Criminal Procedure

A defendant sought the services of an out-of-state attorney to represent her against a charge of felony animal abuse. This attorney was erroneously denied pro hac vice admission by the trial court. The defendant then hired an in-state attorney to represent her. The defendant was convicted of the crime, even though the in-state attorney provided the defendant with competent, adequate representation. On appeal, the defendant challenged her conviction on the basis that she was denied her Sixth Amendment right to counsel. How should the appellate court rule on this challenge? Reverse the conviction, because the trial court denied the defendant representation by the counsel of her choice. Apply the harmless error standard to determine whether to reverse the defendant's conviction. Determine whether there was a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have been convicted if represented by the out-of-state attorney, and if so, reverse the conviction. Deny the challenge, because the defendant was provided with competent, adequate representation.

Answer choice A is correct. A defendant is constitutionally entitled to be represented at trial by a qualified attorney of the defendant's choice, where that attorney is not provided by the state. The sanction for violation of this Sixth Amendment right is reversal of the defendant's conviction. Answer choice B is incorrect because the harmless error standard applies to the denial of the right to counsel only in non-trial proceedings. Answer choice C is incorrect because denial of the right to counsel at trial results in the automatic reversal of the defendant's conviction. The defendant does not need to establish that the defendant was prejudiced by the denial. Answer choice D is incorrect because the defendant need not establish that the replacement counsel's representation was inadequate or that such counsel was incompetent in order to reverse her conviction.

Two officers went to a man's home to serve an arrest warrant, but no one answered the door. As they walked around the man's house, the officers looked into his next door neighbor's window and saw the man inside the neighbor's kitchen drinking coffee. The officers knocked on the neighbor's door, and when the neighbor answered, the officers informed the neighbor that they had a warrant to arrest the man. The officers pushed past the neighbor into the kitchen and arrested the man. While they were in the kitchen, the officers saw a bag of marijuana on the neighbor's counter. The officers arrested the neighbor, and he was subsequently charged with possession of narcotics. The neighbor moved to suppress evidence of the drugs, and the prosecution argued that the evidence was admissible under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. Are the drugs seized in the neighbor's kitchen likely to be admitted against the neighbor? No, because the officers could not lawfully enter the neighbor's home without his consent. No, because the officers did not knock and announce to the neighbor their intention to arrest the man. Yes, because the arrest warrant implicitly authorized the officers to take measures necessary to serve the warrant. Yes, because the officers entered the neighbor's home under exigent circumstances.

Answer choice A is correct. A warrant to arrest an individual implicitly authorizes entry into the arrestee's home to serve the warrant if the police have reason to believe that the arrestee is present. A police officer may not arrest a person in another person's home without a search warrant, however, absent exigent circumstances or valid consent from the person whose home is being entered. In this case, the arrest warrant did not authorize the police to arrest the man in his neighbor's home. Thus, the officers' presence in the neighbor's home was unlawful, and any evidence seized therein is inadmissible. Answer choice B is incorrect because the knock and announce rule pertains to arresting someone in that person's own home. Even had the police knocked and announced their intention here, the entry would still be unconstitutional if the neighbor had not consented. In any event, even if the knock and announce rule been applicable, failure to knock and announce only invalidates the arrest. The interests protected by the knock-and-announce requirement do not include the shielding of potential evidence from discovery. Thus, it does not trigger the exclusionary rule. Answer choice C is incorrect because the arrest warrant did not authorize the officers to enter the neighbor's house, regardless of whether it was necessary to serve the warrant. Answer choice D is incorrect because the facts do not indicate that there were exigent circumstances, such as a reasonable belief of danger to the officer or destruction of the evidence.

The police obtained information on an upcoming drug shipment from a known informant who had provided reliable information in the past. Based solely on this information, the police obtained a warrant to search a known drug dealer's home on the following day, when the informant said the drugs would be delivered to the home. The warrant provided for the police to seize narcotics and related contraband, as well as "other fruits, instrumentalities and evidence of the crime at this time unknown." When they arrived at the drug dealer's home, rather than announcing their presence, the police promptly kicked down the door. They found the drug dealer and the defendant, whom they did not recognize, drinking coffee in the kitchen. One officer searched the drug dealer and the defendant, while the others searched the areas of the home specified in the warrant. The search of the defendant uncovered a handgun with an obliterated serial number, which the officer seized. It was later revealed that the handgun was stolen, that the defendant was a convicted felon, and that the gun was possessed illegally. The defendant was charged with crimes related to possession of the handgun. The defendant has moved to suppress evidence of the handgun, arguing that it was illegally seized. What is the defendant's best argument that the handgun should be suppressed? The police did not have independent justification to search the defendant. The police did not knock and announce their presence before entering the drug dealer's home. The search warrant constituted an impermissible anticipatory warrant. The search warrant was not based on probable cause.

