AMP Crim Pro: Arrest, Search & Seizure

Under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement, which of the following is not required? A The police must have inadvertently discovered the item. B The item must be evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of a crime. C The police must be legitimately on the premises where the item is found. D It must be immediately apparent that the item is evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of a crime.

A. For the warrantless seizure of an item under the plain view exception, it is not required that the item be inadvertently discovered. Formerly, this exception to the warrant requirement applied only if the item was inadvertently discovered. Inadvertence, however, is no longer a requirement. To make a warrantless seizure, the police (1) must be legitimately on the premises where the item is found; (2) the item must be evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of a crime; (3) the item must be in plain view; and (4) it must be immediately apparent (i.e., probable cause) that the item is evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of a crime.

Which of the following statements is not correct concerning border searches for illegal aliens? A A roving patrol inside the U.S. border may conduct a warrantless search of an automobile if the officer reasonably suspects that the automobile may contain illegal aliens. B A roving patrol inside the U.S. border may stop an automobile for questioning of the occupants if the officer reasonably suspects that the automobile may contain illegal aliens. C Border officials may stop an automobile at a fixed checkpoint at the U.S. border for questioning of the occupants even without a reasonable suspicion that the automobile contains illegal aliens.

A. It is not correct that a roving patrol inside the U.S. border may conduct a warrantless search of an automobile. If the search is not at the border or its functional equivalent, government agents may not perform a warrantless search absent an exception to the warrant requirement (e.g., consent). It is correct that a border search may be made at the functional equivalent of the border, such as where several routes leading directly to the border merge. Border officials may stop an automobile at a fixed checkpoint at the U.S. border for questioning of the occupants even without a reasonable suspicion that the automobile contains illegal aliens. Officials may even disassemble stopped vehicles at such checkpoints, even without reasonable suspicion. There is a diminished expectation of privacy at the border and its functional equivalent due to interests of national sovereignty. Searches there do not require a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion. It is true that a roving patrol inside the U.S. border may stop an automobile for questioning of the occupants if the officer reasonably suspects that the automobile may contain illegal aliens. This is a just an application of Terry v. Ohio: A police officer may stop a vehicle when he has articulable reasonable suspicion that a law has been broken. Note, however, that the apparent Mexican ancestry of the automobile's occupants alone is not enough to constitute reasonable suspicion.

The Fourth Amendment generally protects only against governmental conduct and not against searches by private persons. For purposes of this rule, governmental actors include: A Both public police and private citizens acting at their behest B Public police and private law enforcement officials, such as security guards C Public police only D Public police and private citizens who observe a suspected crime and decide to make a citizen's arrest

A. The Fourth Amendment generally protects only against governmental conduct and not against searches by private persons. Government agents here include only the public police and those citizens acting at their direction or behest. The choice indicating that the Fourth Amendment is limited to public police only is too narrow: First, it applies to all governmental searches and seizures and not just those by the public police. Second, it can extend to private individuals who are acting at the behest of the government. The choice indicating that the Fourth Amendment applies to private citizens who observe a suspected crime and decide to make a citizen's arrest is incorrect. Such citizens are not acting at the direction and behest of the government; they are still acting of their own accord, and their conduct will not constitute government action. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment search and seizure limitations do not apply to them. The choice indicating that the Fourth Amendment applies to private law enforcement officials, such as security guards is incorrect for the same reasons as are stated immediately above—their action is not governmental action.

The exclusionary rule __________ when the police arrest or search someone __________. A Does not apply; erroneously but in good faith B Applies; erroneously but in good faith C Does not apply; in bad faith

A. The exclusionary rule does not apply when the police arrest or search someone erroneously but in good faith, thinking that they are acting pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, search warrant, or law. The exclusionary rule is a judge-made doctrine that prohibits the introduction, at a criminal trial, of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment rights. The rationale for the exception is that one of the main purposes of the exclusionary rule is to deter improper police conduct, and this purpose cannot be served where police are acting in good faith.

