Duke Moot Court
Case Prompt 2013
P.C. vs. State of Olympus
Scrava School of Health Sciences and Engineering is a public high school located in the state of Olympus
with a student body of approximately 2,500 students. Over the past few years, an increasingly alarming
number of students at Scrava have been caught engaging in marijuana use and sale on campus. In 2012,
Principal Lyons instituted a number of preventive measures to counteract this trend, and additionally
began cracking down on drug possession on campus. Students began seeing more and more sweeps by
school administrators with trained drug-sniffing dogs, as well as regular bookbag checks.
As a result, drug use on campus sharply decreased on the whole. Unfortunately, there were several
students who responded in the opposite manner, turning to more clever means to hide drugs on campus
and conduct illicit transactions. To facilitate their efforts, these students formed a Facebook group, which
in total accumulated about 30 members.
In the Facebook group, students made posts offering to either buy or sell illicit substances, which were
most commonly marijuana. The group was created and maintained as a secret group, meaning that the
existence of the group, its membership, and its contents were private to its members, and the only way to
gain access to the group was by invitation from an existing member.
On October 24th, 2012, Principal Lyons received an anonymous tip that Peter Cruman, a current junior at
Scrava, had posted in the Facebook group that he would be conducting a few sales on campus after school
that day. The school resource officer (SRO) pulled Cruman out of class and escorted him to the
administrative office to be questioned by the principal regarding his planned drug deals. Prior to receiving
the anonymous tip, the existence of the group was not known to school administrators, and aside from
Principal Lyons, none of the other school administrators maintained active Facebook accounts.
Initially, Cruman denied both involvement with the Facebook group and plans to conduct drug deals on
that day. When the principal requested that he log onto his Facebook account on the principal’s computer,
Cruman refused to do so. However, after two and a half hours of questioning, Cruman finally acquiesced
to the principal’s persistent requests and logged in using a nearby computer, thus allowing the principal to
see the contents of his profile and his posts.
Once logged in, Principal Lyons found the Facebook group, where he saw the incriminating posts
indicated by the anonymous tip. Cruman then admitted to dealing drugs, and hand-wrote and signed a
confession which was turned over to the school. Cruman also led both the Principal and the SRO to a
location on school grounds outside the building where he had hidden marijuana. The school later referred
the case to law enforcement, and Cruman was formally charged.
1
The SRO did not assist Principal Lyons in questioning Cruman, nor did the Vice Principal or any other
school official. At no point did Cruman attempt to leave the principal’s office. In addition, Cruman’s
parents were not called until after his questioning and subsequent confession.
During his trial, Cruman moved to have both his confession and the evidence acquired from the Facebook
group suppressed. Cruman argued that his statements under questioning and subsequent confession were
inadmissible as a violation of the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment because he was not
read his Miranda rights by the principal. Additionally, Cruman argued that his online posts were found as
the result of an unlawful search, and were thus invalid under the exclusionary principle. Nonetheless, the
court allowed the admission of all of the above as evidence, and Cruman was convicted and sentenced.
Upon appeal, both the Olympus State Court of Appeals and Supreme Court upheld this ruling. Cruman
finally appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which granted certiorari.
Issues


Whether Cruman’s Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure were violated
when the principal compelled him to relinquish access to his Facebook account.
Whether Cruman’s Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination were violated when the
principal questioned him and procured his confession.
Cases
Students may use the following cases, and no others, in their arguments:

















367 U.S. 643 (1961) – Mapp v. Ohio
385 U.S. 293 (1966) – Hoffa v. United States
469 U.S. 325 (1985) – New Jersey v. T.L.O.
425 F.Supp.2d 622 (2006) – Klump v. Nazareth Area School District
557 U.S. 364 (2009) – Safford Unified School District v. Redding
91 Cal.Rptr.3d 858 (2009) – Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc
631 F.3d 266 (2010) – United States v. Warshak
2010 WL 4394059 (2010) – J.W. v. Desoto County School District
384 U.S. 436 (1966) – Miranda v. Arizona
387 U.S. 1 (1967) – In re Gault
597 N.E.2d 1363 (1992) – Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Snyder
284 N.J.Super 654 (1995) – State of New Jersey v. Biancamano
948 P.2d 166 (1997) – State of Idaho v. Doe
541 U.S. 652 (2004) – Yarborough v. Alvarado
612 S.E.2d 804 (2005) – Dillard v. State of Georgia
245 S.W.3d 356 (2006) – R.D.S. v. State of Tennessee
564 U.S. ___ (2011) – J.D.B. v. North Carolina
2
Appendix I
Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Appendix II
Facebook Description of Levels of Group Security:
Secret: Only members see the group, who’s in it, and what members post.
Closed: Anyone can see the group and who’s in it. Only members see posts.
Open (public): Anyone can see the group, who’s in it, and what members post.
3