Answer choice A is correct. Independent justification is needed to search persons not named in a search warrant; mere proximity to a named person does not supply such justification. In this case, the defendant was not named in the search warrant, and the police did not even know his identity. Because the police had no independent justification to search the defendant, the search was illegal, and the gun should be suppressed. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although a violation of the "knock and announce" rule may invalidate an arrest, it does not trigger the exclusionary rule with respect to evidence discovered as a result of a search conducted in violation of the rule. This is because the interests protected by the knock-and-announce requirement do not include the shielding of potential evidence from discovery. Answer choice C is incorrect because police do not have to believe that contraband is on the premises to be searched at the time the warrant is issued. Answer choice D is incorrect because a warrant may be based on information from a reliable, known informant. Moreover, the validity of the warrant itself is not relevant because it did not specify that the defendant could be searched.

Following the armed robbery of a local bank, the police identified the defendant as a suspect and brought him to the police station for questioning. As soon as they sat down in the interrogation room, the police read the defendant his Miranda rights. The defendant noted that "this seems like the kind of thing where you should have a lawyer." The police responded that the defendant had that right. The defendant noted that he "didn't even know a good lawyer," and dropped the issue. In response to each question, the defendant simply repeated, "I don't know anything about it." Frustrated, the police discontinued questioning after an hour and left the defendant in the interrogation room alone. Three hours later, the police returned and, without repeating the Miranda warnings, told the defendant that his best friend, who was also a suspect, had already told them all about the robbery and the defendant's involvement. In fact, the police were searching for the defendant's best friend to bring him in for questioning but had not been able to locate him. The defendant immediately blurted out, "It was all his idea. I didn't even want to rob that bank." What is the defendant's best argument that his statement was taken in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights? The defendant did not receive fresh Miranda warnings after the break in questioning. The defendant did not sign a written waiver of his Miranda rights. The lie regarding his best friend's statement rendered the defendant's statement involuntary. The police continued to question the defendant after he invoked his right to counsel.

Answer choice A is correct. Miranda warnings must be given before interrogation begins. If interrogation is stopped for a long duration, the warnings must be given again. In this case, the defendant could argue that he should have received fresh Miranda warnings after being left alone in the interrogation room for three hours. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although any waiver of a defendant's Miranda rights must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, there is no requirement that the waiver be in writing. Answer choice C is incorrect because deceit or fraud by the interrogators, such as lying about a co-conspirator's confession, does not itself make a confession involuntary. Answer choice D is incorrect because the defendant did not make a specific, unambiguous statement asserting his desire to have counsel present, as is required to invoke counsel under the Fifth Amendment. If a suspect makes an ambiguous statement regarding the right to counsel, the police are not required to end the interrogation, ask questions, or clarify whether the suspect wants to invoke the right.

A defendant was tried before a jury for the crimes of possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute and the lesser included offense of possession of a controlled dangerous substance. The jury acquitted the defendant of simple possession of a controlled dangerous substance, but deadlocked over the other charge. Subsequently, the prosecution sought to retry the defendant for the crime of possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute. The defendant moved to dismiss the charge on double jeopardy grounds. Should the court rule in favor of the defendant? Yes, because the issue preclusion aspect of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the state through the Fourteenth Amendment prevents the defendant's retrial. Yes, because the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the state through the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the retrial of a defendant for an offense of which the defendant has been acquitted. No, because the prosecution may retry a defendant for an offense where the previous trial for that offense was terminated due to a hung jury. No, because the doctrine of collateral estoppel only applies to civil, not criminal cases.

Answer choice A is correct. The Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses the doctrine of issue preclusion. Where a jury acquits a defendant of an offense that is a lesser included offense of another offense over which the jury deadlocks, the jury determination that the defendant did not commit the lesser included offense precludes the prosecution from retrying the defendant on the greater offense. Answer choice B is incorrect because the defendant was acquitted by the jury of the lesser included offense of possession of a controlled dangerous substance, not the greater offense of possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute. The jury deadlocked over the greater offense. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although the prosecution may generally retry a defendant where a trial is terminated for a manifest necessity, such as a hung jury, a retrial is not permitted where the issue preclusion aspect of the Double Jeopardy Clause would prevent such retrial. Answer choice D is incorrect because the doctrine of collateral estoppel can apply to a criminal case through the Double Jeopardy Clause.