Which of the following is true about public school searches conducted on school grounds? A They must offer at least a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing B They do not implicate the Fourth Amendment as long as they are limited to students C They must be based on probable cause

A. The following are requirements for public school searches: (i) The search must offer at least a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing; (ii) The measures adopted to carry out the search must be reasonably related to the objectives of the search; and (iii) The search must not be excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and nature of the infraction (e.g., no strip search of freshman girls to look for a few aspirin). The searches clearly do implicate the Fourth Amendment. However, the standards are lower than ordinary searches; they need not be based on probable cause. The Supreme Court has relaxed the search standard for schools because of the nature of the environment.

Which of the following statements is true regarding warrantless arrests in public places? A A police officer may make a warrantless misdemeanor arrest when she has reasonable grounds to believe that a misdemeanor has been committed and that the person before her committed it. B A police officer may make a warrantless felony arrest when she has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and that the person before her committed it. C They are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. D A warrantless arrest may be made for a misdemeanor, but not for a felony.

B. A police officer may make a warrantless felony arrest in a public place when she has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and that the person before her committed it. This is a rule that must be committed to memory. Accordingly, the choices indicating that a warrantless arrest cannot be made for a felony and that all warrantless arrests are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment are untrue. Finally, it is untrue that a police officer may make a warrantless misdemeanor arrest when she has reasonable grounds to believe that a misdemeanor has been committed and that the person before her committed it. Rather, in most states, a police officer may make a misdemeanor arrest only if the misdemeanor is committed in her presence.

May a police officer constitutionally stop an automobile for violation of a traffic law with the actual goal of investigating a crime for which the officer lacks reasonable suspicion to justify the stop? A No, because the Supreme Court has found such pretextual stops to be unconstitutional. B Yes, as long as the officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic law has been broken. C No. D Yes.

B. A police officer may stop an automobile if the officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic law has been broken. The fact that the officer subjectively wants to investigate another crime for which the officer lacks reasonable suspicion to justify a stop does not matter. The officer may make the traffic stop, and if the officer sees anything that gives rise to reasonable suspicion for the other crime, the officer then may investigate that crime. The Supreme Court has NOT found such pretextual stops to be unconstitutional.

An immigration officer may: A Search a vehicle while on a roving patrol away from the border based on reasonable suspicion that the automobile contains contraband B Search a vehicle at the border for illegal aliens or contraband even absent reasonable suspicion C Stop a vehicle while on a roving patrol away from the border to look for illegal aliens only if the officer has probable cause

B. An immigration officer may search a vehicle at the border for illegal aliens even absent reasonable suspicion. There is a diminished expectation of privacy at the border and its functional equivalent due to interests of national sovereignty. Searches there do not require a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion. An immigration officer may stop a vehicle while on a roving patrol away from the border on LESS than probable cause; it is sufficient if the officer reasonably suspects that the automobile contains illegal aliens. An immigration officer may NOT search a vehicle while on a roving patrol away from the border based on reasonable suspicion. While a stop can be based on reasonable suspicion, a search cannot be conducted unless one of the warrantless search exceptions applies (e.g., probable cause to believe the automobile contains evidence or contraband, consent, etc.).

In which of the following situations is a police officer's reliance on a defective search warrant most likely to be found to be in good faith? A If a court later finds that the officer who obtained the warrant lied to or misled the magistrate B If a court later finds that, while there was some evidence of probable cause, on balance, there wasn't quite enough to justify issuance by the magistrate C If a court later finds that the warrant was defective on its face, despite the magistrate's issuance of the warrant D If a court later finds that the warrant was obviously lacking in probable cause, despite the magistrate's issuance of the warrant

B. Of the scenarios presented, a court is most likely to find good faith and not apply the exclusionary rule if court later finds that, while there was some evidence of probable cause, on balance, there wasn't quite enough to justify issuance by the magistrate. The exclusionary rule is a judge-made rule providing that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment generally may not be admitted into evidence at trial. An exception is available in cases in which evidence was obtained by executing a defective search warrant if the police officers relied on the defective search warrant in good faith. This is most likely the case if a court later finds, on balance, that there was not quite enough showing of probable cause to justify issuance of the warrant by the magistrate. If a court later finds that the warrant was obviously lacking in probable cause, it becomes hard to believe that the officer was acting in good faith. Therefore, the court will not apply the good faith exception. Similarly, if a court later finds that the warrant was defective on its face, it again is hard to believe that the officer executing the warrant was acting in good faith. So again, the court will not apply the exception in such a case. Finally, if a court later finds that the officer who obtained the warrant lied to or misled the issuing magistrate, the exception will not be applied for lack of good faith from the start.

