Crim Pro Final Exam Questions
Which best describes the legal consequences when police fail to "knock and announce" when entering a residence to execute a search warrant?
Evidence obtained in violation of the knock and announce will generally not result in the exclusion of such evidence
Officer Dan stops a vehicle for speeding. In the course of checking license and registrations and completing the citation for speeding, he develops reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause to suspect the driver of transporting drugs. He radios the station to request a dog sniffing dog, but the department's dog is out on a training exercise. A call is put in to the trainer - who transports the dog to the scene of the traffic stop, which takes about 30 minutes, much longer than if the dog had been at the station. Did the detention of the driver exceed the permissible scope of a Terry detention? [CALI]
Probably. the delay in this case cannot be attributed to the suspect but is due to the difficulty in summoning the drug sniffing dog.
Based on the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, which of the following most accurately describes the test for when an individual has been seized for fourth amendment purposes?
A person is seized if, in the view of all circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave, or to terminate the encounter, or to refuse to answer the officer's questions.
Which of the following statement(s) are incorrect regarding Fourth Amendment jurisprudence?
Although the fourth amendment mandates a warrant for searches and seizures, it specifically provides an exception for "exigent" situations that have been defined to include stop and frisks
Two police officers stopped a car for improperly proceeding through a red light. When one of the cops approached car - he observed some hand rolled cigs on the dashboard. He ordered the driver out of the car and examined cigs and determined they were joints of marijuana. The officer than arrested the driver guarded him in the back of the police cruiser while the second officer searched the entire car, including the trunk. In the trunk, he found two rare paintings that had recently been stolen from the city's art museum. The Driver was charged with possession of stolen goods and brought a motion to suppress the introduction of the paintings into evidence. If the driver's motion is denied, it will be because the second office conducted a proper:
Automobile search
Suppose, for example, that Drug Enforcement (DEA) agent Edgar Morals is working near the gates (in other words past security) inside the terminal of Denver's airport. Morales spots a known drug dealer (Jennifer Jenkins) who is sitting in the waiting area preparing to board a flight to Miami (a "source city" for drugs). Based on his prior knowledge of Jenkin's convictions and activities Morales suspects that Jenkins is flying to Miami in order to purchase narcotics for the resale on the streets. Which of the following statements regarding Morales' ability to subject Jenkins to a stop and frisk are valid? A) Under the circumstances, Officer Morales legitimately concluded that criminal activity is afoot and that Jenkins is both armed and dangerous B) Officer Morales had a reasonable suspicion that Jenkins was involved in criminal activity C) Whether or not Officer Morales could legitimately conclude that Jenkins was involved in criminal activity, he had no basis for concluding that she was armed and dangerous D) All the above E) B & C only
B & C only
Suppose that police officer Robinson conducts a valid stop and frisk of suspects who the thinks are about to rob a bank. During the frisk, Officer Robinson does not turn up a weapon. However, he does feel a cellophane package which strikes him as "suspicious". However, because the frisk involves only a pat down of the suspect's outer clothing, Officer Robinson cannot actually see the cellophane package. In an effort to find out what the package contains, Officer Robinson slides the cellophane package (which is still inside the pocket) between his fingers. Based on his manipulation, Officer Robinson concludes that the package contains cocaine and arrests the suspect. Did Officer Robinson act properly in sliding the cellophane package between his fingers?
Because the purpose of the stop and frisk is to pat down the outside of a suspect's clothing in search for weapons, a police officer may not slide or manipulate suspicious items that he/she happens to notice during the course of the pat-down
Several students at a public high school told a teacher that a fellow student was selling drugs to other students at school. The accused student was called into the principal's office and informed of the accusation. The student denied everything but the principal grabbed the students purse, which was on top of his desk and opened it. He removed 5 small transparent plastic bags each had white powder, and immediately called the police. The police arrested the student and conducted tests confirming that the white powder was cocaine. The student was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell. At her trial, the state planned to introduce the bags and their contents into evidence. The student's attorney moved to suppress the evidence. The motion should be.