A defendant was arrested and charged with robbery. While he was awaiting trial, an inmate in the jail in which he was housed was assaulted, and the police suspected that the defendant was involved. They brought the defendant in for questioning about the assault and provided him with Miranda warnings. The defendant said that he was willing to talk, and did not ask for his attorney. He proceeded to tell the police that he had provided another inmate with information about how to obtain a weapon and believed that inmate had been involved in the assault. The defendant was later charged as a co-conspirator in the assault, and sought to suppress his statement to the police. He argued that his attorney should have been present during the interrogation. Is the defendant's statement likely to be suppressed? No, because the defendant did not specifically invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. No, because the defendant waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by failing to request his attorney. Yes, because the defendant did not waive his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. Yes, because the defendant did not provide a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Answer choice A is correct. The right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment is not automatic. To invoke the right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment, the defendant must make a specific, unambiguous statement asserting his desire to have counsel present. In this case, the defendant did not request counsel, and thus did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. The police's actions therefore did not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to counsel. Additionally, as discussed further below, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is case-specific, so the fact that the defendant already had an attorney for his robbery case is irrelevant to the interrogation about the assault. Answer choice B is incorrect because the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached for purposes of the assault that was the subject of the interrogation. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel automatically attaches when the State initiates prosecution with an indictment or formal charge. Once the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is properly invoked, it applies only to the specific offense at issue in those proceedings. Under the Sixth Amendment standard, the requirement that counsel be present applies only to interrogations about the offense charged. In this case, the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached for purposes of the robbery, but not the assault. Answer choice C is incorrect because, under the Fifth Amendment, a defendant must specifically request counsel, and the defendant made no such request. Answer choice D is incorrect because the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached for purposes of the assault that was the subject of the interrogation.

A contractor was indicted by a state grand jury for bribery of a public official. The suspect was tried and convicted of the crime. The contractor, who is a member of one racial group, sought to reverse her conviction on grounds that members of another racial group were intentionally excluded from service on the grand jury on the basis of their race. The appellate court found that the exclusion was harmless error with respect to the contractor's conviction. Should the appellate court reverse the contractor's conviction? Yes, because there is a constitutional right to a grand jury indictment. Yes, because the rights of the members of the excluded racial group were violated under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. No, because the exclusion of the racial group was harmless error with regard to the contractor's conviction. No, because the contractor lacks standing to challenge the exclusion of members of another race from the grand jury that indicted her.

Answer choice B is correct because a defendant who is indicted by a grand jury from which members of a racial group have been deliberately excluded has standing to raise Equal Protection claims of the excluded racial group, even though the defendant is not a member of the excluded racial group. For this reason, answer choice D is incorrect. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the Fifth Amendment requires indictment by a grand jury for federal crimes, this right has not been held to apply to the states by the Supreme Court. Answer choice C is incorrect because, since discrimination in grand jury selection undermines the structural integrity of the judicial process, a conviction obtained as a result of such discrimination is not subject to the harmless error review.

The defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute drugs for his alleged involvement in a major drug trafficking ring. The evidence tying the defendant to the drug trafficking ring was obtained from a warrantless search of the home of a business partner. The defendant had been living with his business partner, but recently moved out, leaving a bag filled with cocaine and his identification in the business partner's home. The bag was discovered by police during a search of the home with the business partner's consent. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the cocaine. How should the court rule on the defendant's motion to suppress? Deny the motion, because the business partner consented to the search of the home. Deny the motion, because the defendant does not have a privacy interest in the home. Grant the motion, because the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home. Grant the motion, because the evidence was discovered as a result of a warrantless search.

Answer choice B is correct. A person has a Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Fourth Amendment rights are personal and may not be asserted vicariously. A defendant cannot successfully challenge governmental conduct as a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures unless the defendant himself has been seized or he has a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the place searched or the item seized. It is not enough that the introduction as evidence of an item seized may incriminate the defendant. In this case, the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the business partner's home because he had recently moved out of the home. Therefore, the defendant's motion to suppress the cocaine should be denied. Answer choice A is incorrect. The fact that the business partner consented to the search of the home is not relevant to whether the cocaine should be admissible against the defendant. The defendant does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home and therefore cannot suppress any evidence found during the search, even if the search had been illegal. Answer choice C is incorrect. Although the defendant did have a reasonable expectation of privacy while he was living in the home, the defendant had moved out prior to the search of the home by the police. Answer choice D is incorrect. Although the warrantless search of the business partner's home was constitutionally valid due to the business partner's consent (i.e., an exception to the warrant requirement), the defendant does not have standing to assert a Fourth Amendment violation, regardless of the legality of the search, because he does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home.

