Christine Haskin
Political Science 1
Banks
30 April 2013
Scenario 1
I. Police woman chases Charles to the back of the store. When the police woman engaged in chasing and following the matched rapist, she was only improving her view of Charles, and therefore not conducting a search. However, when Charles ran away once he saw the police woman, this allowed the police woman to yet strengthen her reasonable suspicion to detain Charles at the back of the store.

After the chase, the police woman sees an empty shoulder holster and the proceeds to ask where the gun was.
The police woman was just asking a question in which any questioning must meet the reasonable suspicion test which is at a low standard. The suspect was not required to answer the question.
The officer had a concern for her safety once she saw that the holster was empty in plain view. In this situation the only way to obtain safety was to retrieve the gun.

Police woman retrieves the gun.
Retrieving the gun was a seize because she removed the object from its original position.
However, this was justifiable because of safety as well as probable cause, which is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion, that a crime will be committed because the gun is a tangible item.

Police woman then arrests Charles.
Arrest or the detainment of a suspect only needs reasonable suspicion. However, the detainment of Charles could have been defined when she first caught Charles after the chase because, clearly he was not free to go at that point.

The police woman reads Charles the Miranda warning.
The Miranda warning did not timely violate Charles’s rights because this does not have to be read unless Charles was being taken into custody. This right did not apply when the police woman detained and questioned Charles at the back of the store because she only needed reasonable suspicion to do so.

The police woman was right in asking where the gun was. She had a concern for her safety once she saw the empty shoulder holster. Charles hid the gun himself, therefore, this was not a manipulation of the object by government but by the suspect, thus could seize the weapon. The gun could be used against Charles because it hindered the safety of the officer. Charles’s answer “The gun is over there,” indicates that the gun was still in plain view but violated the safety of the officer, hence allowing her to retrieve the gun.

Scenario 2 The Citizens Understanding Life’s Truth is an officially registered political interest group. Their rights are protected under the First Amendment.

Freedom of Religion
Under the Free Exercise Clause, government cannot pass any law that interferes, infringes, limits, punishes, restricts, discriminates, free exercise of religion.
In this case, The Citizen’s Understanding Life’s Truth is a religious organization, and their religion is against any actions of killing unborn fetuses. Therefore, in order to manifest their beliefs to others, they do so through speech and petition.
Although under the Free Exercise Clause there can no be no law passed that restricts religion, government may distinguish between belief and practice under the secular regulation rule. Political Speech
Abortion is a political policy and any expression about these policies will be consented and protected under Political Speech. However, if the government can meet the compelling reason strict scrutiny test, then they may control this type of speech if it is the only way to secure health and safety of the people.

Right to Petition
The group has a right to protest, and demonstrate, unless government can meet the compelling reason test, where government has to prove that it is necessary to secure the health and safety of the people by limiting, restricting, and preventing this right. However, if government does restrict this right to the group, then they must provide the time, place, and manner rule, in which will give the group on