Denied because the principal had a reasonable suspicion that the student was selling drugs
A police officer witnessed a bar patron exit the bar with an open bottle in his hand, get into a car and turn the wrong way from the bar's parking lot onto a one-way street. The officer immediately turned on his siren and pursued the car for a couple of miles. During this pursuit, the car repeatedly weaved in and out of its traffic lane. Eventually, the car pulled over and the officer placed him under arrest for drunk driving. After handcuffing the driver and placing him in the back seat of the cop car, the officer looked under a blanket lying on the floor of the car's passenger compartment. Under the blanket, he found an open bottle of beer. Before his trial on charges of drunk driving and driving with an open container of alcohol in the car, the defendant moves to suppress from evidence the open bottle of beer. Motion should be:
Denied, because the officer has reason to believe that the car contained evidence of the crime for which the defendant was arrested
An undercover agent for DEA informed state law enforcement that cocaine was being mailed to a resident of that state. The cocaine would be mailed in a large box and wrapped distinctively. The agent further informed the agency that the resident was not the purchaser but was only acting as an intermediary. The coke would be picked up within a few days by the buyer, who was from a neighboring state. The agency placed the resident's house under surveillance by the post office. The agency did not make an arrest but kept the house under surveillance. Two days later, a man driving a car with plates from a neighboring state arrived at the house. He entered the house and came back out shortly carrying what appeared to be the same box. The suspect placed the box in the trunk of his car and drove off. Two blocks later, the car was stopped, the suspect arrested, and officers for the agency searched the entire vehicle acting without a warrant. The box in the trunk was opened and cocaine was found. The suspect was charged with possession of cocaine. At a pretrial hearing, he moved to suppress the cocaine. The motion should be:
Denied, because the officers had probable cause to search the trunk
Officer Ron Cooper works a beat in a seedy section of Denver, Colorado, that is beset by crime, particularly the use of illegal drugs. Officer Cooper is regarded as a "crack detective" in terms of his ability to ferret out illegal drug traffic. About six weeks ago, James Harris, a known narcotics addict, went through various anti-substance abuse and drug rehabilitation programs. After coming out of the program, Harris moved to a house that helps recovering addicts adjust to society. One Saturday afternoon, Officer Cooper spots Harris "hanging out" with several known drug addicts. Cooper does not see Harris (or the others) with drugs, does not see anything pass between them. Nevertheless, because of Harris's history, as well as because of the people with which he is associating (known drug addicts), Cooper concludes that Harris is in possession of illegal narcotics, and Cooper is worried that Harris may be in possession of a weapon. Under these circumstances, Officer Cooper may subject Harris to a stop and frisk. True or False?
False
Two DEA agents approach Ted as he walks through the main concourse of union station in Washington, D.C., after disembarking from a train arriving from Miami, Florida. The agents identify themselves as federal agents and ask to see Ted's identification and train ticket. Ted produces a driver's license and a ticket issued in a different name. He explains the discrepancy statin "he just felt like using a different name". After asking a few questions about Ted's travel and informing Ted they are investigating possible narcotics smuggling, the officers return Ted's license and ticket and ask him to accompany them to the DEA office in the train station for further questioning. Based on these circumstances Ted has been seized. True or False?
False
At 3AM on the state turnpike, a driver was stop for driving 30 MPH over speed limit. Because of the speed at which she was traveling and because the driver possessed an out of state drivers license, the officer decided to place the driver under arrest and take her to the station house. Under the law, such an arrest is valid. At the time of the arrest, the officer searched the passenger area of the automobile, and under the front seat and found a small package containing what he immediately determined to be marijuana. If the driver is charged with possession of weed, her motion to suppress will most likely be:
Granted - because search was in area outside control of the arrestee
Federal narcotics officers suspected was growing weed in his greenhouse, which was connected to his house. The narcotics officers learned from an anonymous informant that the semi-opaque panes of glass on the greenhouse were being replaced during the night with a newer type of glass that let in more light without increased visibility. Without a warrant, the officers flew over the defendant's greenhouse in a helicopter that night. One of the officer's focused on the greenhouse with a pair of "night vision" thermal imaging binoculars supplied by the Dep't of Defense and not available to the general public. He determined that weed was being grown. The officers then went to a magistrate, swore out a warrant, and arrested the defendant. If the defendant moves to suppress any evidenced gathered by virtue of the flyover, the motion most likely will be:
Granted, because the "night-vison" binoculars were not available to the general public
Which best describes the source of the "knock and announce" requirement?