A school district had a strict policy that prohibited the non-medical possession, use, sale or other distribution of any drug on school grounds. Administrators at a local middle school in the district were informed by a student that other students had talked about bringing prescription medications from home to school to take at lunch time for recreational use. One day the following week, the same student gave a school administrator a pill, which the school nurse determined contained prescription strength medication. The student stated that he had been given the pill by another student that morning. Ignoring safety issues, what standard does the administrator need to satisfy in order to conduct a strip search of the other student for possession of prescription medications? None, since a student at a middle school does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to his body in light of the school district's drug policy and the ease with which prescription medication in pill form can be hidden on his person. Reasonable suspicion that the student being searched is hiding prescription medicine in his underwear. Probable cause that the student being searched is hiding prescription medicine in his underwear. A strip search of student at a public school is per se unreasonable.

Answer choice B is correct. A search conducted by local public school personnel of a student must be based on reasonable suspicion that the search will produce evidence that the student is or has violated school rules. It must also be reasonable in its scope in light of the student's age and gender and the nature of the infraction. This standard applies to strip searches as well as other less intrusive types of searches. Because a strip search may be allowed under these circumstances, answer choice D is incorrect. Answer choice A is incorrect because a student does have a reasonable expectation of privacy, regardless of the school policy. Answer choice C is incorrect because the school needs only reasonable suspicion, and not probable cause.

A police officer's wife often worked late with her business partner. The officer suspected they were having an affair and decided to confront the partner. After putting on his patrol uniform and badge, the officer went to the partner's home and kicked open the front door. He found the partner in his kitchen putting cocaine into little bags. The officer immediately arrested the partner for possession of cocaine and informed him of his Miranda rights. The officer confronted the partner about the affair, and the partner confessed that he and the officer's wife spent late nights together selling cocaine. At the partner's subsequent trial for possession and distribution of cocaine, he moved to suppress evidence of his confession because it was involuntary. What is the strongest argument in support of the suppression of the confession? The confession was involuntary because the partner did not waive his Miranda rights. The confession was too closely tied to the unlawful arrest. The officer did not have probable cause to detain the partner. The partner made the confession after the police officer unlawfully arrested him.

Answer choice B is correct. A voluntary confession made after an unlawful arrest will not automatically be suppressed. Note, however, that the unlawfulness of the arrest may be considered as a factor when determining whether a confession was truly voluntary. If the confession is too closely tied to the illegal arrest, it may be suppressed. Here, the partner's strongest argument is that the confession was too closely tied to the illegal arrest made by the officer. The officer illegally arrested the partner in his home without a warrant after breaking down his door in order to confront him about an alleged affair with his wife, and the confession was in response to his inquiries about the alleged affair. This makes the confession very closely tied to the unlawful arrest. Answer choice A is incorrect. A suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police. Here, although the officer was clearly angry about the alleged affair between his wife and the partner, there is no evidence that the partner did not understand his Miranda rights, or that the officer coerced him into admitting that he sold cocaine to nightclub patrons. Thus, this is not the strongest argument he can make. Answer choice C is incorrect. An unlawful arrest alone has no bearing on a subsequent criminal prosecution, and it is not a defense to the crime charged. If the police have probable cause to detain a suspect, they may do so even if they illegally arrested him (e.g., in his home without a warrant). Answer choice D is incorrect. As stated above, a voluntary confession made after an illegal arrest will not automatically be suppressed. It is not the illegal arrest, but the strong connection of the confession to the illegal arrest, that makes the confession inadmissible. Thus, answer choice B provides the strongest argument in support of suppressing the confession.

Two police officers detained a woman at the scene of the murder of a gas station attendant. They suspected her of committing the crime and brought her to the police station, over her strong objection, for questioning. After one question, asking why she had been present at the crime scene, the woman suddenly burst into tears and shouted out, "That liar cheated on me and I wanted him dead." One of the officers immediately interrupted the woman, realizing that they had forgotten to give her a Miranda warning at the scene of the crime because of the difficult time they had in detaining her. The officer then gave the woman a full Miranda warning and asked her if she wanted to continue with her statement. The woman then refused to talk any further and demanded to see her attorney. At trial, the woman took the stand in her own defense and testified that she did not know the gas station attendant and had no reason to kill him. If the court allows the prosecutor to use the statement the woman made to the officers during her interrogation, it may be used: As direct evidence of the murder. For impeachment purposes only. Both as direct evidence of the murder and for impeachment purposes. None of the above.

