the purse. In a jurisdiction that follows the common law with respect to criminal offenses, of what crime can the man properly be convicted? •A. Larceny, because force was not used until after he took the purse. •B. Larceny, because he made no threat to use force. •C. Robbery, because he took the purse from the woman's presence. •D. Robbery, because he used force in leaving with the purse.

D. Robbery, because he used force in leaving with the purse.

Lester was engaged to marry Sylvia. One evening, Lester became enraged at the comments of Sylvia's eight-year-old daughter, Cynthia, who was complaining, in her usual fashion, that she did not want her mother to marry Lester. Lester, who had had too much to drink, began beating her. Cynthia suffered some bruises and a broken arm. Sylvia took Cynthia to the hospital. The police were notified by the hospital staff. Lester was indicted for felony child abuse. Lester pleaded with Sylvia to forgive him and to run away with him. She agreed. They moved out of state and took Cynthia with them. Without the testimony of the child, the prosecution was forced to dismiss the case. Some time later, Sylvia returned for a visit with her family and was arrested and indicted as an accessory-after-the-fact to child abuse. At her trial, the court should •A. Dismiss the charge, because Lester had not been convicted. •B. Dismiss the charge, because the evidence shows that any aid she rendered occurred after the crime was completed. •C. Submit the case to the jury, on an instruction to convict only if Sylvia knew Lester had been indicted. •D. Submit the case to the jury, on an instruction to convict only if her purpose in moving was to prevent Lester's conviction.

D. Submit the case to the jury, on an instruction to convict only if her purpose in moving was to prevent Lester's conviction.

The United States Department of Interior granted Concessionaire the food and drink concession in a federal park located in the state of New Senora. Concessionaire operated his concessions out of federally owned facilities in the park. The federal statute authorizing the Interior Department to grant such concessions provided that the grantees would pay only a nominal rental for use of these federal facilities because of the great benefits their concessions would provide to the people of the United States. The legislature of the state of New Senora enacted a statute imposing an occupancy tax on the occupants of the real estate within that state that is not subject to state real estate taxes. The statute was intended to equalize the state tax burden on such occupants with that on people occupying real estate that is subject to state real estate taxes. Pursuant to that statute, the New Senora Department of Revenue attempted to collect the state occupancy tax from Concessionaire because the federal facilities occupied by Concessionaire were not subject to state real estate taxes. Concessionaire sued to invalidate the state occupancy tax as applied to him. The strongest ground upon which Concessionaire could challenge the occupancy tax is that it violates the •A. Commerce clause by unduly burdening the interstate tourist trade. •B. Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by interfering with the fundamental right to do business on federal property. •C. Equal protection of the laws clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the tax treats him less favorably than federal concessionaires in other states who do not have to pay such occupancy taxes. •D. Supremacy clause of Article VI and the federal statute authorizing such concessions.

D. Supremacy clause of Article VI and the federal statute authorizing such concessions.

Police were investigating a complaint that Peter Masten had sexually abused his step-daughter. Masten lived with his wife and step-daughter. Mrs. Masten, the sole owner of the shared home, consented to a police search of the house. When they were searching the family room used by all three family members, the officers requested access to a locked file cabinet. Mrs. Masten advised the police that the file cabinet was her husband's and that he had the only key. She granted permission to forcibly open the file cabinet. The officers broke the lock and found sexually explicit pictures of Masten and his step-daughter in the file cabinet. Prior to the defendant's trial, the court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the pictures. The defendant was convicted and appealed. Should the appellate court reverse the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress? •A. The appellate court should pay deference to the trial court's decision and uphold the conviction. •B. The appellate court should sustain the trial court's decision because Mrs. Masten, as the sole owner of the house, could consent to a search of the house and all of its contents. •C. The appellate court should sustain the trial court's decision since the cabinet was located in Mrs. Masten's home. •D. The appellate court should reverse the trial court's decision because police could not reasonably rely upon Mrs. Masten's consent to search the file cabinet.

D. The appellate court should reverse the trial court's decision because police could not reasonably rely upon Mrs. Masten's consent to search the file cabinet.

A state statute makes criminal all "speech-making, picketing, or distribution of leaflets of any sort in public libraries." A citizen upset about the library's recent decision to purchase adult-themed books stands in the lobby of a public library handing out leaflets and exhorting passersby to boycott the library. If the citizen is prosecuted for violation of the statute, which of the following best describes the applicable burden of proof? •A. The state will have to show that there was a compelling need for the statute and that no less restrictive alternatives existed to meet that need. •B. The state will have to show that the statute was narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest and leaves open alternative channels of communication. •C. The citizen will have to show that there was no compelling need for the statute and that less restrictive alternatives were available to accomplish the same goals. •D. The citizen will have to show that there was no reasonable basis for enacting the statute.

