What will be the court’s decision on the warrant challenge? What is the court’s thinking and discussion in making its decision?


Question 1

First Amendment

A large farm called Green Love Ranch in Texas, was a huge producer of organic garden vegetables. They sold most of their produce to Whole Foods, Sprouts independent organic food stores, and food cooperatives. Marketing data showed that consumers that purchased food at these stories were very earth friendly, environmentally conscious, and human rights oriented.

In 2012, Green Love Ranch ran a full page advertisement in the New York Times, stating that they were dedicated to fair and decent treatment of their farm workers. The ad stated that they provided quality housing for their permanent workers and maintained clean, safe, and air conditioned housing for their seasonal workers. The ad stated that Green Love provided limited healthcare and childcare for all their workers and an accredited elementary school was maintained at the farm. Even more, the ad stated that Green Farm paid fair wages and they only hired persons who could legally work in the United States. Green Love sent letters containing this same information to all of their wholesale distributors and to the CEOs of the stores where they provided produce.

In 2017, the U.S. Immigration Services raided the housing facilities at Green Love Ranch and found that the workers were living in squalid conditions. Many small children were working in the field along side their parents and there was no elementary school for them to attend. There were healthcare and sanitation issues among half of the workers and their families, and a fourth of the workers did not have legal work permits. Finally, it was discovered that Green Love had not paid their workers the minimum wage that they had advertised. Documents and testimony established that these conditions had existed for the past ten years.

Sierra Miller, a resident of California, who shopped at Whole Foods in Vallejo, filed a suit against Green Love in California, alleging that it made false and misleading statements because of its negligence and carelessness and “with knowledge or reckless disregard” of the laws of California prohibiting false and misleading statements. Ms. Miller filed the suit on behalf of all of the citizens of the state, who had bought Green Love produce because they believed the farm to be a good and fair employer.

How will the court decide this case? What factors will it consider in making its decision?

Question 2

Intentional Tort

Emily Watts, who lives in Alaska, had an idea several years ago. The people would get tired of cooking and would soon try to find ways to stop cooking at home. However, everyone would still want good food without going to restaurants. They could not afford that every day. She came up with the idea to start a blog on how to eat healthy but do very little cooking. She wanted to free people of the task of cooking as much as possible. She obtained a domain name of “MeCookNoMo.com”.

Mr. Spoon had a large grocery store chain in Florida, and would search the web for blogs about food. He liked the idea of MeCookNoMo.com and had his attorneys contact the registrar of domain names which was called Connected Life, Inc. When he found out that Ms. Watts owned the name, he wrote a letter to Connected Life, in which he stated that he was Ms. Watts’ uncle who had bought the name from her and just needed to get the registration changed. He even created a false contract of sale and forged a signature for Ms. Watts. Connected Life just transferred the domain to Mr. Spoon without getting in contact with Ms. Watts.

Three years passed until Ms. Watts blog followers emailed her and told her that a store in Florida was making a lot of money with “MeCookNoMo” readymade meals using instructions and ideas from the website, MeCookNoMo.com. Ms. Watts sued Mr. Spoon, who quickly declared bankruptcy and left the country. So now she is suing Connected Life for conversion of her property in the domain name.

How will the court decide this case and what issues will it discuss?

Question 3

Criminal Law

Ms. Cauliflower lived in a small community just outside of Houston which had mostly older retired residents. The neighbors were very nosy and watched everything that went on at other people’s houses. Ms. Cauliflower had eye disease and worked only part time. She liked to listen to a podcast about how the federal government did not have the right to deny citizens their right to regulate medications. The podcast preached that citizens had a right to create their own medicine and to use these medicines for their diseases.

On October 31st, Agent Batwing waited until about 7:00 p.m. and sat in a truck with a thermal-imaging device across the street from Mr. Cauliflower’s house. He looked like a parent who was watching his child Trick or Treat. He had obtained a warrant to search Mr. Cauliflower’s house based on information from two of the neighbors. They said that groups of blind looking people would stumble out of Ms. Cauliflower’s house every Wednesday. They also said that she had too many strange friends coming and going.

The house scan showed that there was a lot of heat in an upstairs den and Agent Batwing concluded that Ms. Cauliflower was growing marijuana with halide lights. Ms. Cauliflower was arrested for manufacturing marijuana. As part of her defense, she is alleging that the search of her home was illegal and a violation of her fourth amendment rights. She also alleges that she uses the marijuana to treat her eye disease and gives it to other partially blind people to treat their eyes. She also declared that she believes that the government does not have the right to regulate her growing marijuana for the purpose of medicating herself.

What will be the court’s decision on the warrant challenge? What is the court’s thinking and discussion in making its decision? What will be the court’s decision on whether Ms. Cauliflower had the mens rea or criminal intent when she grew her plants? What will be the court’s discussion in making its decision?