Answer choice B is correct. Statements taken in violation of Miranda may be used to impeach the credibility of the criminal defendant, if the defendant takes the witness stand and gives testimony at variance with previous admissions. Such statements may not be used as direct evidence, however. Here, the woman's statement came in response to custodial interrogation in which she had not been given her Miranda warnings. As a statement taken in violation of Miranda, the woman's statement may only be used for impeachment. Answer choice A is incorrect, as the impeaching admissions may not be used directly in deciding ultimate issues of guilt or innocence; they may only be used in determining the veracity of the defendant. Answer choice C is incorrect for the same reason. Answer choice D is incorrect, as the statement may be used for impeachment purposes, as stated under answer choice B.

A defendant was on trial for arson of an office building. During the trial, the police officers who initially arrested him began to suspect that the defendant was also responsible for a theft of several computers that took place in the office building on the same night as the arson. One evening during the arson trial, the police visited the defendant in jail, read him his Miranda rights, and began to question him about the theft. The defendant eventually confessed, and the police informed the prosecutor of his confession. The prosecutor later wants to charge the defendant with theft, using the statement that was obtained by the police in the jail. The defendant's attorney objects on the grounds that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were violated. The court should: Allow the prosecutor to use the confession because the defendant was read his Miranda rights. Allow the prosecutor to use the confession because theft and arson each require proof of an additional element that the other does not. Prevent the prosecutor from using the confession because the arson and the theft took place during the same criminal transaction. Prevent the prosecutor from using the confession because the defendant was represented by counsel in connection with the arson case.

Answer choice B is correct. The Sixth Amendment is offense-specific, meaning that the interrogation that is the subject of the Sixth Amendment inquiry must relate to the crime for which criminal proceedings have commenced. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach to other crimes for which the accused may be under investigation but which are unrelated to the pending prosecution. Under Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S.299 (1932), two different crimes committed in one criminal transaction are deemed to be the same offense for Sixth Amendment purposes unless each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not. Since arson and theft each require elements the other crime does not, they are not the same crime for Sixth Amendment purposes and the confession may therefore be used to charge the additional crime. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while a Miranda warning was necessary in order to elicit an admissible confession, Miranda warnings have no effect on a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. Answer choice C is incorrect because, as discussed above, two different crimes in one criminal transaction are not the same for Sixth Amendment purposes if one requires proof of an element that the other does not. Answer choice D is incorrect because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific; it applies only to the offense at issue in those proceedings.

Police officers were engaged in the investigation of a bank robbery. Based on the circumstances of the robbery, they believed that the robbery was an "inside job," and that a senior employee was likely involved in planning the robbery. They asked five of the bank's senior employees, including the bank's vice-president, to come to the police station the following day to answer some questions. Before any of the employees arrived, the investigating officers had a discussion in which they concluded that one of the five senior employees was likely involved in the robbery, and that they should attempt to elicit a confession since they had no evidence implicating any of them. The officers did not read the vice-president his Miranda rights when he arrived, but did indicate that he was free to leave at any time. A few minutes into the interview, the vice-president broke down and admitted that he was involved in the conspiracy. Following the confession, the officers informed the vice-president that he was under arrest, read him his Miranda rights, and asked if he would sign a written waiver of his rights and a written confession. The vice-president stated, "I already told you everything, so I might as well." He then signed both documents. Is the vice-president's written confession likely admissible at trial? No, because the police may not intentionally employ a "question first, warn later" approach to elicit a confession. No, because the vice-president was not allowed time to contact his attorney before waiving his rights. Yes, because the officers provided the vice-president with the required Miranda warnings. Yes, because the taint of an illegal, unwarned interrogation may be cured by providing the suspect with Miranda warnings.

Answer choice C is correct. A suspect must be informed of his Miranda rights before a custodial interrogation. Custodial interrogation is questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody. A person is in custody when, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that he is not free to leave. In this case, the vice-president was not under arrest, but rather came to the police station at the request of the police, and he was specifically told that he was free to leave. Thus, he likely was not entitled to Miranda warnings when he arrived. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while it is true that a second confession obtained as a result of a "question first, warn later" approach may not be admissible if the police intended to circumvent Miranda, that is not applicable here because the police were not required to provide Miranda warnings before the vice-president's confession. Answer choice B is incorrect because a defendant must invoke his Miranda right to counsel, which the vice-president did not do. Answer choice D is incorrect because, as discussed above, the police were not required to provide the vice-president with Miranda warnings before his confession, and thus the initial part of the interrogation was not illegal.

