The th Amendment protects against self-incrimination.

(Enter the number)

You are a resident of New Jersey. The Plaintiff is a resident of New York. The Plaintiff files a complaint against you in the United States District Court (Eastern District of New York). You have never resided in New York and the incident took place in New Jersey. The complaint alleges that you violated a New York State statute in a manner which resulted in damage to the Plaintiff, and that the incident took place in New York. What type of jurisdiction is the court probably lacking which would prevent it from hearing the case?

Which of the following items are not discovery devices?

Match the crime to its description.

The meth making materials are inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.

Officer Dingus is executing a valid search warrant in the home of Mr. E. The warrant allows Officer Dingus to enter the home for the purpose of looking for a stolen 65" television. Officer Dingus is aware that only the television was taken, as the owners had to use their phones as remotes due to their dog having eaten the physical remote.

After Officer Dingus enters the living room, he opens a small cabinet and observes a mobile meth lab inside. He seizes the meth lab materials as evidence and arrests Mr. E on manufacture charges. He does not find any evidence of the stolen television.

Is Officer Dingus's seizure of the meth lab allowed? Why or why not?

You are stopped and arrested for driving while intoxicated. As Officer Snax is cuffing you, he begins asking you where you were drinking, how much you had to drink, why you chose to drive, and other questions. What has Officer Snax failed to do?

A group is holding a protest outside your local city hall. One person stands on a podium, encouraging the others to use force to enter city hall. Several of the people in attendance are carrying blunt or sharp objects, and the crowd is cheering and pushing toward the doors. Is the speech of the person on the podium protected under the First Amendment?

What level of scrutiny would you apply to a case concerning national origin issues?

Assume Bill has been found to meet all of the requirements for the commission of the crime and is charged. If Bill pleads guilty, what would be his best justification(s) or excuse(s) for committing the crime of trespass?