Con Crim Pro. 4th amendment Quiz
There is also an inventory exception to the warrant requirement. Which of the following statements accurately summarizes the content of that exception? A. When the police reasonably suspect that a vehicle contains contraband, the police can stop the vehicle and inventory its contents. B. When the police make a valid traffic stop, they have the right to inventory the contents of the vehicle. C. The police are allowed to establish "inventory checkpoints" on the roads where they are allowed to stop and inventory the contents of all vehicles. D. When the police validly impound a vehicle, they have the right to inventory the contents of the vehicle.
D. When the police validly impound a vehicle, they have the right to inventory the contents of the vehicle.
The Terry line of cases has led to a number of special rules. One of those rules relates to the ability of the police to "stop" individuals in various contexts, and has also led to the question of what constitutes a "stop" (which, under the Fourth Amendment, is regarded as a "seizure"). Which of the following situations qualify as a "stop" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment? A. A "stop" occurs when a reasonable person in the suspect's position would not feel free to leave or the person is actually stopped. B. A "stop" occurs when the police take someone into custody and haul them to the police station. C. If an individual is asked to stop, but refuses to do so, there is nonetheless a stop. D. A "stop" occurs whenever a police officer speaks with an individual
A. A "stop" occurs when a reasonable person in the suspect's position would not feel free to leave or the person is actually stopped.
.The police suspected that defendant was involved in manufacturing illegal drugs and they wanted to locate his drug lab. They expected the defendant's associate to purchase a five gallon container of chloroform from a particular seller, who agreed to give the associate a container that contained a "tracking" beeper. When defendant took the container to the drug lab in his car, the police tailing the car while using the tracking beeper to monitor the car's movements. They lost sight of the car but tracked it until it arrived outside the drug lab at a remote cabin. Which of the following statements incorrectly explains whether the police conduct was a search under the Fourth Amendment? A. A search occurred because the police "trespassed" into a "constitutionally protected area" by placing the tracking device inside the chloroform container. B. No search occurred because there was no violation of defendant's "reasonable expectation of privacy." C. No "reasonable expectation of privacy" was violated because defendant "knowingly exposed" his movements on the highway to other members of the public. D. No "reasonable expectation of privacy" was violated because police merely augmented their sensory faculties by using the tracking beeper as a substitute for the visual surveillance of the automobile's movements.
A. A search occurred because the police "trespassed" into a "constitutionally protected area" by placing the tracking device inside the chloroform container.
Now, let's think a bit more about the requirements for a valid consent. Which of the following statements accurately states the requirements for a valid consent? A. Courts examine the "totality of the circumstances" to determine whether the consent was voluntary or coerced. B. Courts subject all waivers to "exacting scrutiny" to make sure that they were not coerced. C. Courts indulge every reasonable presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights. D. Courts will not find a waiver of rights unless there is "clear evidence" that the individual voluntarily waived his rights.
A. Courts examine the "totality of the circumstances" to determine whether the consent was voluntary or coerced.
A man flies home from Europe and arrives at U.S. customs and border inspection. The customs official wants to inspect his luggage to make sure that he is not carrying any contraband. Which of the following statements correctly states whether the official would violate the individual's rights by making a non-consensual search of the luggage? A. Customs officials have the right to examine the contents of the man's luggage. B. Customs officials may not examine the man's luggage without first obtaining a warrant. C. Customs officials do not need a warrant to search the man's luggage, but do need probable cause. D. Customs officials do not need a warrant to search the man's luggage, but do need a "reasonable suspicion" that he is trying to bring contraband into the country.
A. Customs officials have the right to examine the contents of the man's luggage.
In applying the administrative exception to the warrant requirement, the Court has held that there are certain "highly regulated industries." For these industries, administrative agencies are not required to obtain a warrant, or to show probable cause, in order to conduct an inspection. Which of the following industries has the Court not treated as one of these "highly regulated industries"? A. Inspections under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. B. Inspections of mines. C. Inspections of liquor stores. D. Inspections of businesses that sell firearms.
