Assume you are a sergeant in the Examland Police Department, a 500-officer department in the city of Examland, state of Fiction. You are assigned as a street supervisor for uniform patrol, and currently have 14 patrol officers who report directly to you. One day you are in court. With all your spare time, you have time to check up on how -Ctwo of your rookie patrol officers testify in court.

F​‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‌‌‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍​inal Exam requirements: This is a take-home exam consisting of three factual scenarios with questions following each. Note that question 2 in particular alleges a couple different causes of action; make sure you address both. You may use any outside source to assist you in your answer, except for another person (and subject to the specific limit for questions 2 and 3.) You must answer all 3 questions.

1. Assume you are a sergeant in the Examland Police Department, a 500-officer department in the city of Examland, state of Fiction. You are assigned as a street supervisor for uniform patrol, and currently have 14 patrol officers who report directly to you. One day you are in court. With all your spare time, you have time to check up on how two of your rookie patrol officers testify in court. Your city has a public defender’s officer staffed with exceptionally sharp young lawyers, and you don’t want the confidence of your young officers rattled under the withering cross-examination of the public defenders. (I told you it was fictional!) As you exit the courtroom and enter the hallway, a citizen comes up to you. Pointing to your sergeant’s stripes, the citizen asks if you are a supervisor. “Yes, ma’am, I am”, you answer in your best Gary Cooper voice (google it for those that don’t get the reference!). “What seems to be the problem?” The citizen points to a police officer (Officer Creepy) who used to work for you, but was transferred to another squad some months ago. The citizen tells you that he parked beside that officer as they both came to court that morning. He relates that he saw the officer take what appeared to be graphic child pornography (pictures) from the front seat of his patrol car, open the trunk, and then place the photos in a briefcase, which he then took into court. The citizen felt that the officer clearly had seen the material, as the officer said “This is pretty nasty stuff- it’s for a case I have this morning” as he snapped shut the briefcase. According to the citizen the officer “just looked kinda nervous when he saw that I saw him”. Intrigued, the citizen kept an eye on the officer throughout the day’s docket. Other than 4 traffic matters for which he testified, the officer did not appear to be involved in any other cases that morning. Officer Creepy worked for you for about 2 years. While you never had the occasion to formally write him up for any specific violations of departmental policy, you never thought he was a good cop. He always struck you as strange, and said his career goal was to get on the Special Victims Unit where (in his words) “all the action was.” Frankly, you were glad when he changed squads. Officer Creepy is standing in the hallway, about 50 feet away. He is talking on his cell phone, and not walking away. You quickly ask the citizen for ID, and ask him how sure he is of what he saw. The citizen shows you ID, as well as a military retiree ID card. “I’m a retired Air Force missile officer, I held a top-secret clearance for 23 years, and I wouldn’t make something like this up,” he says. Creepy ends his cell phone call, and appears to be heading for the exit. If you don’t do something now, you may never find out what is in his briefcase. “Officer Creepy! I’d like a word with you please” you call. Creepy stops and you walk over to him. “Officer Creepy, have you got anything in that briefcase that I should know about?” you ask. He replies “Hey Sarge- I don’t work for you anymore- I see you’re still micro-managing everyone. Still trying to see if I filled out all my paperwork correctly?” Convinced that something is amiss, you tell Creepy that you are giving him a direct order to open the briefcase, as you tell him you suspect him to be in violation of departmental policy. He complies, and inside the briefcase you see 4 summonses, his codebook, and a manila envelope with PERSONAL written across it. You state forcefully, “What’s in the envelope Creepy? A citizen told me he saw you looking at stuff you shouldn’t be lookin’ at.” He replies, “I know all about that Garrity and Gardner stuff Sarge- I ain’t saying nothing.” As he says this, he closes his briefcase and begins walking away. “If you’ll excuse me, today is supposed to be an off day and I’m done with court.” What are your options? Address how Garrity and Gardner may apply to this situation, as well as any 4th amendment concerns. Can you order him to wait at court until you contact his current supervisor? Can you order him to give you the briefcase? What about ordering him to show you what’s in the manila envelope? Assume that in the state of Fiction, it is a felony to possess child pornography. Also assume that Examland PD regulations state that an officer shall not read anything in court while awaiting his case to be called that could be considered pornographic or prurient, even if legal. This has generally been interpreted as magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse, although you seem to remember a memo last month reminding officers that it was unprofessional and a violation of policy to be reading the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition in uniform in court. 