"Write a two-page paper analyzing the fact pattern presented below. Please use federal law or your own state law. Your analysis should include application of the topics covered during the past seven weeks. For example, search and seizure, search warrants, execution of warrants, exceptions to the warrant requirement, exclusionary rule, Miranda rights, and the right against self-incrimination. Do not restate the facts in your paper, but rather identify the issues, analyze, and provide your legal reasoning. Ensure your citations are in APA or Bluebook format." Chris is a police officer with the local Centerville Police Department. She is in plain clothes and knocked on the front door of Steve’s house and asked if she could enter to enforce a valid warrant. The warrant was a search warrant issued by Judge Wells from the Centerville District Court. Judge Wells is a retired state police trooper from the state police barracks in Centerville. The warrant indicated that "the first floor of Steve's house will be searched for a gun used in connection with a robbery and jewelry, which was stolen." While searching the first floor of Steve's house, Officer Chris smelled what she thought was gun powder emanating from the second floor. Officer Chris immediately walked upstairs and found a gun at the tops of the stairs. She went to confiscate the gun and while doing so noticed a note attached to the gun with an address on it. The address was a known location for stolen jewelry to be pawned. During the search, Steve told Officer Chris that, "I do not know what you are here for, because I did not rob Grubb's jewelry store." Officer Chris asked Steve to go to the police station and Steve agreed. As they walked into the police station, Judge Wells yelled, "is that the person who robbed Grubb's jewelry store?" Steve replied, "I told Officer Chris already, I did not rob Grubb's jewelry store."