Chapter 6 study questions

A search warrant must specifically identify "the things to be seized." This particularity requirement may not be met by specifying an entire class of items.

F

After a police officer issues a stopped motorist a citation for a traffic offense, the officer can search the stopped car without the motorist's consent.

F

Most searches take place pursuant to warrants.

F

Subjective intentions of the police play an important role in ordinary, probable cause Fourth Amendment analysis

F

The reasonableness of a search pursuant to a search warrant does not depend on the manner in which the police enter the place which the warrant authorizes them to search.

F

The scope of a search incident to arrest includes the entire place where the suspect is arrested.

F

When a suspect is arrested in a car or other vehicle, police as part of the search incident to the arrest may search the vehicle's trunk

F

Which of the following items may be considered containers for purposes of Fourth Amendment searches without warrants?

I. a brown paper bag II. a small briefcase III. a sport duffel bag IV. a backpack

Concerning the scope of consent searches:

I. consent searches are unreasonable if they exceed the scope of the consent. II. consent searches are unreasonable if they exceed the apparent authority of the person giving the consent. III. the test to determine the reasonableness of a consent search is based on the totality of the circumstances. IV. the test to determine the reasonableness of a consent search is whether the officers reasonably believe that the search is within the scope of consent obtained.

Police officers at the scene of a fire:

I. do not need a warrant to remain in a burned building to look for injured victims. II. do not need a warrant to remain in a burned building to investigate the cause of the fire or explosion. III. must get a warrant to search for evidence of crime once they determine the cause of the fire.

Who among the following can give consent for a third person?

I. parents for their minor children. II. roommates, consenting to searches of the common areas, for those who share apartments with them. III. wife consents to a search of house she shares with spouse.

The three countervailing law enforcement interests against "no-knock" entry requirements identified by Justice Thomas in Wilson v. Arkansas include:

I. safety of officers. III. escape of prisoner. IV. destruction of evidence.

Exceptions to the search warrant requirement exist because:

I. the clear rule that warrants are required is unworkable. II. officers become frustrated with the delay that getting a warrant involves. III. to enforce the requirement would lead to the exclusion of evidence in cases where police activity was reasonable.

The reasonableness of searches pursuant to search warrants depends on

I. the existence of probable cause. II. the extent of the search. III. the particularity of the warrant. IV. the manner in which the police enter the place to be searched.

The vehicle exception to the warrant requirement is based upon:

I. the inherent mobility of the vehicle. IV. the reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles.

Which of the following government interests are protected by the rule that searches incident to arrest are reasonable?

I. the interest in protecting law enforcement officers II. the interest in preserving evidence IV. the interest in preventing the escape of suspects

According to the Supreme Court opinion in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, involving a search of a car obtained by consent

I. the question of whether consent was voluntary is a question of fact to be determined by the totality of all the circumstances. II. the government need not prove that citizens know they have a right to refuse consent.

Concerning pretext searches

I. they are powerful investigative tools that police use to gather evidence against suspects. IV. the Supreme Court has decided that they do not violate the Fourth Amendment.

If the police come across containers and believe that the containers contain evidence of crime:

I. they can briefly detain the containers to prevent their loss or destruction. III. they may seize and search containers when they have probable cause to believe the containers in vehicles contain evidence of crime.

According to Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials appointed by President Truman:

I. uncontrolled searches and seizures are one of the first and most effective weapons of every arbitrary government. II. the right against searches and seizures is one of the most difficult to protect. IV. Americans do not fully appreciate the importance of the Fourth Amendment protection.

Generally, no-knock entries to execute search warrants are permitted if certain conditions exist. These conditions include:

II. a situation where the suspect might easily destroy evidence. IV. an announced entry would endanger the officers' safety.

Regarding consent searches:

II. they may be authorized by persons other than the owner of the property searched. III. the scope of the search may be limited by the person consenting. IV. according to recent case law, the consent to search may be withdrawn at any time

Which is true about containers?

No warrant is needed if the container is found in a car the police have probable cause to search, and the container is a likely place where the items searched for may be found.

Concerning third party consent to search, in which of the following situations can one person consent to a search for the other person?

c. a factory owner consenting to a search of items on top of an employee's workbench

Voluntary and knowing searches require neither a warrant nor probable cause.

consent

According to the Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Rodney:

consent to search a person includes consent to frisk the groin area.