D. The citizen will have to show that there was no reasonable basis for enacting the statute.

On November 15, Elliott Freeman was observed by a police officer speeding through an intersection. As the officer pursued the automobile, she observed Freeman make an illegal turn on a red light. After stopping Freeman's automobile, the officer spoke to Freeman and determined that Freeman was intoxicated. The officer arrested Freeman for driving while intoxicated. At the scene, and prior to taking Freeman to the police station, the officer patted down Freeman to determine if he had weapons or contraband on his person. The officer felt objects in Freeman's pocket which she knew were not weapons. Nonetheless, she reached into Freeman's pocket and retrieved a bag of cocaine. A number of pills of various kinds and some drug paraphernalia were also recovered from Freeman's pockets. Freeman was charged with illegal possession of cocaine. Prior to trial, the defense filed a motion to suppress the contraband. Is the contraband found in Freeman's pockets admissible? •A. The evidence is inadmissible because the officer knew when he reached into Freeman's pockets that he was not carrying a weapon. •B. The evidence is inadmissible because the search should've been conducted as an inventory search at the police station. •C. The evidence is admissible because the officer had probable cause to conduct a search of Freeman's person once he felt the objects in the pocket. •D. The evidence is admissible because it was a lawful search incident to arrest.

D. The evidence is admissible because it was a lawful search incident to arrest.

Tom recently killed his landlord when the landlord threatened to increase Tom's rent. Dick recently killed his wife's lover when he found them in bed upon his return from a hard day of work. The prosecutor wants to throw the book at both of them. Which of the following is true? •A. Both Tom and Dick are guilty of murder because all intentional killings are murder. •B. Both Tom and Dick are guilty of murder because both acted with malice. •C. Neither Tom nor Dick is guilty of homicide because they were provoked to kill their victims. •D. Tom is guilty of murder and Dick is probably guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

D. Tom is guilty of murder and Dick is probably guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

The Virginia state legislature recently enacted the Waste Control Act which provides: "No person shall bring into this state, or accept for disposal in this state, any solid or liquid waste which originated or was collected outside the territorial limits of this state." For years, the City of Mount Airy, North Carolina, has been dumping in Virginia garbage that can't be handled by its incinerators. A suit is brought in federal district court by the Mayor of Mount Airy to enjoin application of the Virginia Waste Control Act. The law will probably be held: •A. Constitutional because it is a justifiable exercise of the Virginia's police powers. •B. Constitutional under the 10th Amendment. •C. Unconstitutional because it violates the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. •D. Unconstitutional because it discriminates against interstate commerce.

D. Unconstitutional because it discriminates against interstate commerce.

Women wanted to join a famous golf club that restricts its membership to men. This club is licensed by the state in which it is located to sell liquor and sporting goods. The state receives sales tax from the sale of these items as well as from the sale of food and other drinks. Several women sue the club under the 14th Amendment for gender discrimination. They: A. Will likely succeed, because the relationship between the state and the club is interdependent and symbiotic, thus converting the club's private action into state action. B. Will likely succeed, because the state collects sales tax from the activities that it licenses. C. Will likely not succeed, because private clubs may not be prohibited from discriminating. D. Will likely not succeed, because state regulation or state licensing will not suffice to transform private action into state action.

D. Will likely not succeed, because state regulation or state licensing will not suffice to transform private action into state action.

An underworld informer advised a police investigator that his neighbor was running an illegal bookmaking operation in his apartment, and that the informer had placed bets with the neighbor at this location. The officer obtained a search warrant, based on his affidavit reciting the foregoing facts, and further stating that the underworld informer was a person who had given him accurate information in previous cases, but whose identity could not be revealed because it might jeopardize other criminal investigations being carried on by the police. Armed with the search warrant, police officers went to the neighbor's apartment. They entered when the neighbor opened the door and searched the apartment. They seized various wagering slips and bookmaking materials (described in the search warrant) and placed the neighbor under arrest for illegal gambling. Prior to trial, the neighbor challenges the validity of the search warrant. Was the search warrant valid? •A. No, because it was based on hearsay information. •B. No, because the officer failed to disclose the identity of the informer and thus the accuracy of his information could not be verified. •C. Yes, because the identity of the informer is never required. •D. Yes, because the affidavit accompanying it is sufficiently detailed to allow a determination of probable cause.

D. Yes, because the affidavit accompanying it is sufficiently detailed to allow a determination of probable cause.

A valid warrant was issued for a woman's arrest. The police learned that a person with the woman's name and physical description lived at a particular address. When police officers went to that address, the house appeared to be unoccupied: the windows and doors were boarded up with plywood, and the lawn had not been mowed for a long time. A neighbor confirmed that the house belonged to the woman but said that the woman had not been there for several months. The officers knocked repeatedly on the front door and shouted, "Police! Open up!" Receiving no response, they tore the plywood off the door, smashed through the door with a sledgehammer, and entered the house. They found no one inside, but they did find an illegal sawed-off shotgun. Upon her return to the house a few weeks later, the woman was charged with unlawful possession of the shotgun. The woman has moved to suppress the use of the shotgun as evidence at her trial. Should the court grant the motion? •A. No, because the officers acted in good faith under the authority of a valid warrant. •B. No, because the officers did not violate any legitimate expectation of privacy in the house since the woman had abandoned it. •C. Yes, because the officers entered the house by means of excessive force. •D. Yes, because the officers had no reason to believe that the woman was in the house.

