a. What two elements must exist before a person can be held liable for a crime?
b. What defenses might be raised by criminal defendants to avoid liability for criminal acts?

c. John Law, a local police officer, is sitting outside an AM/PM around Midnight. He is eating a protein bar and drinking an energy drink when he observed a man walking up to the entrance of the AM/PM. The man then walked away from the entrance and met up with another individual on a street corner while repeatedly walking up and down the same street. The men would periodically peer into the AM/PM window and then talk some more. The men also spoke to a third man whom they eventually followed up the street. The officer believed that the men were "casing" the store for a potential robbery. The officer decided to approach the men for questioning, and given the nature of the behavior the officer decided to perform a quick search of the men before questioning. A quick frisking of one of the men, Jake, produced a concealed weapon and Jake was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, a felony.

Jake, hires a lawyer and fights the charges against him. He believes that his greatest argument is that the officer did not have probably cause to search and seize the firearm. Do you agree or disagree? Within your answer, please discuss whether the search was lawful or unlawful. In other words, did the search violate Jake’s 4th Amendment rights?

C officer john law had a good and enough cause to search Jake and seize his firearm since his movement was suspicious. It was midnight and he was about a shop in a strange manner and he was even talking to someone else. Such actions is enough to get an officer at alert. It seemed like jake and the man were planning on how to commit a crime. A search on the man even revealed a weapon. 4th amendment gives a protection to peoples privacy and immunity from unnecessary search and seizures. But the amendment does not say a probable cause like the officer had done was illegal. This search was reasonable and very legal. Jakes rights were not violated.