A. Inspections under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
Suppose that a local jail adopts a policy requiring that all inmates be subjected to a strip search before they are placed in the general inmate population. Suppose that Jonathan is arrested for a minor offense (eating on the subway), booked, and is to be placed in the jail until he can be bailed out. Which of the following statements correctly indicates whether the jail can subject him to a strip search consistently with the Fourth Amendment? A. Jail officials may subject Jonathan to a strip search. B. Strip searches are strictly prohibited by the Fourth Amendment as "unreasonable searches and seizures." C. Jonathan may not be subjected to a strip search because of the minor nature of the crime with which he has been charged. D.Strip searches are only permitted when jail authorities have reason to believe that someone being admitted to the jail is carrying a concealed weapon or other contraband
A. Jail officials may subject Jonathan to a strip search.
Courts agree that it is preferable for the police to obtain a warrant before conducting a search or seizure, and that in the absence of a warrant, the police need to show exigent circumstances on a case-by-case basis. However, there are numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement. Assume that federal agents have probable cause to believe that an individual is in possession of stolen credit cards, which is a felony crime. The agents decide to arrest this individual during a sting operation in a public place. Which of the following statements correctly describes the rule that applies in this scenario? A. Provided that the agents have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a felony, the agents can make a warrantless arrest in public without exigent circumstances. B.Warrantless arrests are impermissible absent exigent circumstances. C.The warrant preference applies to arrests. D. A warrant is never required for an arrest.
A. Provided that the agents have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a felony, the agents can make a warrantless arrest in public without exigent circumstances.
Assume that a police officer is conducting a lawful frisk of an individual. This means that the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is armed and dangerous, and is engaged in patting down the person's outer clothing to determine whether the officer is carrying any concealed object that feels like a weapon. Assume that when the officer conducts the pat-down frisk, the officer does feel an object and recognizes that it does not feel like a weapon. The object is a small lump and it is in the front pocket of the individual's jacket. The officer decides to use his fingers to slide the small lump back and forth , in order to ascertain whether the small lump might be a rock of crack cocaine. After performing this action, the officer decides that the small lump does feel like crack cocaine. So he removes the object from the pocket. Which of the following statements correctly describes whether or not the officer's conduct was a lawful seizure? A. The identity of the small lump was not "immediately apparent" as contraband, based on its contour or mass, and the officer was not permitted to slide it back and forth to ascertain its identity. B. The identity of the small lump was "immediately apparent" from the frisk, and the officer was entitled to use his fingers to confirm that identity. C. When conducting a lawful stop and pat-down frisk, an officer is always entitled to examine an object with his fingers, regardless of whether the officer has probable cause to believe that the object is contraband. D. During the course of a lawful frisk, an officer may remove an object that does not feel like a weapon, if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that it might be contraband.
A. The identity of the small lump was not "immediately apparent" as contraband, based on its contour or mass, and the officer was not permitted to slide it back and forth to ascertain its identity.
Now, suppose that a police officer has probable cause to make a custodial arrest of an individual for possession of stolen coins. While the officer is effectuating the arrest, the officer wishes to search the arrestee. Which of the following statements is correct regarding the officer's right to make a warrantless search of the arrestee? A. The officer is permitted to search the arrestee incident to the arrest. B. Warrantless searches are presumptively unconstitutional, and therefore the warrantless search would be unconstitutional. C. Searches of an individual's clothes should never be conducted without a warrant. D. The officer may not conduct a warrantless search because the nature of the offense (possession of stolen coins) does not involve a threat of death or serious injury.
A. The officer is permitted to search the arrestee incident to the arrest.
Suppose that the police have a warrant to arrest Chambers. One day, a police officer sees Chambers driving down the street, and the officer turns on his lights and siren, pulls Chambers over, and arrests him. Under a routine search incident to arrest, which of the following statements is correct regarding whether the police can search incident to arrest? A. The officer may search Chambers' person. B. The officer may routinely search the passenger compartment of Chambers' automobile incident to arrest. C. The officer may routinely search the trunk of Chambers' automobile incident to arrest. D. The officer may search the entire automobile whether or not there is reason to believe that evidence relevant to the crime (for which the driver is being arrested) can be found in the vehicle.