If a defendant is convicted at a trial in which unlawfully obtained evidence was admitted, on appeal, the conviction will be: A Upheld unless the defendant can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the error was not harmless B Upheld if the government can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the error was harmless C Upheld only if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless D Upheld unless the defendant can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was not harmless

B. The conviction will be upheld if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless. A conviction will not necessarily be overturned merely because improperly obtained evidence was admitted at trial; the harmless error test applies, and a conviction can be upheld if the conviction would have resulted despite the improper evidence. In other words, the conviction will stand if the government can prove that the erroneously admitted evidence likely did not have any effect on the conviction. A preponderance of the evidence is a more lenient standard than the required reasonable doubt standard. The choices placing a burden on the defendant both are incorrect; the burden is on the government.

Although government-required drug testing constitutes a search, the Supreme Court has upheld such testing without a warrant, probable cause, or even individualized suspicion when justified by "special needs" beyond a general interest of law enforcement. In which of the following cases is a court least likely to find a special need justifying a warrantless drug test? A Railroad employees involved in accidents. B Drug interdiction agents who have access to large quantities of illegal drugs. C Politicians running for public office. D Public school students participating in extracurricular activities.

C. The Supreme Court found no special interest justifying the warrantless drug testing of politicians running for public office. The Supreme Court has found a special interest justifying warrantless drug testing of public school students participating in extracurricular activities—the need being to assure the safety of students. The Court has also found a special interest for warrantless drug testing of railroad employees involved in accidents—the strong interest of assuring public safety. Finally, the Court has found a special interest justifying the warrantless drug testing of drug interdiction agents—their ready access to drugs.

What standard must the police meet in order to seize a person for investigatory purposes? A The police may not seize a person for investigatory purposes absent probable cause to arrest B The police may not seize a person for investigatory purposes unless they have at least reasonable suspicion to investigate based on articulable facts C The police may not seize a person for investigatory purposes absent probable cause to investigate D The police may seize a person for investigatory purposes as long as they have at least a scintilla of suspicion

B. The statement that the police may not seize a person for investigatory purposes unless they have at least reasonable suspicion to investigate based on articulable facts reflects the correct standard for making an investigatory seizure, also known as a Terry stop. Such stops should be brief and for no longer than necessary to verify or refute the officer's suspicion. Reasonable suspicion requires less than probable cause, but more than a vague notion or gut feeling. The suspicion can be based on personal observation, reliable tips, police flyers, a bulletin, or the like. Whether the standard is met is judged under the totality of the circumstances. The choices indicating that the police may not seize a person for investigatory purposes absent probable cause are both incorrect, because, as indicated above, probable cause is not required. Reasonable suspicion is sufficient. Moreover, the choice requiring probable cause to arrest also is incorrect because a Terry stop can be made for suspicion of criminal activity; investigatory stops are not limited to cases where the police already believe an arrest is warranted. It is not correct that the police may seize a person for investigatory purposes as long as they have at least a scintilla of suspicion, because a scintilla is a very small amount. The scintilla of proof standard is too little suspicion to satisfy the Fourth Amendment requirement that searches and seizures be reasonable. It is sometimes used as the standard for determining whether a case may be taken from a jury and decided on a motion for summary judgment (i.e., if there is a scintilla of evidence regarding a material issue, the case should not be taken from the jury).

If a police officer makes a traffic stop as a pretext to investigate some other crime for which the officer lacks probable cause: A The stop will be valid because people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their automobiles B The stop will be valid if the officer had probable cause to make the traffic stop C The stop will be invalid as the fruit of the poisonous tree D The stop will be invalid because the officer lacked the good faith necessary to make a warrantless search

B. The stop will be valid if the officer had probable cause to make the traffic stop. A police officer may stop an automobile if the officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic law has been broken. The fact that the officer's underlying goal is to investigate another crime for which the officer lacks probable cause to investigate does not matter. The officer may make the traffic stop, and if the officer sees anything that gives rise to reasonable suspicion for the other crime, the officer then may investigate that crime. The Supreme Court has not found such pretextual stops to be unconstitutional. It is incorrect to state that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in an automobile. The Fourth Amendment protects people rather than places, and the courts have held that people do have a privacy interest (albeit a diminished one) when in their automobiles. It also is incorrect to state that the stop will be invalid as the fruit of the poisonous tree. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule. Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained by the police in violation of a person's Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment rights may be suppressed.