A defendant was charged with attempted murder. At the preliminary hearing, the presiding judge heard the testimony of four prosecution witnesses and found that the prosecution had failed to establish probable cause that the defendant had committed any offense. Accordingly, he dismissed the charge. The prosecutor then called the same four witnesses before a grand jury. The grand jury indicted the same defendant for attempted murder. The defendant has moved to quash the indictment on the ground of double jeopardy. How should the court proceed? Grant the motion, because the dismissal of the first charge on the merits, whether correct or incorrect, bars any further prosecution. Grant the motion, unless the prosecution has evidence that was not presented in the first case. Deny the motion, because the defendant has not yet been in jeopardy of conviction on the attempted murder charge. Deny the motion, because the protection of the double jeopardy clause does not come into play until there has been a conviction or an acquittal.

Answer choice C is correct. For double jeopardy purposes, jeopardy does not attach until trial, when the jury is sworn in (or, in a bench trial, when the first witness is sworn in). Answer choices A and B are incorrect because the dismissal after a preliminary hearing had no double jeopardy consequences for the reasons stated above. Answer choice D is incorrect. While jeopardy does not attach until trial, actions short of a conviction or acquittal (for example, a mistrial) may bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds.

An officer pulled over the defendant for speeding. When he ran the defendant's plates, the officer saw that there was an outstanding warrant for the defendant's arrest based on her failure to pay child support. The officer arrested the defendant and placed her in the backseat of his squad car. The officer then returned to the defendant's car and saw that her purse was sitting on the passenger seat. The officer searched the purse and found a small amount of marijuana. The defendant was later charged with drug possession. She has moved to suppress evidence of the marijuana. Is the defendant likely to succeed in having evidence of the marijuana suppressed? No, because the officer was permitted to conduct a search of containers immediately associated with the defendant, including her purse, incident to a valid arrest. No, because the officer was permitted to conduct a search of the passenger compartment of the defendant's vehicle incident to a valid arrest. Yes, because the officer did not have a reasonable belief that the passenger compartment of the vehicle contained evidence of the offense. Yes, because the officer could not search the vehicle without probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband.

Answer choice C is correct. In order to justify a warrantless search of an automobile incident to arrest, the Fourth Amendment requires that law enforcement demonstrate either (i) that the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search and, as a result, may pose an actual and continuing threat to the officer's safety or a need to preserve evidence from being tampered with by the arrestee or (ii) that it is reasonable that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle. In this case, the defendant was not within reaching distance of the passenger compartment of the car, and it was not reasonable that evidence of the violation of a child support order would be found in the car. Accordingly, the officer could not search the purse without a warrant. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although an officer may search an individual and containers "immediately associated" with the individual pursuant to a lawful arrest, in this case the purse was in the vehicle and not immediately associated with the defendant. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although the Belton rule previously provided that an officer could conduct a full search of a vehicle pursuant to a lawful arrest, the Supreme Court has since limited the parameters of such a search as previously described. Answer choice D is incorrect because an officer is not necessarily required to have probable cause to search a vehicle incident to a lawful arrest. Accordingly, answer choice C is a better answer. [Note: "Passenger compartment" is the phrase used by the U.S. Supreme Court to describe the area of a vehicle in which passengers ride, to be distinguished from the trunk, for example.]

An undercover officer infiltrated a gang by posing as a gang member. While he was working undercover, the officer heard that a member of the gang had shot and killed one of the leaders of a rival gang. The next time the officer and the gang member suspected of the murder were alone, the officer brought up the shooting, indicating that he was very impressed by whoever had the courage to commit such an act. The gang member, taking the bait, bragged that he had shot the rival gang leader, but told the officer to keep the information secret. The gang member was arrested for the murder and the prosecution sought to introduce the statement made to the undercover officer. Is the statement likely to be admitted? No, because the gang member was questioned by a police officer without receiving Miranda warnings. No, because the officer deceived the gang member as to the officer's true identity. Yes, because the gang member did not know that the undercover officer was a police officer. Yes, because the gang member was not subject to interrogation.

Answer choice C is correct. Miranda warnings are not required if the suspect being questioned is not aware that the interrogator is a police officer. Thus, an undercover officer may question a suspect without informing him of his rights, as was done in this case. Note, too, that Miranda warnings only apply to custodial interrogations, and in this case, the gang member was not in custody. Answer choice A is incorrect because the suspect did not know the undercover officer was a police officer, so Miranda warnings were not required. Answer choice B is incorrect because deceit or fraud by an interrogator (e.g., lying about a co-conspirator's confession) does not itself make a confession involuntary. In this case, the officer's deception regarding his identity did not make the confession involuntary. Answer choice D is incorrect because interrogation refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions that the police know or should know are likely to elicit an incriminating response. In this case, the officer made a statement that he knew was likely to elicit an incriminating response. While the statement was arguably an interrogation, it was not a custodial interrogation. Accordingly, answer choice C is a better answer.