A. The officer may search Chambers' person.
The police enter Rochin's home with a warrant allowing them to search for evidence of heroin or morphine possession. Rochin's wife lets the police into the house and tells them that he is in their bedroom. As the police enter the room, they see two capsules on a bed stand that appear to be morphine. In an effort to prevent the police from seizing the capsules, Rochin quickly swallows them. Believing that they are faced with exigent circumstances (because Rochin's body will break the morphine capsules down and dissipate them), the police immediately take Rochin to the emergency room and have his stomach pumped. The process results in the recovery of the two morphine capsules. Which of the following statements correctly indicates the Court's holding regarding the constitutionality of the officer's actions? A. The officers' actions "shock the conscience" and therefore their actions were unconstitutional. B. Since the police were confronted by exigent circumstances, involving the likely destruction of evidence, there actions were permissible. C. The Court held that the police had the police lacked the necessary cause (probable cause) for pumping Rochin's stomach. D. Under the circumstances, stomach pumping is not unduly offensive.
A. The officers' actions "shock the conscience" and therefore their actions were unconstitutional.
Assume that in the prior question, the police continued to monitor the location of the beeper after the defendant's car arrived outside the cabin, and subsequently ascertained that the container with the beeper had been moved inside the cabin. Which of the following statements correctly explains whether the police conduct was a search under the Fourth Amendment? A. There was a search because the continued monitoring of the tracking beeper violated the defendant's "reasonable expectation of privacy." B. There was a search because the police effectively committed a physical intrusion into the constitutionally protected area of the cabin by continuing to monitor the tracking beeper after the container was moved inside the cabin. C. There was no search because the police did not violate defendant's "reasonable expectation of privacy." D. There was no search. If the police were entitled to monitor the tracking beeper before the container arrived at the cabin property, they are equally entitled to monitor it after the container was moved insider the cabin.
A. There was a search because the continued monitoring of the tracking beeper violated the defendant's "reasonable expectation of privacy."
High school officials have reason to believe that a student is in possession of over-the-counter drugs (e.g., ibuprofen). After questioning the student about the possession issue, and being unconvinced, school officials decide to search inside her clothes (where they think that the ibuprofen might be concealed). Which of the following statements regarding the constitutionality of searching the girl's underwear is correct? A. Under the circumstances, the search would be regarded as unreasonable and unconstitutional. B. Under the Fourth Amendment, school officials would never be allowed to search inside a girl's underwear for contraband. C. Just as school officials may require students to submit to drug testing, they can also require the girl to submit to a search of her underwear. D. Schools have responsibility to protect the health and safety of students in their schools, and therefore are free to use their judgment regarding the need to search the girl's underwear.
A. Under the circumstances, the search would be regarded as unreasonable and unconstitutional.
Police suspected that the defendant was growing marijuana plants in his house, so they went to his house and knocked on his front door. When no one answered, they directed an officer with a drug-sniffing dog to bring the dog on to the porch to sniff the front door. While on the porch, the dog alerted to the presence of drugs inside the home, and the police obtained a warrant based on the dog's alert. Which of the following statements correctly explains whether the police conduct was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment? A. When the police took the drug-sniffing dog on to the porch, this was a search because it was a physical intrusion upon a constitutionally protected area. B. When the police took the drug-sniffing dog on to the porch, they did not violate the scope of the implied license that the defendant gave to members of the public who might visit the house by walking up the front path, standing on the porch, and knocking on the front door. C. The dog sniff was a search because it violated the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy. D. The dog sniff was not a search because it did not violate the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy.
A. When the police took the drug-sniffing dog on to the porch, this was a search because it was a physical intrusion upon a constitutionally protected area.