D. Yes, because the officers had no reason to believe that the woman was in the house.

Because of a sudden and unanticipated severe shortage of heating fuel, the President has ordered all offices of federal executive agencies to be open only four days per week. The President's order allows an exception to the extent that emergency circumstances require different hours of operation (as in the case of federal hospitals). When Congress enacted the appropriations statute for operating all federal executive agencies, its members assumed that offices of those agencies would be open five days per week, but Congress did not include such a requirement in its appropriations statute or in any other statute. Is the President's order constitutional? •A. No, because the heads of the various executive agencies have final responsibility for the operation of those agencies' offices. •B. No, because when they passed the statute appropriating monies for the operation of executive agencies, members of Congress assumed that those agencies' offices would be open five days per week. •C. Yes, because the Constitution vests the President with plenary authority to direct the administration of all federal agencies in any manner the President deems expedient. •D. Yes, because the order relates to the management of the executive branch and is not prohibited by any statute.

D. Yes, because the order relates to the management of the executive branch and is not prohibited by any statute.

The mineral alpha is added to bodies of fresh water to prevent the spread of certain freshwater parasites. The presence of those parasites threatens the health of the organisms living in rivers and streams throughout the country and imperils the freshwater commercial fishing industry. Alpha is currently mined only in the state of Blue. In order to raise needed revenue, Congress recently enacted a statute providing for the imposition of a $100 tax on each ton of alpha mined in the United States. Because it will raise the cost of alpha, this tax is likely to reduce the amount of alpha added to freshwater rivers and streams and, therefore, is likely to have an adverse effect on the interstate freshwater commercial fishing industry. The alpha producers in Blue have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging this tax solely on constitutional grounds. Is this tax constitutional? •A. No, because only producers in Blue will pay the tax and, therefore, it is not uniform among the states and denies alpha producers the equal protection of the laws. •B. No, because it is likely to have an adverse effect on the freshwater commercial fishing industry and Congress has a responsibility under the clause to protect, foster, and advance such interstate industries. •C. Yes, because the tax is a necessary and proper means of exercising federal authority over the navigable waters of the United States. •D. Yes, because the power of Congress to impose taxes is plenary, this tax does not contain any provisions extraneous to tax needs or purposes, and it is not barred by any prohibitory language in the Constitution.

D. Yes, because the power of Congress to impose taxes is plenary, this tax does not contain any provisions extraneous to tax needs or purposes, and it is not barred by any prohibitory language in the Constitution.

Sammy breaks into Jones's house at night to steal his precious painting. He intentionally does not bring a gun so that he won't hurt anyone in the house. Hearing a noise, Jones jumps out of bed and goes into the living room to investigate. He sees Sammy touch his irreplaceable Rembrandt. Jones has a heart attack and dies. Is Sammy guilty of first-degree murder? •A. Yes, because he acted in a premeditated manner. •B. No, because he did not intend to kill Jones. •C. No, because Jones's death was accidental. •D. Yes, if felony-murder for burglary is considered first-degree murder in this jurisdiction.

D. Yes, if felony-murder for burglary is considered first-degree murder in this jurisdiction.

Matt and his friend Fred were watching a football game at Matt's home when they began to argue. Fred became abusive, and Matt asked him to leave. Fred refused, walked into the kitchen, picked up a knife, and said he would cut Matt's heart out. Matt pulled a gun from under the sofa, walked to his front door, opened it, and again told Fred to leave. Fred again refused. Instead, he walked slowly toward Matt, brandishing the knife in a threatening manner. Matt, rather than running out the door himself, shot in Fred's direction, intending only to scare him. However, the bullet struck Fred, killing him instantly. Charged with murder, Matt should be •A. convicted, because the use of deadly force was unreasonable under the circumstances. •B. convicted, because he had a clear opportunity and duty to retreat. •C. acquitted, because he did not intend to kill Fred. •D. acquitted, because he was acting in self-defense and had no duty to retreat.