It was rule of common law and is constitutionally required as an element of reasonableness, that the police knock and announce their presence on entering a residence to execute a warrant
Officer Karl receives an anonymous tip that there has been an aggravated assault committed at the home of Betty and Ralph Hale. Karl does not know when the assault took place but he goes to the home to the Hale home investigate. Karl knocks on the door of the Hale home but no one answers. Although there are lights on, Karl cannot see inside. Karl knows aggravated assault cases are very serious. Out of concern for the seriousness of the offense, Officer Karl decides to skip getting a warrant. Karl forces his way into the house where he finds Ralph lying on the couch with a bloody metal pipe in his hand. Karl finds Betty upstairs tending to serious head wounds. Karl calls an ambulance that takes Betty to the hospital where she gets 14 stitches and is diagnosed with a severe concussion. Upon questioning both of them state that Ralph attacked Betsy. Subsequent DNA tests reveal that the blood on the pipe belongs to Betty. Karl arrests Ralph for aggravated assault. Ralph, in turn, moves to suppress the pipe and the statements as fruits of an illegal search. In a meeting with the Prosecutor Paul, Karl the cop states, "the search was constitutional." Is this accurate? [CALI]
No, Karl had no facts demonstrating such things as the imminent destruction of evidence, danger to the police or others, or the escape of a suspect
A man beat his live-in girlfriend and fled. The girlfriend called the police and told them about the beating. She also told the police the man likely fled to his best friend's house. The police quickly obtained a valid arrest warrant for the man and went to the friend's house a couple hours after the beating. On arriving, the police noticed that a car registered to the man was parked nearby. They knocked and the friend answered the door. The friend told the police that the man was not there. The police pushed past the friend and began searching for the man. They found the man hiding in a closet and arrested him. On searching the man after his arrest, police found cocaine in a small metal box in the man's pants pocket. The man was charged with assault and possession of coke. In a pretrial motion, the man moved to suppress coke, claiming that it was fruit of an unconditional arrest. Should the court grant motion?
No, because the police found coke after executing a valid arrest warrant
The sheriff's department received an anonymous tip that farmer was growing weed on rural property. Investigators flew low over the farmer's property in a small plane belonging to the sheriff's department and took aerial photographs of the property. Once developed, the photos indicated that the area in the center of the farmer's fields contained marijuana plants. That afternoon, four officers went to the perimeter of the farmer's property. Using wire cutters, they cut their way through the farmer's barbed wire fence and walked to the center of the field and found weed plants. The officers then obtained a warrant to search the farmer's house. On arrival, they produced the search warrant and searched the farmer's house, finding large quantities of weed packaged and ready for sale. The weed was seized and the farmer was charged with numerous drug offenses. Prior to trial, the farmer's attorney moves to suppress the evidence of the weed from the house. Should the weed seized from the farmer's house be suppressed?
No, because the police had probable cause to obtain a warrant
During a stop-over in FTL - two officers carrying firearms and wearing badges and "raid jackets" (light jackets with the officers dep't identified in large, bright letters) board the bus bound to Miami to Atlanta. The officers pick out a passenger and ask to inspect his ticket and identification. The ticket, from Miami to Atlanta, matches the passenger's identification and are both are immediately returned to him. However, the two police officers continue their interaction with the passenger and explain their presence as narcotics agents on the lookout for illegal drugs. They then request the passengers consent to search his luggage. Had he been seized? [CALI]
No. Even though a reasonable person in this situation may not have felt free to leave, a reasonable person would have felt free to decline the officers request or otherwise terminate the encounter.
Suppose that a police officer has "reasonable cause" to believe that an automobile driver is in violation of the law by driving with a burnt-out headlight at night. The officer pulls the driver over and cites him for "defective equipment." As the officer gives the driver his ticket, the officer asks the driver for permission to search the trunk. The driver refuses. Consider whether the following statements are INACCURATE.
Since an honest, law-abiding, citizen has nothing to hide, and would cooperate with the police, the driver's refusal to consent to the search gives the officer probable cause to search the trunk
The DEA knows that Dean has a kilo of cocaine in his house. Dean leaves his house for a walk while talking on his cellphone. Spotting the agents - who were trying to follow him surreptitiously, Dean runs toward the freeway and is chased by the agents. An agent heard Dean shout into his phone, "flush the coke!". The DEA agents still at Dean's house call you as the prosecutor on duty and ask if they can enter Dean's house without a warrant. Pick the best answer.
The DEA agents may enter and search the house under the destruction of evidence theory of exigent circumstances
Local police received an anonymous letter that contained statements that a married couple was engaged in drug trafficking and were storing large amounts of contraband in their basement. The letter did not say how the writer personally knew that there were drugs or where they were stored. The investigating detective drew an affidavit of probable cause based on the statements in the letter and presented the request for a search warrant and the affidavit to the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge signed a search warrant based on the affidavit. The police raided the home and found several pounds of cocaine in the basement. The defendants filed a motion to suppress the evidence based on insufficient cause to issue a warrant. The state courts rejected the suppression motion. What would the U.S. Supreme Court most likely decide?
The court would invalidate the warrant because there was insufficient info about that would support the credibility and personal knowledge of informant
Which of the following is true of 'Stop and Frisk'? [CALI] A) actions of a suspect that fit a drug courier profile constitute reasonable suspicion provided the profile does not include racial characteristics B) actions of the suspect that fit a drug courier profile constitute reasonable suspicion provided at least one factor describes ongoing criminal activity as opposed to mere personal characteristics C) The fact that the actions may fit factors set forth in a profile, does not, standing alone, demonstrate the existence of reasonable suspicion. The officer must articulate why the combination of factors is suggestive of criminal activity. D) If a substantial number of the factors in the profile are consistent with innocent behavior, the profile cannot be used to demonstrate reasonable suspicion E) All the above
The fact that the actions may fit factors set forth in a profile, does not, standing alone, demonstrate the existence of reasonable suspicion. The officer must articulate why the combination of factors is suggestive of criminal activity.
