Should evidence legally seized by private security guards, acting in in concert with the state, be suppressed under the exclusionary rule?

Major questions to be reached in the following order:

Underlined words are hot links. Read through the material first, to get a sense of the argument, then go back to the links for explanations and details.

• Was there an illegal search and seizure by the private security guards?

• Was there a nexus betweeen the guards and and the Narcotics Agents that could give rise to an interpretation that the guards were acting in concert with the Agents?

• Is this harmless error? Would the same result have been reached without the search and seizure at issue?

• If no adequate nexus can be found between the guards and the agents, should the exlusionary rule be applied on the grounds of Zelinski's holding?

Notice that the above questions are phrased in terms of the law of the case. No facts are given. This case is now before the Supreme Court of California at Dominguez Hills. We have already been through the trial court, the fact-finding, witness-calling phase. Appellate courts hear only issues of law.

But facts are what cases are based on. Where do facts come into play at the appellate level? Through the record, which is found in the transcript and in any documents signed under penalty of perjury.

Our job in moot court is to take the facts of our case, establish their existence in the record, and then link each of those facts to the law, showing how the law should be applied to these facts.

We will be working with two major databases.

1. One database: the law that bears some relevance to this case.
2. The second database: the facts from the record of findings in the lower court.

• The law

  • Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Protections

    • The Fourth Amendment applies only to state action. The Bill of Rights serves to protect U.S. citizens from unreasonable government actions.

    • Private citizens do not have the right to search other private citizens.

    • Private citizens do not have the right to seize property from other private citizens.

    • Exception: Pat down search with citizen's arrest if danger established.

• The facts