D. acquitted, because he was acting in self-defense and had no duty to retreat.

The legislature of the state of East Dakota enacted a statute requiring that all law enforcement officers in that state be citizens of the United States. Alien, lawfully admitted to permanent residency five years before the enactment of this statute, sought employment as a forensic pathologist with the East Dakota State Police. He was denied such a job solely because he was not a citizen. Alien thereupon brought suit in federal district court against appropriate East Dakota officials seeking to invalidate this citizenship requirement on federal constitutional grounds. The strongest ground upon which to attack this citizenship requirement is that it •A. constitutes an ex post facto law as to previously admitted aliens. •B. deprives an alien of a fundamental right to employment without the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. •C. denies an alien a right to employment in violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. •D. denies an alien the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

D. denies an alien the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Police received an anonymous tip that Terri was growing marijuana in her backyard, which was surrounded by a 15-foot high, solid wood fence. Officer Boa was unable to view the yard from the street, so he used a police helicopter to fly over Terri's house. Boa identified a large patch of marijuana plants growing right next to the house and used this observation to obtain a search warrant. Terri is prosecuted for possession of marijuana and moves to suppress use of the marijuana in evidence. The court should •A. grant the motion, because the only purpose of Boa's flight was to observe the yard. •B. grant the motion, because Terri had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtilage around her house and the police did not have a warrant. •C. deny the motion, because a warrant is not required for a search of a residential yard. •D. deny the motion, because Terri had no reasonable expectation of privacy from aerial observation.

D. deny the motion, because Terri had no reasonable expectation of privacy from aerial observation.

Scott held up a drugstore at 10:30 at night, and drove away. His car broke down in an isolated area just outside the small city in which the crime occurred. Scott walked to the nearest house and asked Henry, the homeowner, if he could stay until the next morning, explaining that he had been searching for his sister's home and had run out of gas. Henry agreed to let him sleep on a couch in the basement. During the course of the night, Henry began to doubt the story Scott had told him. Early the next morning, Henry called the police and said he was suspicious and frightened of a stranger whom he had allowed to stay the night. The police went immediately to the house to assist Henry and walked through the open front door. They found Scott and Henry drinking coffee in the kitchen. When they saw Scott, they realized he matched the description of the drugstore robber. They arrested Scott and in his jacket they found drugs taken during the robbery. Scott moves to suppress the evidence of the drugs. If the court finds that the police did not have probable cause to believe Scott was the robber until they saw him inside Henry's house and realized he matched the description, the court should •A. grant the motion, because, as a guest, Scott has sufficient standing to contest the entry of the house without a warrant. •B. grant the motion, because, as a guest, Scott has sufficient standing to contest the lack of probable cause at the time of the entry. •C. deny the motion, because Scott had no ownership or other possessory interest in the premises. •D. deny the motion, because the police had the permission of the owner to enter the house.

D. deny the motion, because the police had the permission of the owner to enter the house.

FBI agents, without a warrant and without permission of Mexican law enforcement or judicial officers, entered Mexico, kidnapped Steven, an American citizen wanted in the United States for drug smuggling violations, and forcibly drove him back to Texas. Thereafter, the agents, again without a warrant, broke into the Texas home of Joan, wanted as a confederate of Steven, and arrested her. Steven and Joan were both indicted for narcotics violations. Both moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that their arrests violated the Fourth Amendment. The court should •A. grant the motions of both Steven and Joan. •B. grant the motion of Steven and deny the motion of Joan. •C. grant the motion of Joan and deny the motion of Steven. •D. deny the motions of both Steven and Joan.

D. deny the motions of both Steven and Joan.

The police suspected that Yancey, a 16-year-old high school student, had committed a series of burglaries. Two officers went to Yancey's high school and asked the principal to call Yancey out of class and to search his backpack. While the officers waited, the principal took Yancey into the hall where she asked to look in his backpack. When Yancey refused, the principal grabbed it from him, injuring Yancey's shoulder in the process. In the backpack, the principal found jewelry that she turned over to the officers. The officers believed that the jewelry had been taken in one of the burglaries. They arrested Yancey and charged him with the burglaries. Yancey moves to suppress the use of the jewelry. The court should •A. deny the motion on the ground that the search was incident to a lawful arrest. •B. deny the motion on the ground that school searches are reasonable if conducted by school personnel on school grounds on the basis of reasonable suspicion. •C. grant the motion on the ground that the search was conducted with excessive force. •D. grant the motion on the ground that the search was conducted without probable cause or a warrant.

D. grant the motion on the ground that the search was conducted without probable cause or a warrant.

Grace, while baby-sitting one night, noticed that Sam, who lived next door, had left his house but that the door did not close completely behind him. Grace said to Roy, the 11-year-old boy she was baby-sitting with, "Let's play a game. You go next door and see if you can find my portable television set, which I lent to Sam, and bring it over here." Grace knew that Sam had a portable television set and Grace planned to keep the set for herself. Roy thought the set belonged to Grace, went next door, found the television set, and carried it out the front door. At that moment, Sam returned home and discovered Roy in his front yard with the television set. Roy explained the "game" he and Grace were playing. Sam took back his television set and called the police. Grace is •A. not guilty of larceny or attempted larceny, because Roy did not commit any crime. •B. not guilty of larceny but guilty of attempted larceny, because she never acquired possession of the television set. •C. guilty of larceny as an accessory to Roy. •D. guilty of larceny by the use of an innocent agent.