The police suspected that defendant robbed a victim and then made obscene phone calls to her on the victim's landline. However, the telephone company did not keep a record of local calls, only long distance calls. Therefore, the police asked the telephone company to record the local calls from the defendant's home landline using a pen register device installed at the phone company. The telephone company complied with the request, and the next day, as soon as the defendant made a call from his home landline to the victim's landline, police obtained a warrant based on that call and searched his home. Which of the following statements incorrectly explains whether the police conduct was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment? A.There was a search because the police use of this method of telephone number surveillance violated the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy. B. There was no search because the police use of this method of telephone number surveillance did not violate the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy. C. There was no search because the defendant "knowingly exposed" the numbers that he dialed from his home landline to the telephone company, and thus assumed the risk that the company would reveal the numbers to the police. D. There was no search because the defendant voluntarily conveyed the numbers that he dialed from his home landline to a third party, namely the telephone company.
A.There was a search because the police use of this method of telephone number surveillance violated the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Assume that during the Prohibition era, federal agents were patrolling the road between Detroit and Grand Rapids in Michigan, which was known as an "active route" for transporting "bootlegged liquor" into the country from Canada. The officers had probable cause to believe that the Carroll brothers were "bootleggers" who operated in Grand Rapids, based on the fact that the Carrolls offered to sell contraband liquor to the agents during a sting operation there. But after making the offer, the Carrolls got cold feet and disappeared without producing the liquor. On another occasion, the agents encountered the Carrolls on the road from Detroit, recognized their vehicle, and tried to follow them. But the brothers evaded the agents. Some weeks later, when the agents were patrolling the road one afternoon, they recognized the Carrolls' automobile, which was heading towards Grand Rapids from Detroit. Which of the following statements correctly explains whether or not the officers had probable cause to stop the car and search it for contraband liquor? A. Even though the agents had reason to believe that the Carrolls had transported contraband liquor in the past, they did not have probable cause to search their car on the afternoon in question. B. Considering all of the circumstances, the agents had probable cause to believe that the Carrolls were transporting contraband liquor on the afternoon in question. C. The agents could not base their probable cause judgment on the fact that the Carrolls' were traveling from Detroit, a "source city" for contraband liquor. D. The totality of the evidence gave the agents nothing more than a "reasonable suspicion," something far short of probable cause, to believe that the Carrolls were transporting contraband liquor on the afternoon in question.
B. Considering all of the circumstances, the agents had probable cause to believe that the Carrolls were transporting contraband liquor on the afternoon in question.
However, there is still a legitimate question regarding whether the warrant requirement and the probable cause requirement apply the same way to administrative inspections that they apply to searches for evidence of traditional criminal conduct. Which of the following statements correctly summarizes the different legal rules applicable to administrative inspections? A. There is no meaningful difference between a search warrant issued in the administrative context, and one issued for police investigations of traditional criminal conduct. B. Courts define the term "probable cause" differently when issuing a search warrant for an administrative inspection. C. Although courts have historically scrutinized requests for search warrants with the "utmost care," they routinely grant administrative search warrants without applying meaningful standards. D. Administrative search warrants can only be issued by special administrative courts
B. Courts define the term "probable cause" differently when issuing a search warrant for an administrative inspection.
According to the Fourth Amendment's "particularity" requirement, a valid warrant must particularly describe "the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." Which of the following statements correctly describes how the particularity requirement has been applied by the courts? A. Courts apply the particularity requirement in a highly technical and exacting manner so that the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized must be described with "scrupulous exactitude." B. Courts find that the particularity requirement is satisfied as long as the police can, with "reasonable effort," ascertain and identify the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. C. Courts frequently ignore the particularity requirement altogether. D. Although courts do not require "scrupulous exactitude," they do require warrants to be drafted with a very high level of precision.
B. Courts find that the particularity requirement is satisfied as long as the police can, with "reasonable effort," ascertain and identify the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Another exception to the warrant requirement is the exception for administrative inspections. As a general rule, such inspections do not involve searches for the "fruits, instrumentalities or evidence" of crime. On the contrary, administrative agencies conduct such inspections for a variety of "administrative" purposes. For example, they might inspect restaurants to make sure that food preparation and storage conditions are clean and healthful. Which of the following statements is correct regarding the status of administrative inspections under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? A. The Fourth Amendment does not apply to administrative inspections. B. Even though administrative inspections have different purposes and objectives, they are subject to the Fourth Amendment. C. The U.S. Supreme Court has never subjected administrative inspections to constitutional scrutiny. D. Fourth Amendment requirements apply as fully to administrative inspections as to other types of searches.