When is a warrantless arrest in an arrestee's home valid? A Never, a warrant always is required to arrest a person in a home B If the police have probable cause to believe that the arrestee committed a felony and may be found in the home C If the government can show exigent circumstances justifying the in-home warrantless arrest

C. All warrantless arrests in the arrestee's home are presumed invalid, but the presumption may be rebutted. For example, an arrest made in the arrestee's home is valid if the government can show exigent circumstances that justify the warrantless in-home arrest (e.g., they entered the home while it was on fire to look for people in need of help, they were in hot pursuit of the defendant when he entered the home, etc.) The rationale for the general rule is that under the Fourth Amendment all searches must be reasonable, and it generally is unreasonable for the police to barge into a person's home without a warrant. It is not true that a warrantless arrest may be made in a person's home if the police have probable cause to believe that the arrestee committed a felony and may be found in the home. Generally, mere probable cause is not enough; usually the police must obtain a warrant to make an in-home arrest. The choice indicating that warrantless arrests in a home are never valid is too broad to be true. As discussed above, an arrest made in the arrestee's home is valid if the government can show exigent circumstances that justify the warrantless in-home arrest. Also, if the arrest was made in the home of a third party, the arrestee might not even have a privacy interest in the home and so would lack standing to challenge the in-home arrest. (Of course, the owner of the home could challenge any seizure of incriminating evidence usable against the owner based on the warrantless entry.)

An immigration officer may search a vehicle for illegal aliens without probable cause for the search: A At the border or its functional equivalent and while on roving patrols away from the border B Nowhere, probable cause is required for a search to be valid under the Fourth Amendment C At the border or its functional equivalent only

C. An immigration officer may search a vehicle for illegal aliens without probable cause for the search at the border or its functional equivalent only. This is because there is a diminished expectation of privacy at the border and its functional equivalent due to interests of national sovereignty. Searches there do not require a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion. Thus, nowhere is an incorrect choice. Roving patrols away from the border are not as free to act—away from the border a government agent usually must have a warrant or probable cause to search a vehicle.

In which of the following does one have a reasonable expectation of privacy for Fourth Amendment purposes? A The sound of one's voice B The record of one's bank account C The feel of one's luggage D The smell of one's luggage

C. The Supreme Court has held that one does have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the feel of one's luggage. While one usually does not have a privacy interest in things held out to the public, the Court found that people generally do not hold their luggage out to the public to be squeezed. Thus, squeezing luggage to discern its contents constitutes a search. Interestingly, though, the Supreme Court has held that one does NOT have a privacy interest in the smell of one's luggage—the smell is held out to the public—so drug and bomb sniffing dogs can sniff away and this does not constitute a search. In addition to not having a privacy interest in the smell of one's luggage, the Supreme Court has held a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the following things held out to the public: (i) The sound of one's voice; (ii) Account records held by a bank; (iii) One's handwriting; (iv) The paint on the outside of one's car; and (v) Magazines one offers for sale.

Warrantless drug testing by government agencies is __________ permitted in the absence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion. A Never B Always C Sometimes

C. The Supreme Court has upheld warrantless drug testing without a warrant, probable cause, or even individualized suspicion when justified by "special needs" beyond a general interest of law enforcement. This is an exception to the general rule for searches and seizures. As a general rule, the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, for a search to be reasonable, it must be pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate and based on probable cause to believe that seizable evidence or fruits of a crime will be found in the place to be searched. The Supreme Court has found special needs justify, for example, warrantless drug testing of public school students participating in extracurricular activities—the need being to assure the safety of students. The Court has also found a special interest for warrantless drug testing of railroad employees involved in accidents because of the strong interest of assuring public safety. Finally, the Court has found a special interest justifying the warrantless drug testing of drug interdiction agents due to their ready access to drugs.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, for a search to be valid, it must be pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate and based on probable cause to believe that seizable evidence or fruits of a crime will be found on the premises to be searched. However, the Supreme Court has carved out a number of exceptions to this rule. Under the exception to the warrant requirement for searches incident to arrest, which of the following statements is true? A The exception applies only in cases of arrest for felonies. B If the arrest violates state law, the exception does not apply. C The exception applies after any constitutional arrest. D The exception applies only if the police fear for their safety.