D. guilty of larceny by the use of an innocent agent.

Officer Merit accompanied a housing inspector executing an administrative search warrant for a safety inspection because departmental rules require that a police officer accompany housing inspectors at all times during safety inspections. At the house, Officer Merit saw a baggie containing a small amount of marijuana sitting on a dresser. As result of what he saw, Officer Merit applied for a search warrant, using a boilerplate form providing an exhaustive list of all illicit controlled substances "which he had reason to believe were being concealed based upon his observation" and referring to the place to be searched as a "drug house." During the execution of the warrant, Officer Merit confiscated an additional amount of illegal drugs during an exhaustive search of the premises. The defense moved to suppress the evidence. The evidence is •A. admissible because Officer Merit's observation of the baggie during the administrative search provided adequate probable cause for the warrant. •B. inadmissible because the warrant was lacking in probable cause. •C. admissible because, even if the warrant were invalid, Officer Merit was entitled to rely on the warrant. •D. inadmissible because the warrant was invalid and Officer Merit could not reasonably rely on the warrant.

D. inadmissible because the warrant was invalid and Officer Merit could not reasonably rely on the warrant.

While browsing in a clothing store, Alice decided to take a purse without paying for it. She placed the purse under her coat and took a couple of steps toward the exit. She then realized that a sensor tag on the purse would set off an alarm. She placed the purse near the counter from which she had removed it. Alice has committed •A. no crime, because the purse was never removed from the store. •B. no crime, because she withdrew from her criminal enterprise. •C. only attempted larceny, because she intended to take the purse out of the store. •D. larceny, because she took the purse from its original location and concealed it with the intent to steal.

D. larceny, because she took the purse from its original location and concealed it with the intent to steal.

Defendant is charged with murder. The evidence shows that she pointed a gun at Victim and pulled the trigger. The gun discharged, killing Victim. The gun belonged to Victim. Defendant testifies that Victim told her, and she believed, that the "gun" was a stage prop that could fire only blanks, and that she fired the gun as part of rehearsing a play with Victim at his house. If the jury believes Defendant's testimony and finds that her mistaken belief that the gun was a prop was reasonable, they should find her A. guilty of murder. B. guilty of manslaughter. C. guilty of either murder or manslaughter. D. not guilty of murder or manslaughter.

D. not guilty of murder or manslaughter.

Congress passes a law regulating the wholesale and retail prices of "every purchase or sale of oil, natural gas, and electric power made in the United States." The strongest argument in support of the constitutionality of this statute is that •A. the Constitution expressly empowers Congress to enact laws for "the general welfare." •B. Congress has the authority to regulate the price of such products under the spending clause. •C. Congress may regulate the prices of every purchase and sale of goods and services made in this country, because commerce includes buying and selling. •D. the domestic purchases or sales of such products in the aggregate affect interstate or foreign commerce.

D. the domestic purchases or sales of such products in the aggregate affect interstate or foreign commerce.

Jack and Paul planned to hold up a bank. They drove to the bank in Jack's car. Jack entered while Paul remained as lookout in the car. After a few moments, Paul panicked and drove off. Jack looked over the various tellers, approached one, and whispered nervously, "Just hand over the cash. Don't look around, don't make a false move—or it's your life." The teller looked at the fidgeting Jack, laughed, flipped him a dollar bill, and said, "Go on, beat it." Flustered, Jack grabbed the dollar and left. Soon after leaving the scene, Paul was stopped by the police for speeding. Noting his nervous condition, the police asked Paul if they might search the car. Paul agreed. The search turned up heroin concealed in the lid of the trunk. Paul's best defense to a charge of robbery would be that •A. Jack alone entered the bank. •B. Paul withdrew before commission of the crime when he fled the scene. •C. Paul had no knowledge of what Jack whispered to the teller. •D. the teller was not placed in fear by Jack.

D. the teller was not placed in fear by Jack.

Hannah, who was homeless, broke into the basement of a hotel and fell asleep. She was awakened by a security guard, who demanded that she leave. As Hannah was leaving, she cursed the security guard. Angered, the guard began to beat Hannah on her head with his flashlight. After the second blow, Hannah grabbed a fire extinguisher and sprayed the guard in his face, causing him to lose his sight in one eye. The jurisdiction defines aggravated assault as assault with intent to cause serious bodily injury. The most serious crime for which Hannah could properly be convicted is A. aggravated assault. B. burglary. C. assault. D. trespass.