The police had an arrest warrant for Forest Ocean on an old meth case. The authorities also suspected Ocean of still making meth at his small house, although they had little evidence concerning any new crimes. A car registered one of Ocean's suspected associates was parked in front of the house. Shortly after Ocean was arrested near his front door, an officer heard noises coming from the rear. Suspecting other persons were there, 2 officers walked quickly through the house looking in closets, under beds, and in the shower. A third officer went through an open door and found a basement where he saw paraphernalia for making meth sitting out on a tabletop. The search ended in two minutes without the officers finding any other people. The noise had been a chattering bird. The drug paraphernalia the officer saw in the basement led to a search warrant and new charges. Was the search of the basement constitutional? [CALI]
The search was constitutional under the destruction of evidence theory of exigent circumstances
While the US Supreme Court has never precisely identified the quantum of suspicion or level of proof required to demonstrate probable cause, it has provided some indication about the level of certainty it is looking for. Which of the following most accurately describes the level of suspicion required to demonstrate probable cause?
There is a fair probability that the individual is involved in criminal activity or that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the place searched
A police detective received an anonymous call that weed was being grown in someone's home but no other details were given. She went to the home with an investigative team including a drug sniffing dog. On the front porch of the home the dog began pacing back and forth, which indicated smelling illegal drugs. The team retreated while some of them went to get a warrant. A warrant was issued based on the dog's behavior. The search inside revealed large amounts of weed. The homeowner was arrested. Through counsel, he filed a motion to suppress based on the assertion that the use of the dog was an illegal search without probable cause thus rendering the warrant invalid. Should the court suppress the evidence?
Yes, because the anonymous call was insufficient cause to allow for a search of the front porch with the dog, which made the warrant invalid- the suppression motion will be granted
A drug smuggler had just returned home after smuggling in a large quantity of cocaine in the false bottom of his suitcase. As he was about to leave his house again to deliver the cocaine to his contact in the city, a police officer arrived with a trained drug sniffing dog and asked him if he could come in and ask him some questions. The smuggler declined but the officer stepped into the doorway and the dog immediately caught the scent of the cocaine and pulled the officer toward the suitcase in the hallway. Based on the dog's clear indication that the suitcase contained narcotics, the police officer opened the suitcase and found the cocaine. The smuggler was then arrested and the cocaine and suitcase seized. At a pretrial hearing, should the judge grant the smuggler's motion to suppress evidence of the cocaine in the suitcase?
Yes, because the search and seizure required a warrant
Suppose an officer stops a vehicle based on reasonable suspicion that the driver is operating under a suspended license. (the officer ran the license plate number and it indicated that the owner of the car had a suspended license; the driver fits the description of the owner) The officer approaches the vehicle, orders the driver out of the car, and frisks him. [CALI] Was the frisk of the driver lawful?
Yes, but only if the driver has acted nervous or was fidgeting or the officer observed furtive movements by the driver or other facts that caused the officer to fear his safety
Dan and Jane Jones live together in a home they jointly own. Dan sells stolen computer equipment out of the house despite Jane's pleads for him to get a legitimate job. Fearing that the police were closing in, Dan told jane never to agree to search the house. The next morning, the police arrested Dan just after he walked out of the door of the house. The police put Dan in a squad car so they could take him to the station for booking. Before they left, an officer went to Dan's house. The officer told Jane that he was investigating a stolen computer equipment case and asked for consent to search the house. Jane agreed and consented to search. The officers found the stolen computer equipment, which the government now wants to introduce into evidence at Dan's trial. Is Jane's consent to search the house valid?
Yes, the consent by Jane is valid.
An officer stops a car for speeding. It has three occupants: the driver, a front seat passenger and the back-seat passenger. When the driver opens the glove compartment to retrieve the registration the officer sees a large wad of rolled up money inside. A computer check for outstanding violations does not reveal any violations for the driver but the officer gets consent to search the car from the driver and discovers $763 in the glove compartment and five plastic baggies containing cocaine behind the back-seat armrest. The officer questions all three men about the drugs and money and tells them that if no one admits ownership of the drugs he is going to arrest them all. The men offer no information regarding the ownership of the drugs or money. All three are arrested. Did the officer have probable cause to arrest the front-seat passenger?
Yes, the particular facts of the case logically suggest at least a fair probability that all three individuals were connected with drugs and the money