C. The police may conduct a search incident to arrest after any constitutional arrest. A warrantless search can be conducted following an arrest that violates state law. The police may conduct a search incident to an arrest whenever they arrest a person, even if the arrest is invalid under state law, as long as the arrest was constitutionally valid (e.g., reasonable and based on probable cause). It is not necessary that the police fear for their safety for a warrantless search to be conducted following an arrest. The police need not actually fear for their safety or believe that they will find evidence of a crime as long as the suspect is placed under arrest. It is not true that the exception applies only in the case of felony arrests. As discussed above, the exception applies after any lawful arrest.

Can a passenger in an automobile that was unlawfully stopped raise the unlawful stop in an attempt to suppress admission of evidence found on the passenger? A No, because only the driver may assert that he was unlawfully stopped. B No. C Yes, but only if the passenger owned the automobile. D Yes, because the stop was a seizure of the passenger as well as the driver.

D. A passenger can raise an unlawful stop because the stop is a seizure of the passenger as well as the driver. As a general rule, a person cannot raise a violation of another person's constitutional rights at a suppression hearing; evidence will be suppressed under the exclusionary rule (prohibiting the admission of evidence obtained by the police in violation of a person's Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment rights) only by the person whose rights have been violated. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A stop is a seizure of a person. And when the police stop an automobile, they stop and seize not only the driver, but any passenger as well. Therefore, a passenger may raise a claim that evidence should be suppressed if it was derived from an unlawful stop of an automobile in which the passenger was riding. The passenger can raise the unlawful stop regardless of whether the passenger owned the automobile. Anyone riding in an automobile has an interest in not being unlawfully stopped by the police.

There is an exception to the warrant requirement for searches incident to arrest. While the exception is based in part on the safety of police officers, the arresting officer need not fear for his safety before conducting the search. In certain circumstances, the search may extend beyond the arrestee's person. In which of the following circumstances is the search after arrest not valid without a search warrant or other facts justifying the search? A A police officer searches areas within the arrestee's reach at the time of arrest and discovers a bag of illegal drugs in a nearby kitchen cabinet. B A police officer followed one of two armed bank robbers to the robber's home, arrested him, performed a protective sweep of the entire home to ensure the other robber was not there, and found evidence of the robbery in plain view in a closet. C A police officer arrests a person on domestic battery charges just outside his home, allows the person to reenter to get a pack of cigarettes, accompanies him, searches the drawer in which the person reached for the cigarettes, and finds a vial of crack cocaine. D A police officer searches the interior of the arrestee's car after he was stopped for driving without a license and placed within a squad car.

D. A search of the interior of an automobile incident to arrest may be performed only if the arrestee is not secured or if the police have reasonable suspicion that the automobile harbors evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made. Under the facts here, neither of the qualifying circumstances is present. Therefore, the warrantless search exception for searches incident to arrest does not apply and the search was invalid under the Fourth Amendment. The search within the arrestee's reach at the time of arrest (also known as the arrestee's wingspan or grab area) is valid. A search incident to arrest can extend to areas within the arrestee's reach. Moreover, even though the exception is for the protection of police officers, the officer need not have reason to believe that weapons, evidence, or contraband will be found in the area searched, as long as it is within the arrestee's immediate reach. The search of the drawer also is valid. This is an application of the above rule that officers may search not only the arrestee's person, but also his wingspan. An arrestee's wingspan moves as the arrestee moves. The protective sweep within the armed bank robber's home also is valid. A search incident to arrest can include a protective sweep of the premises in which the person was arrested if the arresting officer has reason to believe that accomplices may be present. Here, the arresting officer knew that two armed people had just robbed a bank. He could reasonably fear that the other robber was in the home to which he followed the arrestee.