D. trespass.

The State of Aurora requires licenses of persons "who are engaged in the trade of barbering." It will grant such licenses only to those who are graduates of barber schools located in Aurora, who have resided in the state for two years, and who are citizens of the United States. The requirement that candidates for licenses must be citizens is •A. constitutional as an effort to ensure that barbers speak English adequately. •B. constitutional as an exercise of the state police power. •C. unconstitutional as a bill of attainder. •D. unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection.

D. unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection.

A statute authorizes a specified federal administrative agency to issue rules governing the distribution of federal grant funds for scientific research. The statute provides that, in issuing those rules, the agency must follow procedures and substantive standards contained in the statute. In a severable provision, the statute also provides that otherwise valid rules issued by the agency under authority delegated to it by this statute may be set aside by a majority vote of a designated standing joint committee of Congress. The provision of this statute relating to the power of the designated standing joint committee of Congress is •A. constitutional, because it is a necessary and proper means of ensuring that the rules issued by this agency are actually consistent with the will of Congress. •B. constitutional, because discretionary money grants authorized by statute are privileges, not rights, and therefore Congress has greater freedom to intervene in their administration than it has to intervene in the administration of regulatory laws. •C. unconstitutional, because it denies equal protection of the laws to members of Congress who are not appointed to the joint legislative committee authorized to set aside rules of this agency. •D. unconstitutional, because it authorizes a congressional change of legal rights and obligations by means other than those specified in the Constitution for the enactment of laws.

D. unconstitutional, because it authorizes a congressional change of legal rights and obligations by means other than those specified in the Constitution for the enactment of laws.

An ordinance of Central City requires every operator of a taxicab in the city to have a license and permits revocation of that license only for "good cause." The Central City taxicab operator's licensing ordinance conditions the issuance of such a license on an agreement by the licensee that the licensee "not display in or on his or her vehicle any bumper sticker or other placard or sign favoring a particular candidate for any elected municipal office." The ordinance also states that it imposes this condition in order to prevent the possible imputation to the city council of the views of its taxicab licensees and that any licensee who violates this condition shall have his or her license revoked. Driver, the holder of a Central City taxicab operator's license, decorates his cab with bumper stickers and other signs favoring specified candidates in a forthcoming election for municipal offices. A proceeding is initiated against him to revoke his taxicab operator's license on the sole basis of that admitted conduct. In this proceeding, does Driver have a meritorious defense based on the United States Constitution? •A. No, because he accepted the license with knowledge of the condition and, therefore, has no standing to contest it. •B. No, because a taxicab operator's license is a privilege and not a right and, therefore, is not protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. •C. Yes, because such a proceeding threatens Driver with a taking of property, his license, without just compensation. D.Yes, because the condition imposed on taxicab operators' licenses restricts political speech based wholly on its content, without any adequate governmental justification.

D.Yes, because the condition imposed on taxicab operators' licenses restricts political speech based wholly on its content, without any adequate governmental justification.

On May 1, 1987, a car driven by Debra struck Peggy, a pedestrian. On July 1, 1987, with regard to this incident, Debra pleaded guilty to reckless driving (a misdemeanor) and was sentenced to 30 days in jail and a fine of $1,000. She served the sentence and paid the fine. On April 1, 1988, Peggy died as a result of the injuries she suffered in the accident. On March 1, 1991, a grand jury indicted Debra on a charge of manslaughter of Peggy. On May 15, 1991, trial had not begun and Debra filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground of double jeopardy in that her conviction of reckless driving arose out of the same incident, and on the ground that the three-year statute of limitations for manslaughter had run. Debra's motion should be A. granted only on double jeopardy grounds. B. granted only on statute of limitations grounds. C. granted on either double jeopardy grounds or statute of limitations grounds. D.denied on both grounds.

D.denied on both grounds.

A state criminal statute provides that "No person shall utter to another person in a public place any hostile, bullying, annoying, infuriating, or aggravating language." Larry followed a pregnant woman for four blocks down a public street, yelling in her ear offensive four-letter words. The woman repeatedly asked Larry to leave her alone, but Larry refused. Does Larry's speech constitute fighting words? Can Larry be prosecuted for such speech under the above-quoted statute?

Does Larry's speech constitute fighting words? Yes Can Larry be prosecuted for such speech under the above-quoted statute? No. Although Larry's speech is considered unprotected "fighting words," Larry may not be punished for such speech under this statute because it is overbroad. If a regulation of speech punishes a substantial amount of protected speech, the regulation is facially invalid. This means it may not be enforced against anyone—not even a person (like Larry) who engaged in unprotected speech.

Which of the following cannot be searched using the automobile exception? •A. A car on the highway. •B. A motorcycle on a country road. •C. A motorhome at a highway rest stop. •D. An airplane. •E. A boat. •F. A double-wide trailer on a foundation.

F. A double-wide trailer on a foundation.

Intending to kill Vic, Deft shot at Vic, but the bullet just missed Vic and hit Cal. Cal was only slightly wounded. 1. Did Deft commit attempted murder of Cal? -Did Deft commit attempted murder of Vic?