The police had accumulated reliable information that a doctor was illegally dealing prescription drugs. One day, the police received a reliable tip that a stainless steel suitcase containing stolen prescription drugs would be delivered to the doctor's home the following afternoon. The police obtained a search warrant to search for and seize the suitcase when it arrived at the doctor's home the next day. The police immediately put the doctor's home under surveillance. About five minutes after a woman dropped off a stainless steel suitcase at the home, the police knocked on the doctor's door. The doctor was given the search warrant immediately upon opening the door, and the police found the suitcase unopened on the kitchen table. After confirming that the suitcase contained prescription drugs, they seized the suitcase and put handcuffs on the doctor. The police then fanned out through the house, looking in every room and closet. They found no one else, but one officer found an automatic weapon in a box on a closet shelf in the doctor's bedroom. In addition to charges relating to dealing prescription drugs, the doctor was charged with unlawful possession of weapons. The doctor moved to suppress the automatic weapon. Should the court grant the motion to suppress the automatic weapon? No, because, the police had probable cause to believe that more narcotics could be located in the house and the gun was found in a proper search for narcotics. No, because the search was a justified protective sweep to protect the arresting officers. Yes, because the search exceeded the authority granted by the warrant. Yes, because the warrant was invalid because it was issued before the police believed there were contraband prescription drugs in the doctor's home.

Answer choice C is correct. The warrant was valid, but its validity was triggered by and limited to the delivered suitcase. Accordingly, once the only object of that search was discovered, the warrant did not authorize a further exploratory search of the house. Answer choice A is incorrect because probable cause is not a sufficient reason to conduct a warrantless search of the house beyond the authorized "protective sweep." Answer choice B is incorrect because officers may conduct a "protective sweep" of a home only if they have reason to believe that others inside the home may pose a danger to them. Even if the facts in this scenario justified such a protective sweep, such a sweep is limited to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding and would not have extended to the box on a closet shelf. Answer choice D is incorrect because the probable cause requirement of a warrant is satisfied when, at the time that the warrant is issued, there is probable cause to believe that the triggering condition will occur and, if that condition does occur, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.

A police officer received an anonymous tip that the defendant was manufacturing methamphetamine in his basement. Based solely on the tip, the officer obtained a warrant to search the defendant's basement for drugs and related manufacturing equipment. The officer and his partner went to the defendant's home to execute the warrant. Believing the defendant was not home, the officers did not knock on the door, but simply opened the unlocked door. In searching the defendant's basement, the officers found large quantities of methamphetamine, related manufacturing equipment, and a notebook that said "Ledger" across the cover. The notebook contained a ledger, with the names of the defendant's clients and statements of their accounts. The officers seized all these items. The defendant seeks to suppress the evidence seized by the officers. What is the defendant's best argument in favor of suppressing the notebook? The notebook was not named in the warrant. The notebook was in the nature of a personal diary. The officers failed to "knock and announce" their presence. The warrant was invalid.

Answer choice D is correct. A valid search warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate based on probable cause, supported by oath or affidavit. Facts supporting probable cause may come from several sources, including information from a reliable, known informant, or information from an unknown informant that can be independently verified. In this case, the search warrant was based solely on a tip from an unknown informant, and thus probable cause was not established. Answer choice A is incorrect because a police officer may seize an item in plain view, even if it was not named in the search warrant, as long as the officer is on the premises for a lawful purpose and the incriminating nature of the item is immediately apparent. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although the Fifth Amendment prohibits a defendant from being compelled to produce a personal diary, its contents are admissible if it is seized during a valid search. Moreover, the notebook was more in the nature of a business record, which is not protected by the Fifth Amendment. Answer choice C is incorrect because even if the defendant can show that the police violated the "knock and announce" rule, such a violation will not require the suppression of evidence.

A store owner whose jewelry store had recently been robbed was shown by a police detective a photograph of the defendant, who previously had committed other similar crimes. The store owner examined the photograph and then asked the detective whether the police believed that the man pictured was the robber. After the detective said, "We're pretty sure," the store owner stated that the man in the photograph was the one who had robbed her. The defendant was indicted for the robbery. His counsel moved to suppress any trial testimony by the store owner identifying the defendant as the robber. Should the court grant the motion and suppress the store owner's trial testimony identifying the defendant as the robber? No, because suppression of in-court testimony is not a proper remedy, even though the out-of-court identification was improper. No, because the out-of-court identification was not improper. Yes, because the improper out-of-court identification has necessarily tainted any in-court identification. Yes, unless the prosecution demonstrates that the in-court identification is reliable.

