"We the Students"
National High School
Moot Court Competition

General Information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JASON CAVE
Case No. 6869-13
Last year's problem involved the search of a common area in a college dormitory suite by a maintenance man who was lawfully in the suite making repairs. After finishing the repairs, the maintenance man noticed drug paraphernalia lying on a coffee table. The maintenance man continued to look around the common area, and noticed an open trunk with the name "Cave" painted on the side. Inside the trunk he found several baggies of marijuana and large amounts of cash. The maintenance confiscated over 5 grams of marijuana from the common room. Immediately, he called a campus security officer and informed the officer of the discovery. The police arrested and charged Mr. Cave with possession with intent to distribute under North Carolina state statute section 90-95(a). Jason Cave challenged the search by the maintenance man as a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

Judges for the Final Round
Judge Don Ivers
US Court of Appeals
Veterans Claims

Judge Savanna Little
Administrative Law Judge

Judge Steven Johnson
Montgomery County District Court

(Biographies are included in your registration packets.)

Registration Information

Information for the 2005 Competition will be available soon, please check back again!

  • Registration Form
  • Competition Bylaws 2004-2005
  • Local Hotel Rates
  • 2005 Teams
  • Tournament Schedule
  • Directions to WCL

Sample Documents from 2004 Competition

  1. Order
  2. Record
    Please feel free to view last year's briefs
  3. Appellant's Brief
  4. Appellee's Brief
  5. Case Briefs for Appellant
    Clarification on the Rhodes case: In this case, the court recognized that items in a trash can near a home WERE within the "curtilage" of the home, i.e. the area closely surrounding the home. The "curtilage" of a home is protected by the Fourth Amendment because society recognizes that persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area surrounding their home. Therefore, state actors need a warrant to search items within the curtilage. (The case summary notes that the defendant's motion to suppress was denied, even though the trash can was within the curtilage of the home. The summary should have indicated that the motion to suppress was denied on other grounds.)
  6. Case Briefs for Appellee
    Diagram of Lloyd Hall
    Clarification regarding the diagram: Assume that Lloyd hall is laid out like a set of condominiums where each condo has one common room and a set of suites on one floor and another common room and a set of suites on the second floor. Each condo is freestanding--i.e. the walls are not shared with the adjoining condo. Therefore, with this set-up, 72E would/could have a window.
  7. Competition Scoresheet

Listen to Oral Arguments in the Supreme Court

Search the Oyez.org website for audio of Supreme Court arguments. Type "fourth amendment" into the search box to find cases dealing with Fourth Amendment issues.

Additional Resources


2004 Competition Results

Click here for the 2004 competition results.