No, because Deft did not intend to kill Cal and the doctrine of transferred intent does not apply to attempted murder. Yes, because Deft had the specific intent to kill Vic and took a substantial step toward completing the crime (and came dangerously close to success).

A, while stealing B's car in Bristol, Virginia, stabs B and forces B into the trunk. A then drives B's car toward the Tennessee state line. B dies in Bristol, Tennessee. A is tried for murder in Virginia and Tennessee. A moves to dismiss both cases for lack of jurisdiction. Should either case be dismissed?

No, because a state has jurisdiction when the offense is committed wholly or partly within the state.

Eighteen-year-old Kenneth and his 14-year-old girlfriend, Emma, made plans to meet in Kenneth's apartment to have sexual intercourse, and they did so. Emma later told her mother about the incident. Kenneth was charged with statutory rape and conspiracy to commit statutory rape. In the jurisdiction, the age of consent is 15, and the law of conspiracy is the same as at common law. Kenneth was convicted of both charges and given consecutive sentences. On appeal, he contends that his conspiracy conviction should be reversed. Would Kenneth's conviction for conspiracy be reversed under the M.P.C.'s unilateral approach to conspiracy? Could Emma be convicted of solicitation of statutory rape, conspiracy, or as an accomplice to statutory rape?

No, because the M.P.C. requires only one guilty mind for conspiracy. No, if (as here) a statute is designed to protect a particular class, the protected person may not be convicted of solicitation, conspiracy, or accomplice liability.

The police are in a high speed pursuit of D. Near the end of the pursuit, D jumps out of his moving vehicle and is accidentally run over and killed by a police car. Did the police activity constitute a "seizure" or "arrest"?

No, because there was no intentional application of force

After being fired from his job, Mel drank almost a quart of vodka and decided to ride the bus home. While on the bus, he saw a briefcase he mistakenly thought was his own, and began struggling with the passenger carrying the briefcase. Mel knocked the passenger to the floor, took the briefcase, and fled. Mel was arrested and charged with robbery. If Mel is charged with battery, can he use mistake as a defense? If Mel is charged with battery, can he use intoxication as a defense?

Only if the mistake is reasonable. No, because battery is a general intent crime.

At 11:00 p.m., John and Marsha were accosted in the entrance to their apartment building by Dirk, who was armed as well as masked. Dirk ordered the couple to take him into their apartment. After they entered the apartment, Dirk forced Marsha to bind and gag her husband John and then to open a safe which contained a diamond necklace. Dirk then tied her up and fled with the necklace. He was apprehended by apartment building security guards. Before the guards could return to the apartment, but after Dirk was arrested, John, straining to free himself, suffered a massive heart attack and died. Dirk is guilty of Would Dirk also be guilty of kidnapping?

Probably not, because the movement of John and Marsha was not substantial and was incidental to other crimes.

The State of Tennessee passes a law requiring that all medical malpractice suits be tried by an administrative panel comprised of lawyers and physicians. The statute also provides that such suits may not be filed in state courts. A plaintiff with standing challenges the law in federal court, arguing that it violates the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it denies plaintiff the right to a jury trial. How will the court rule?

The suit will be dismissed because the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial in civil cases has not been incorporated into the 14th Amendment.

A shoots at B intending to kill B. The bullet misses B but kills C. Is A guilty of murdering C?

Yes, A's intent to kill B will be transferred to C.

D decided to kidnap her boss, V, in order to hold him for ransom. While V was supervising the clothing section of the large department store where they both worked, D put a knife to V's back and told him not to move. Two minutes later, D demanded that V walk slowly out to the public parking lot across the street from the store. As soon as they got to the parking lot, a police officer observed what was going on, became suspicious, and arrested D. Can D be convicted of kidnapping? If D were arrested after she put the knife in V's back but before V began walking out of the store, would D have been guilty of any crime(s)?

Yes, assault, false imprisonment, and probably battery.

Eric was charged with "transporting illegal firearms across state lines," a federal crime. Following a jury trial, he was acquitted of that crime. Disappointed by the verdict, the U.S. Attorney looked over the case file and the applicable statutes. She found a statute prohibiting an alien from possessing a firearm. Eric is an alien. May Eric be convicted of this second crime?

Yes, because the second crime is not a lesser included offense of transporting illegal firearms across state lines. Unlike the second crime, the first crime required proof that the firearm was transported across state lines. Unlike the first crime, the second crime required proof that the defendant was an alien. Thus, neither crime requires proof of all elements of the other crime.