The area of arrested persons themselves and the area under their immediate control is called the ______________.

grabbable area

The exigent circumstance constituting the need to apprehend a fleeing suspect is ______.

hot pursuit

The third question in the law of searches asks "__________________________?"

if the search was unreasonable, should the evidence be excluded

According to the empirical research about consent searches:

lower courts find that consent was voluntary in all but the most extreme cases .

In Wilson v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that:

ordinarily, the Fourth Amendment requires police knock and announce.

The requirement that search warrants have to "particularly describe the place to be searched" is known as

particularity requirement

In Arizona v. Gant (2009), the Supreme Court ruled:

police may search a vehicle incident to an occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it's reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence related to the offense of arrest.

A arrest occurs when an officer uses a legal justification to stop a vehicle to search for evidence of an unrelated serious crime for which he did not have the probable cause necessary to support the stop.

pretext

The Fourth Amendment particularity requirement for search warrants:

requires that the warrant specifically describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

In Knowles v. Iowa, concerning an instance where a driver had been given a citation for speeding but had not been arrested, the Supreme Court:

said that police could not automatically do a search incident to arrest when only a citation is given the driver, as opposed to when an arrest occurs.

The following are all examples of emergency search situations except:

searching crates off a boat after the police have received word that a shipment of drugs will be contained in the crates

According to the Supreme Court in Chimel v. California, involving the search of a house incident to an arrest for burglary of a coin shop:

t is not reasonable to search an entire house incident to a lawful arrest of someone there.

Under the holding in Chimel v. California (1969), a leading Supreme Court case on searches incident to arrest, the police must limit a thorough search incident to arrest to:

the arrestee's person and the area within his immediate control.

In Wyoming v. Houghton, concerning the search of a passenger's purse for drugs based on probable cause that drugs are in the vehicle, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that:

the police may inspect passengers' belongings that are capable of concealing the object of the search.

The second question in the law of searches analysis asks whether ____________.

the search was reasonable

In Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990), the police conducted the consent search of the suspect's apartment based on the consent of the suspect's former girlfriend. According to the Supreme Court's opinion:

the warrantless entry to search based on third party consent is valid if the officer reasonably believes that the person consenting had authority to consent.

A test in which the totality of circumstances is used to determine whether a consent to search was obtained without coercion, deception or promises is the ______________ test.

voluntariness

In order to conduct a consent search of a person, an officer must have

voluntary consent to search.

The law of searches involves a three-step analysis. The first question in this analysis is "_________________________________?"

was the government action a search

According to the Supreme Court in New York v. Belton, involving a search of the passenger compartment of a car and its contents incident to an arrest:

when a police officer has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile a contemporaneous search of the passenger compartment is incident to the arrest

Police ordinarily seek consent to search

when they do not have probable cause and cannot get a warrant.

The major issue of contention between the Supreme Court majority opinion and the dissenting opinion in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, the case involving the consent search of the defendant's car, was:

whether the police must inform a suspect of her right to refuse consent to a consent search.

Concerning arrests for minor crimes, the Supreme Court has decided to leave to police discretion whether suspects ought to be searched incident to their arrest

T

Frustration with the amount of time and effort it can take to get a warrant often tempts police to avoid the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.

T

If police officers have probable cause to search and they reasonably believe that evidence is in imminent danger of destruction, they can search without a warrant.

T

Law enforcement officers often prefer searches without warrants because of the time or effort it takes to get a warrant issued.

T

The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all "no-knock" entries.

T

The expectation of privacy that people have in their briefcases, purses and luggage is less than the expectation of privacy that they have in their homes, but greater than the expectation they have in their vehicles.

T

The knock-and-announce rule's origins come from English common law.

T

The voluntariness test for deciding when a citizen has given lawful consent to search reflects a balance between the competing concerns of lawful enforcement's need for consent searches and citizens' right to be free from police coercion.

T

According to the waiver test of consent:

a consent search is valid only if the person consenting voluntarily and knowingly waives her Fourth Amendment rights

In U.S. v. Robinson (1973), the police had stopped the defendant for driving with a revoked driver's permit. The Supreme Court's ruling with respect to the legality of the search of the defendant is important because it held that:

a search incident to a full custody arrest may be conducted regardless of the likelihood of finding weapons or evidence on the arrestee's person.

According to the Supreme Court's decision in Whren v. U.S, concerning the use of a pretext arrest in a drug search:

a search incident to a lawful arrest for a traffic violation is a reasonable Fourth Amendment search.

The vehicle or automobile exception is an exception to the requirement that police have ________ before conducting a search.

a warrant