B. Even though administrative inspections have different purposes and objectives, they are subject to the Fourth Amendment.
The police obtain a warrant to search a home for evidence of a bank robbery crime. When the police arrive, they find that the front door is closed and locked, and they comply with the knock and announce requirement. Which of the following statements correctly describes what police may or may not do next? A. If no one answers the door, then the police are prohibited from using a battering ram to break down the door, unless they heard some noise indicating that someone inside might be destroying evidence. In that case, they can break down the door and the evidence that they seize will be admissible. B. If no one answers the door, then even if the police do not hear any noise inside, they can use a battering ram to break down the door as long as they wait for 15 to 20 seconds before doing so, and the evidence they seize will be admissible. C. If no one answers the door and the police do not hear any noise inside, then if they wait for only 3 to 5 seconds before using the battering ram to break down the door, the evidence they seize will not be admissible. D. If no one answers the door, and the police do not hear any noise inside, if they wait for only 3 to 5 seconds before using the battering ram to break down the door, the evidence they seized will be inadmissible.
B. If no one answers the door, then even if the police do not hear any noise inside, they can use a battering ram to break down the door as long as they wait for 15 to 20 seconds before doing so, and the evidence they seize will be admissible.
Following the decision in Chadwick, the Court decided the case of United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982). In Ross, the question was where the police could search pursuant to the automobile exception, and more specifically whether they look inside a brown paper bag that they found in the trunk of Ross' vehicle. Ross stood for which of the following propositions? A. A search under the automobile exception is limited to the passenger compartment of the vehicle. B. If the police have probable cause to believe that an automobile contains containers or compartments that might conceal the object of the search, then they can search those compartments or containers. C. While the police are authorized to search the entire vehicle, they may not examine the contents of the paper bag without a warrant. D. Under the automobile exception, if the police have probable cause to search a vehicle, they may search the entire vehicle. Back
B. If the police have probable cause to believe that an automobile contains containers or compartments that might conceal the object of the search, then they can search those compartments or containers.
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), a police officer observed three men acting suspiciously near a jewelry store. The men appeared to be "casing the store" in preparation for a robbery. In Terry, the Court held that the police officer could intervene in the situation because he reasonably concluded that criminal activity was afoot and that the suspects were armed and dangerous. What actions did the Court hold that the officer could take? A. The Court held that the officer could arrest the men for attempted robbery. B. The Court held that the officer could "stop" the men and ask them some questions regarding their activities. C. The Court held that the officer could take the men into the police station for questioning. D. The Court held that, after the officer stopped the men, if they did not provide satisfactory answers, the officer must release them at that point
B. The Court held that the officer could "stop" the men and ask them some questions regarding their activities.
Robinson is involved in an automobile accident and is taken by ambulance to the local hospital. Fearing that Robinson is intoxicated, and that his intoxication may have been a precipitating factor in the accident, a police officer asks hospital officials to take a blood sample from his body so that it can be analyzed for the presence of alcohol. The officer fears that, since alcohol content tends to dissipate in the blood stream, time is of the essence in terms of obtaining the blood sample. Which of the following statements regarding the constitutionality of the officer's actions is correct? A. The blood withdrawal "shocks the conscience" and is therefore unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. B. The constitutionality of the officer's actions is dependent on proof that there was no time to obtain a search warrant authorizing the blood withdrawal. C. Blood may never be withdrawn from an individual without a warrant. D. Under the circumstances, it was impermissible for the officer to order a warrantless extraction of blood from Robinson by hospital personnel.
B. The constitutionality of the officer's actions is dependent on proof that there was no time to obtain a search warrant authorizing the blood withdrawal.