A city ordinance states that anyone who wishes to make a speech in a public park must have a permit to do so. The ordinance prescribes definite standards for the prompt granting of a permit, and it gives the mayor no discretion to deny such permits. The mayor has never denied a permit to anyone wishing to speak on any topic. Mike does not apply for a permit, but instead goes to a public park and makes a ten-minute speech in which he accuses the mayor and city council of gross incompetence. After Mike has completed his speech, the police arrest him and charge him with violating the permit ordinance. Would a conviction of Mike be constitutional? •a. Yes, because he did not apply for a permit to speak. •b. Yes, because a city park is not a traditional public forum. •c. No, if Mike proves that the mayor would not have issued him a permit to speak. •d. No, because a city park is a traditional public forum.

a. Yes, because he did not apply for a permit to speak.

•The County of Guernsey adopted a Pure Milk and Dairy Act which provided that "no milk products could be sold within the County which had not gone through a pasteurization process in plants inspected by a licensed County inspector." The local inspectors had no authority to inspect pasteurization plants outside of the County. As a consequence, under the County ordinance, milk and dairy products from neighboring states were prohibited from sale within the County boundaries even though just as rigid pasteurization standards were employed in those areas. In an action challenging the constitutionality of the Pure Milk and Dairy Act of Guernsey County, which of the following would have the best standing? •a. A Guernsey County milk and dairy inspector. •b. A resident-consumer of Guernsey County. •c. A milk producer from a neighboring state. •d. A Guernsey County milk producer.

c. A milk producer from a neighboring state.

The Commonwealth of Transylvania has a statute providing that females convicted of prostitution and sentenced to prison must serve their time in a minimum security penal institution. The same statute provides that males convicted of prostitution and sentenced to incarceration must serve their terms in a maximum security prison. Conditions at the maximum security prison are far inferior to those at the minimum security facility. Convict, a male, has been sentenced to prison at a maximum security institution, following his conviction for prostitution. Convict has instituted a challenge to his confinement on equal protection grounds, alleging that it invidiously discriminates against him on the basis of gender. Which of the following accurately summarizes the burden of persuasion on the constitutional issue? • a. Convict must demonstrate that the classification is not substantially related to an important state interest. •b. Convict must demonstrate the lack of a rational relation between the scheme and a legitimate state interest. •c. The Commonwealth must demonstrate that the scheme is substantially related to an important state interest. •d. The Commonwealth must demonstrate that there is a rational relation between the classification and a legitimate state interest.

c. The Commonwealth must demonstrate that the scheme is substantially related to an important state interest.

The local police believe that there is a large amount of underage drinking and drug use at Bella's, a local disco, and station two uniformed officers outside the club. As Peter exits the club at midnight, the officers approach him and say," Excuse us, but we would like to ask you something. Peter stops walking. They then ask Peter, "How old are you and have you been drinking alcohol?" Peter, who had been drinking, says, "I'm twenty and just had two beers." He is later prosecuted for underage drinking. If Peter moves to suppress his statement, the court should rule it: •a) inadmissible as the product of a seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment •b) inadmissible, because although the police actions up to stopping Peter were proper, he was not given Miranda warnings before being questioned •c) admissible, because the officers had reasonable suspicion for their seizure of Peter and their subsequent questioning of him was proper •d) admissible, because the police violated neither Peter's Fourth nor Fifth Amendment rights

d) admissible, because the police violated neither Peter's Fourth nor Fifth Amendment rights

The Supreme Court issues an opinion in which it determines that the statute of limitations for securities fraud (which has heretofore been uncertain) is three years. As a result, lower federal courts dismiss all pending cases that had not been filed within the three-year limitations period. Congress thereafter passes a statute requiring federal courts to reinstate these cases. Is the statute constitutional?

•No, the federal judiciary has the power, not merely to rule on cases, but to decide them conclusively, subject to review only by superior courts. The Constitution forbids the legislature from interfering with the final judgments of courts. This new statute clearly violates the foregoing principle by retroactively commanding federal courts to reopen final judgments.

The Housing Code of the city of Brook Hills limits the occupancy of all dwelling units to members of a single family. The Code defines "family" to mean a number of individuals related to the nominal head of the household or to his/her spouse living as a single housekeeping unit in a single dwelling, but limits that definition as follows: 1. husband or wife of the nominal head of the household; 2. married or unmarried children of the nominal head of the household or his/her spouse, provided that such children have no children of their own living with them; 3. father or mother of the nominal head of the household or his/her spouse. Jim lives in Brook Hills with his son Ike and Ike's two children, Jake and Edith. The city has informed Jim that Jake and Edith are illegal occupants of his home. In Jim's challenge to the constitutionality of the Code provision, a court most likely will find the provision: •a. constitutional, because it furthers a permissible state objective. •b. constitutional, under the state's police power. •c. unconstitutional, because it violates the due process guarantee of the fourteenth amendment. •d. unconstitutional, because it constitutes a taking of Jim's property.

•c. unconstitutional, because it violates the due process guarantee of the fourteenth amendment.