2. Read the following complaint, taken from an actual case. The question is at the end of the complaint. STEVE ARMBRUSTER, Plaintiff, v. JOHN C. CAVANAUGH, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education; F. JAVIER CEVALLOS, individually and in his official capacity as President of the Kutztown University of Pennsylvania; WILLIAM F. MIOSKIE, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of the Kutztown University Police Department, Defendants. Complaint PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the United States Constitution challenging the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Corporal Steven Armbruster was suspended from duty as a police officer for 1) telling his chief that an order to push demonstrators off campus was unconstitutional and for 2) failing to carry out an order to remove a “disorderly” demonstrator even though he knew the demonstrators were not disorderly. 2. While Corp. Armbruster was ultimately reinstated, [*2] he has been financially harmed due to his suspension and risks termination should he respect demonstrators’ right to speak in the future. 3. Corp. Armbruster seeks a permanent injunction to require Defendants to remove the disciplinary letter from his file and to prevent Defendants from punishing him in the future for respecting demonstrator’s rights. 4. Corp. Armbruster seeks declaratory relief, attorney’s fees and costs, and nominal and compensable damages for, among other things, lost wages due to the discipline. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), 1343(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 6. Venue for this action properly lies in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants reside within this Judicial District, and all or substantially all of the events that give rise to the claims in this action occurred in this District. PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Steve Armbruster [*3] is an adult individual residing in Lehighton, Pennsylvania. He is Corporal with the Kutztown University Police Department. 8. Defendant John C. Cavanaugh is the chancellor of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. The State System of Higher Education is responsible for the activities and training of the Kutztown University Police Department and employs Corp. Armbruster. Mr. Cavanaugh is being sued in his official capacity. 9. Defendant F. Javier Cevallos is the president of the Kutztown University of Pennsylvania and was acting under color of state law during all times relevant to this Complaint. The University also directs the activities and training of the Kutztown University Police Department. Additionally, Mr. Cevallos gave orders to Corp. Armbruster during the incident in question. Mr. Cevallos is being sued in his official and individual capacities. 10. Defendant William F. Mioskie is the Chief of the Kutztown University Police Department acting under color of state law during all times relevant to this Complaint. He is being sued in his official and individual capacities. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 11. Corp. Armbruster has been a police [*4] officer with the Kutztown University Police Department for 17 years. 12. On April 18, 2007, approximately fifteen individuals with Repent America demonstrated on an outdoor public forum area of Kutztown University’s campus. 13. During the demonstration, approximately 300 counterdemonstrators, representing several different organizations and clubs, assembled. 14. The counterdemonstration became loud and Repent America was asked by Corp. Armbruster and Lieut. Dillon to move away from certain buildings, at which time Repent America began to do so. 15. Various students became upset and contacted University personnel about the content of Repent America’s message. 16. Other police officers and Chief Mioskie responded to the scene along with University President Cevallos. 17. President Cevallos asked Corp. Armbruster to “push” Repent America off campus. 18. President Cevallos considered some of the speech offensive and necessary to be removed. 19. Corp. Armbruster did not reply to any of President Cevallos’ requests to get the group off of campus. Therefore, President Cevallos approached Chief Mioskie to force the group off campus. 20. The demonstration [*5] was peaceful and in no way disorderly. However, Chief Mioskie determined that the situation was disorderly since the counterdemonstrators became upset with Repent America’s message. 21. Chief Mioskie began yelling at the leader of Repent America, Michael Marcavage, to inform him that the members of the group were no longer allowed to speak on campus. 22. After President Cevallos reached Chief Mioskie, the chief ordered Corp. Armbruster to “push” Repent America off campus. 23. Corp. Armbruster objected to the chief’s order, replying that it violated the group’s civil rights. 24. Corp. Armbruster understood that in following the chief’s order he would be asked to arrest or threaten group members with arrest under the disorderly conduct statute. 25. Corp. Armbruster believed that the order was wrong and that the demonstrators were not disorderly. He feared that limiting the demonstrators’ ability to speak would subject him to liability. 26. Corp. Armbruster did not have an employment duty that required him to inform the Chief of the unconstitutionality of the situation, but instead he spoke as any other citizen concerning a matter of public concern, the violation [*6] of demonstrators’ rights under the First Amendment. 27. Corp. Armbruster’s brief statement did not undermine the orderly working of any legitimate duty of the police department. 28. Chief Mioskie relieved Corp.