In addition to seizing persons, the police sometimes detain an individual's luggage or other property. Suppose that the police spy an individual in an airport who they reasonably suspect (based on his actions) of transporting marijuana. They approach the man and ask him some questions. The man's answers do not dispel their suspicions. The police wish to have a drug-sniffing dog smell the man's luggage and see if the dog reacts (which would suggest the presence of drugs). However, a dog is not currently available. The police seize the man's luggage and remove it to the police office in the airport. Forty-five minutes later, the canine arrives, sniffs the luggage, and reacts. Which of the following statements accurately summarizes the permissibility of seizing and holding the man's luggage? A. The police may not seize a traveler's luggage without first obtaining a search warrant. B. The initial seizure was reasonable, given the officer's reasonable suspicions, but the police actions were "unreasonable" (and, therefore, unconstitutional) because of the length of the seizure. C. The police actions were constitutional and permissible. D. The police are never permitted to make a warrantless seizure of a person's luggage in order to subject the luggage to a canine sniff?
B. The initial seizure was reasonable, given the officer's reasonable suspicions, but the police actions were "unreasonable" (and, therefore, unconstitutional) because of the length of the seizure.
In the prior problem, suppose that a police officer searches Chambers' person incident to arrest and finds a "smart phone" on his person. Which of the following statements is correct regarding the police officer's authority to search the smart phone? A. The officer may examine the smart phone, and may review the electronic contents of the phone. B. The officer may examine the exterior of the phone to make sure that it is not concealing a weapon (e.g., a razor blade). C. The officer may search the electronic contents of the phone. D. Since the phone was on Chambers' person, the officer may search anything and everything related to the phone.
B. The officer may examine the exterior of the phone to make sure that it is not concealing a weapon (e.g., a razor blade).
Now that we know that the police have the right to make a search incident to a valid arrest, let's think about the justifications for permitting a warrantless search under these circumstances. Which of the following statements correctly indicates why the courts have allowed the police to make warrantless searches incident to arrest? A. The court has found that most arrestees are armed and dangerous. B. The police are entitled to make sure that the arrestee does not have a weapon that he can use to effectuate an escape. C. The Fourth Amendment specifically authorizes a warrantless search in this context. D. An individual who is arrested loses all protection against police searches and seizures.
B. The police are entitled to make sure that the arrestee does not have a weapon that he can use to effectuate an escape.
Another exception to the warrant requirement is for so-called "consent searches." In fact, this is not really an exception to the warrant requirement. Everyone has the right to waive their entitlement to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, we need to think about when the police may seek consent, and the requirements for a valid consent. Which of the following statements accurately summarizes the permissibility of allowing the police to seek consent to search from an individual? A. The police may only seek consent to search when they have probable cause to believe that the individual is involved in criminal activity. B. The police do not need any justification to seek consent to conduct a search. C. The police may only seek consent to search when they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person to be searched is involved in criminal activity. D. The police may only seek consent to search when they have a "clear indication" that the person to be searched is involved in criminal activity.
B. The police do not need any justification to seek consent to conduct a search.
Suppose that a man seeks to enter the U.S. from Mexico. Customs officials inspect the man's vehicle for the presence of contraband, and have reason to believe that the man might be carrying illegal drugs in his gasoline tank. As a result, the officials decide to dismantle the gas tank to verify their suspicions. Which of the following statements correctly states whether the police may dismantle the tank? A. Although customs officials have broad authority to search luggage at the U.S. border, it is unreasonable (and, therefore, unconstitutional) for them to dismantle the gas tank. B. The police may dismantle the gasoline tank without violating the man's rights. C. The police need a warrant in order to dismantle the gas tank. D. The police may dismantle the gas tank, but only if they have probable cause to believe that the man is carrying contraband in the tank.
B. The police may dismantle the gasoline tank without violating the man's rights.
As a general rule, one would assume that a husband and wife, both of whom live in a house, have authority to consent to a search of the house. However, in some instances, the spouses are in disagreement regarding whether to permit a search. Suppose that the wife authorizes the police to search a house, but the husband adamantly and vociferously objects to allowing the police to enter the house. Which of the following statements correctly indicates whether the police may enter the house? A. Since both spouses have equal authority over the house, the police have the right to enter the house. B. The police may not enter a house when one spouse consents to the search, but the other spouse is present and objecting. C. The police only have consent to search a house when both spouses affirmatively grant them consent to search. D. When one spouse grants consent, and the other objects, the police should obtain written proof of the consenting spouse's permission
B. The police may not enter a house when one spouse consents to the search, but the other spouse is present and objecting.