Answer choice D is correct. Even if an out-of-court identification procedure is unnecessarily suggestive, which this one plainly was, suppression of in-court testimony is not required if the eyewitness's identification is shown to be reliable under a multi-factor inquiry. Answer choice A is incorrect. An improper out-of-court identification procedure may require suppression of in-court testimony if it produces a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. However, suppression of in-court testimony is not required if the eyewitness's identification is shown to be reliable under a multi-factor inquiry. Answer choice B is incorrect. An out-of-court identification procedure is improper if it is unnecessarily suggestive, which this procedure (involving just one photograph and the detective's leading statement) plainly was. Answer choice C is incorrect because, as previously explained, suppression of in-court testimony is not required if the eyewitness's identification is shown to be reliable under a multi-factor inquiry.

While on patrol one night, two officers noticed the car of a known drug dealer in the drive-through lane of a fast-food restaurant. Based on prior discussions with informants, the officers had probable cause to believe that the drug dealer regularly made drug deliveries from his car. Noticing that the drug dealer's headlight was out, the officers pulled him over once he left the restaurant and searched his car. The officers did not find any evidence of drugs, but they did find several illegal weapons in the trunk. Did the officers' seizure of the weapons violate the drug dealer's Fourth Amendment rights? Yes, because the stop was pretextual in nature. Yes, because the officers were searching for drugs, not weapons. Yes, because the drug dealer could not access the trunk from the passenger compartment. No, as a valid application of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

Answer choice D is correct. The Fourth Amendment does not require police to obtain a warrant to search a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity. They can even search the trunk if they have reasonable cause to believe that it contains contraband. In this case, the facts state that the officers did have probable cause to believe that there were drugs stored in the car. Accordingly, stopping and searching the car—even the trunk—did not violate the drug dealer's Fourth Amendment rights. Answer choice A is incorrect. Police may use a pretextual stop to investigate whether a law has been broken, provided they have probable cause to believe that the law for which the vehicle was stopped has been violated. Here, the officers observed a headlight was out on the drug dealer's car. Accordingly, they had the right to stop the car for that infraction. Although the police did not have probable cause to search the trunk of the car based on such a stop, the police independently had probable cause to believe that the drug dealer stored drugs in the car, and therefore they could search the car, including its trunk. Answer choice B is incorrect because the fact that the officers found weapons instead of drugs does not mean that the drug dealer's rights were violated. The officers still had probable cause to believe that he stored drugs in the car. This probable cause permitted the officers to search the drug dealer's car, including its trunk. Answer choice C is incorrect because the automobile exception to the warrant requirement has no limitation that the drug dealer be able to reach the compartment being searched in order for the search to be valid; that limitation is present only when there is an automobile search incident to an arrest. In this case, the officers had probable cause to believe that they would find contraband in the car, including its trunk.

The police, in conducting a search of a murder victim's home, found an unsigned handwritten note that contained a threat against the victim's life. The defendant was indicted for the murder and an attorney was appointed to represent the defendant. Several days later, in the early evening, a police officer knocked on the front door of the defendant's residence and demanded that the defendant provide the police with a handwriting exemplar, the text of which was based on the contents of the note found in the victim's home. Although the officer did not have a warrant, the defendant complied, feeling that he had no choice but to obey the officer. Prior to trial, the defendant's attorney filed a motion to prevent the prosecution's introduction of the exemplar as evidence at the trial because the taking of the exemplar violated the defendant's constitutional rights. Should the court grant this motion? Yes, because the officer's taking of the exemplar without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Yes, because the officer's taking of the exemplar violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Yes, because the officer's taking of the exemplar after the defendant had been indicted without the presence of the defendant's attorney violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. No, because the officer's taking of the exemplar did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights.

Answer choice D is correct. The taking of the exemplar did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights. Answer choice A is incorrect. The taking of exemplar did not require a search warrant because, since the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his handwriting, its seizure was not unreasonable. Answer choice B is incorrect because, as physical evidence, the handwriting exemplar does not constitute testimonial evidence. Answer choice C is incorrect because the taking of a handwriting exemplar, even after a defendant has been charged or indicted, is not a critical stage of the criminal proceedings that requires the presence of counsel.