Blog

I have read the Honorlock syllabus addendum and agree to follow all Honorlock directions and prompts carefully, otherwise, I may receive a zero on a quiz or exam if there is a question as to the integrity of the quiz or exam in question. I understand that a zero on a quiz or exam due to an Honorlock violation may be given at any time during the term.

After reading Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut (story text in allowed URL link), answer the following question below clearly, simply, and specifically with a citation from the short story with page number. Does today’s technology help equalize society at all?  If so, is it for better or for worse?  Explain.

On a Saturday night in Houston, an officer received a tip from a convenience store clerk that three people had just left the store acting “nervous” and whispering about “making a move tonight.” The clerk provided a vague description of the group’s vehicle: a dark sedan parked nearby. The clerk had never given information to the police before. The officer soon saw a dark sedan with three occupants pull out of the lot. After observing the vehicle fail to signal a lane change, the officer initiated a traffic stop. The occupants were ordered out of the car. Noticing that two were wearing matching black-and-gold jerseys, the officer thought they might be affiliated with a local gang. The Houston Texans were also playing the New Orleans Saints that weekend. The officer conducted pat-downs. On one passenger, the officer felt a small, hard object in a jacket pocket that might have been a weapon. Reaching in, the officer retrieved a glass vial containing cocaine. The officer then searched the passenger compartment of the sedan, finding marijuana under the seat. Finally, the officer opened the trunk, where a duffel bag contained multiple unregistered firearms. At trial, defense counsel files a motion to suppress all evidence, arguing that the stop, frisks, and searches were unconstitutional at every step. As the criminal court judge, how would you rule on the motion to suppress? Provide your reasoning.

At about 9:00 p.m., Officer Navarro of the Houston Police Department receives a call from dispatch about an anonymous tip. The caller—who refuses to give a name but claims to be “a neighbor tired of the traffic”—reports that Carlos Vega is selling methamphetamine out of Apartment 3B at the Bayou Gardens complex and that “right now he’s freaking out and trying to flush it.” When asked for details, the caller says they just saw people running in and out of the unit and “heard the toilet running over and over.” The caller provides the exact building number, apartment, and describes Vega as a man in his late 20s wearing a red shirt. Navarro knows from prior reports that a “Carlos Vega” with a past narcotics conviction lives at that address. She and her partner drive to the complex within minutes. Outside the apartment, Navarro smells a strong chemical odor consistent with meth production and hears rapid movement inside. When she knocks and announces, “Police—open the door,” the noise inside briefly stops, followed by the distinct sound of a toilet flushing and a garbage disposal running. Believing that evidence is being destroyed, Navarro uses her shoulder to force the unlocked door open and enters without a warrant. Inside, she sees Vega dumping white powder into the sink. He struggles briefly as she grabs his arm; Navarro deploys her department-issued Taser in drive-stun mode to gain control. Vega is handcuffed and arrested for possession with intent to distribute. A search of the kitchen counter reveals several plastic baggies, a digital scale, and cash. No search warrant has been obtained at any point. Prompt:  You are Officer Navarro, a veteran field training officer mentoring a new recruit. Explain to your trainee the constitutional principles that justify your actions in this scenario, including your reliance on the informant’s tip, your warrantless entry, and your use of non-deadly force.

Sergeant Rudolph of the Chicago Police Department stops Harry Dresden after observing a minor traffic violation. Rudolph admits he was suspicious of Dresden based on past encounters. During the stop, Rudolph asks to search the vehicle. Dresden gives limited consent but expressly refuses consent to open a locked metal case. Dresden later withdraws all consent. Rudolph opens the case anyway, citing safety concerns, and discovers contraband. Additional evidence is later found in the vehicle, and Dresden’s phone is searched without a warrant. Prompt:You are the judge presiding over State of Illinois v. Dresden. Evaluate the admissibility of: • The evidence recovered from the vehicle containers;• The additional vehicle evidence; and• The digital evidence from the phone. Explain your reasoning in detail.

A delegation from Clearview High School in Denver, Colorado, returns from an international youth conference called FreedomFest, held in Amsterdam. The group includes ten students and two faculty chaperones, including Mr. Ryan Blake, a social studies teacher known for his “debate on civil liberties” elective. When the group lands at Denver International Airport, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers conduct a routine customs inspection of all arriving passengers. During baggage screening, an officer notes a faint odor of marijuana on several students’ clothes but finds no contraband. The officer allows the group to proceed but files a brief report noting “possible drug exposure overseas.” Two days later, the school district superintendent received an anonymous tip that one of the students “brought back edibles” and that “Mr. Blake partied with the kids.” Concerned about liability and media attention, the superintendent orders immediate drug testing of all trip participants — both students and staff — under the district’s “random testing” policy for extracurricular participants. Mr. Blake refuses, citing the state’s legalization laws and his right to privacy as an employee. Meanwhile, the principal instructs the school’s SRO to search the group’s classroom luggage lockers for “any leftover substances.” The officer opens Mr. Blake’s desk drawer, finding a sealed bottle of wine and a small, labeled container of CBD gummies. Both are legal under state law but against district policy. Blake and several students are suspended pending review. The ACLU files suit on behalf of Blake and the students, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment. Prompt:You are the trial judge. Evaluate the constitutionality of: The airport inspection conducted by CBP officers, The school district’s drug testing of the students and teacher, and The locker and desk searches performed by the SRO at the school. For each, determine what legal standard applies and whether the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Explain your reasoning.

Nacogdoches police respond to a report of threatening graffiti (“You’ll regret this”) behind a strip mall. A witness saw “a teenager with a backpack” run toward a drainage ditch. Officers find 16-year-old Tyler Ransom near the ditch with a backpack next to him. Tyler immediately says, “I didn’t do anything—please don’t call my dad.” An officer briefly looks into the unzipped backpack and sees two cans of spray paint and a folding knife. The knife is removed, Tyler is handcuffed, and Officer Hernandez asks, “Is there anything else in this bag that could hurt anyone?” Tyler answers, “No, just the paint and my knife.” Tyler is transported to the station, placed in a small interview room with the door closed, and no parent or guardian is contacted. Detective Marsh gives Miranda warnings from memory: “Before we ask any questions, you need to know your rights.  You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk with a lawyer before we question you and to have one with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.” Marsh then adds, “It’s up to you whether you choose to talk, and you can stop at any time.” Tyler nods and says, “Okay, I think I get it,” and, when asked if he wants to talk, replies, “I guess so.” About ten minutes into questioning, after being asked several times about the graffiti, Tyler says, “Can I talk to my youth mentor? He helps me when I’m in trouble.” Marsh replies, “We can’t call him right now, but you can still decide whether to talk to us.” Tyler becomes quieter and says, “I don’t think I should be saying stuff.” When Marsh asks if he wants to stop the interview, Tyler shrugs and says, “I don’t know… maybe.” The detectives continue questioning and eventually obtain incriminating statements. Tyler moves to suppress all statements, arguing that: He was in custody both at the ditch and at the station. The questioning at the ditch required Miranda warnings. His youth prevented him from understanding or waiving his rights. He invoked his rights by asking for his mentor and by saying he shouldn’t be talking. Prompt: You are the prosecutor. Respond to each of Tyler’s arguments for suppression and explain why the statements should be admitted.

Some children and adults with an auditory brainstem implant have been able to perform limited open-set speech recognition.

The role of the pediatric neuropsychologist on a cochlear implant team is to rule out developmental delays.

List two advantages and two disadvantages of delivering services via teleaudiology (answer in complete sentences).