Assume that police have a warrant that authorizes them to search a house for stolen coins. Shortly before they execute the warrant, the police acquire probable cause to search the house for cocaine, but they do not bother to seek an additional search warrant for that purpose. Then they enter the house and commence their search. When they enter the kitchen, they observe large quantities of white powder in vials on the kitchen counter, as well as glassine envelopes. They seize these items and the white powder turns out to be cocaine. Which of the following statements correctly describes whether or not the police seizure was lawful? A. The seizure was invalid because the police had probable cause, in advance of the search, that they would find cocaine in the house. B. The seizure was valid under the "plain view" doctrine because the officers saw the cocaine in "plain view" from a lawful vantage point, namely a location in the kitchen where they had the right to be. C. The seizure was invalid because the warrant only authorized the police to seize stolen coins, and therefore the police should have obtained a second warrant authorizing them to search for and seize evidence of cocaine. D. The seizure was invalid because the police should not have entered the kitchen.
B. The seizure was valid under the "plain view" doctrine because the officers saw the cocaine in "plain view" from a lawful vantage point, namely a location in the kitchen where they had the right to be.
The police suspected defendant of growing marijuana inside her home using grow lights, which produce a significant amount of heat. Therefore, the police decided to rely on FLIR (forward-looking infrared technology) by using a heat scanner device to determine whether an excessive level of heat was emanating from the walls of defendant's home. From a vantage point across the street, the police aimed the heat scanner at the walls to measure the heat. Which of the following statements correctly explains whether the police conduct was a search under the Fourth Amendment? A. There was no search because the heat scanner device only measured heat that came "off the wall" not "through the wall," and therefore it revealed no information about the interior of the defendant's home. B. There was a search because the use of the heat scanner violated defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy. C. There was no search because the use of the heat scanner did not require a physical intrusion into the constitutionally protected area of the home. D. There was no search because the heat scanner obtained only information that could have been observed by a member of the public, namely that some walls of the defendant's home were noticeably warmer than those of nearby homes.
B. There was a search because the use of the heat scanner violated defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy.
One day while on foot patrol, a police officer happens to look through the front window of a house and notices a marijuana plant in the window, which is visible through the glass from his vantage point on the public sidewalk in front of the house. He does not see anyone in the room with the marijuana plant, nor can he determine whether anyone is home. Since it is illegal to grow marijuana in this jurisdiction, the officer decides to makes a warrantless entry into the house. The front door is closed but not locked, so the officer enters the house and seizes the marijuana plant. Then the officer finds the homeowner in the back yard and arrests him. Which of the following statements correctly describes whether the officer's seizure of the marijuana plant was lawful? A. Given the fact that the officer saw the marijuana plant in plain view, he had the authority to enter the house and seize the plant. B. Under the plain view doctrine, the officer did not have the authority to enter the house and seize the plant. C. The officer acted unlawfully by looking through the window and observing the inside of the house. D. The officer did not violate the homeowner's rights when the officer observed the plant, and his warrantless entry was justified because of the need to act quickly to prevent the destruction of evidence.
B. Under the plain view doctrine, the officer did not have the authority to enter the house and seize the plant.
Now, suppose that instead of arresting an individual for committing a felony, a police officer wishes to arrest the individual for a misdemeanor (a driver's failure to wear a seat belt while driving an automobile). Under state law, the officer can either issue a citation to the driver or make a custodial arrest. Suppose that the officer decides to make a custodial arrest. Which of the following statements correctly summarizes the permissibility of making a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor under these circumstances? A.Given that a misdemeanor is a minor offense, a police officer can never make a custodial arrest for a misdemeanor. B.If state law permits the police to make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor, then the arrest is constitutionally permissible C.Given that a misdemeanor is a minor offense, a police officer can make a custodial arrest only if the misdemeanor involves life threatening activity. D. Given that a misdemeanor is a minor offense, a police officer can make a custodial arrest only if exigent circumstances exist.
