Q&A Hero

Question

On June 5, 1989, FBI agent Steve Moe received a tip from a well-known actor in Minneapolis, that Roger Sviggum, another well-known actor, was manufacturing illegal drugs (cocaine and heroin) in a laboratory located on his land "up north," and that he was growing marijuana on land surrounding this lakefront property. Acting on this information, Moe dispatched agents to the northern Minnesota property. Over the course of the next week, these agents observed numerous "strange" cars and other vehicles going in and out of the ranch.
Based on the initial "tip" and these observations, Moe sought to obtain a warrant to search the Sviggum residence. He first approached Magistrate Hottinger and told him about the "tip" and the agents' observations. Hottinger, however, felt insufficient probable cause existed to issue the warrant. Rather than attempting to build a better case, Moe went to a second magistrate, Pawlenty, who issued a warrant to search only the Sviggum residence (i.e., the main building).
a. Should Magistrate Pawlenty have issued the warrant? Why or why not?
Moe, along with four other officers, sought to execute the warrant. They drove up to the Sviggum residence and, parked rather far from the house because a silver Mercedes-Benz was blocking the driveway. They knocked on the door to the house, and Sviggum's wife opened it. After she told them that Roger was not in the house (he was, according to her, practicing his lines for a new show), Moe explained that they had a warrant to search the home. She let them in, and the five officers began a full search of the house.
The officers found nothing until they spotted a closed door at the side of the house. They asked Mrs. Sviggum about this, and she told them that they rented out that part of the home to a boarder, one Monica Hahn. Upon obtaining Mrs. Sviggum's permission, the agents entered the Hahn quarters. There they found not only Ms. Hahn, but also a sophisticated laboratory they suspected was used for the manufacturing of drugs.
b. Was it reasonable for police to enter Hahn's quarters? Why or why not?
As the agents moved toward Hahn, she began ingesting chemicals located on a table on which she was working. They immediately, but gently, seized her and placed her under arrest. Because she had swallowed some of the "evidence," however, two agents rushed her to a local hospital for stomach X-rays. At the hospital, Hahn refused to give her consent for the procedure. The doctor, acting under police orders, took the X-rays anyway and, the resultant pictures revealed the presence of substances used to manufacture heroin.
c. Was the X-ray procedure a reasonable search and seizure? Why or why not?
Meanwhile, finding nothing else in the Sviggum residence, agents decided to search the silver Mercedes in the driveway. They asked Mrs. Sviggum who owned the car. She replied that it was hers, but that she would not give them consent to search it. The agents went back into the house, found the car keys, and unlocked the car without permission. In a suitcase in the trunk, they found large quantities of heroin. They placed Mrs. Sviggum under arrest and called for back-up officers.
d. Was the search of the car reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?On
As soon as other officers arrived on the scene, two FBI agents decided to examine the rest of the property (the land surrounding the house) to see if they could locate Roger, and to determine if, in fact, the Sviggums were growing marijuana on the premises. They did not have to walk very far to find what they were looking for. Right beyond the fence enclosing the ranch, they spotted acres of marijuana plants. And, just a quarter mile farther away, they saw Roger, dressed in a business suit, talking to two teenage girls.
As the agents rushed toward Roger, eventually arresting him, the girls started quickly walking away from the scene. One of the officers stopped them and identified himself as a police officer. Next, he "patted" them down." He found nothing on the first; on the second, Linda Lewinsky, he felt "something" bulky in her jacket pocket. The agent reached in and removed the mass, which turned out to be a huge wad of $100 bills and a negligible amount of heroin. He arrested Ms. Lewinsky.
e. Was this "frisk" reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?
f. Based on your answers to questions a"e, can you now reach conclusions about the admissibility of the evidence? Would you exclude any or all of the evidence gathered against the Sviggums, Hahn, and Lewinsky? Why or why not?
g. Would your answers to questions a"f be different if the year were 1968 rather than 1989?