B.If state law permits the police to make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor, then the arrest is constitutionally permissible
The police wish to establish a roadblock on New Year's Eve in an effort to catch, and remove from the road, intoxicated drivers. Which of the following statements accurately indicates the constitutionality of establishing such a roadblock? A. Roadblocks of this nature are strictly prohibited under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. B. Under Prouse, the police can only stop drivers who they reasonably believe are under the influence of alcohol. Thus, such roadblocks are per se unconstitutional. C. Assuming that the roadblocks are constructed in a reasonable manner, that limits police discretion and arbitrary enforcement, such roadblocks are constitutionally permissible. D. Before establishing a roadblock, the police must obtain a "programmatic warrant" authorizing the roadblock
C. Assuming that the roadblocks are constructed in a reasonable manner, that limits police discretion and arbitrary enforcement, such roadblocks are constitutionally permissible.
A police officer stops a vehicle lawfully at a driver's license checkpoint, and happens to see that the driver is holding an opaque party balloon, which is green in color. The balloon is not inflated but it is knotted about one half inch from the tip. The officer also notices that the glove compartment is open and that it contains a bag of green party balloons and quantities of loose white powder. The officer is aware that drug dealers frequently carry heroin in such party balloons, and so she decides to investigate further. She reaches into the vehicle and grabs the balloon out of the driver's hand. When she examines the balloon, she can feel a powdery substance inside the tied-off part of the balloon. So the officer opens the balloon, and later it turns out that the white powder inside is heroin. Which of the following statements correctly describes whether or not the officer's seizure of the balloon from the driver was lawful? A.The plain view doctrine does not apply because the balloon was opaque and the heroin was not visible. Therefore, the incriminating character of the balloon was not "immediately apparent." B.Since the officer was unable to confirm that the balloon contained the powdery substance until after she seized it from the driver and examined the balloon physically, the plain view doctrine does not apply. C.Nothing more is required under the plain view doctrine than a showing that the balloon was in plain view when the officer first saw it, and that it appeared to be suspicious. D.Based on the appearance of the balloon, on the officer's view of the items in the glove compartment, and on the officer's awareness that drug dealers often carry heroin in such balloons, the incriminating character of the balloon was "immediately apparent" before the balloon was seized, and the officer may invoke the plain view doctrine.
B.Since the officer was unable to confirm that the balloon contained the powdery substance until after she seized it from the driver and examined the balloon physically, the plain view doctrine does not apply.
When police obtained a warrant to search a third-floor apartment in an apartment building, they believed that there was only one apartment on the third floor. This belief was based on information received from an informant, which they corroborated by checking with the utility company and by observing the exterior of the apartment building. However, it turned out that there were two apartments. Before the police discovered this fact, they had searched the wrong apartment, seized contraband, and arrested the defendant in that apartment. Then they realized their error and stopped searching. Which of the following statements correctly describes the rule that applies in this scenario? A. The search was invalid because the warrant failed to particularly describe the apartment that was searched. B. The search was invalid because the police acted recklessly in not conducting an adequate investigation to discover the existence of the two apartments before they obtained the warrant. C. As long as the police mistake was reasonable, they were allowed to conduct the search of the wrong apartment based on the warrant, assuming that they discontinued the search as soon as they discovered their mistake. D. The search was invalid because the police were obligated to limit their search to the apartment for which the search was authorized in the warrant.
C. As long as the police mistake was reasonable, they were allowed to conduct the search of the wrong apartment based on the warrant, assuming that they discontinued the search as soon as they discovered their mistake.
Assume that police attach a GPS device to defendant's car when it is parked in a public lot. Then the police use the GPS signals to track the movements of the car for several weeks, 24 hours a day. The tracking information ties the defendant to a drug conspiracy because of the timing and duration of his visits to particular locations. Which of the following statements correctly explains whether either the attachment of the GPS device or the monitoring constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment according to Supreme Court precedent? A. By attaching the GPS device to the car, the police did not commit a search because they did not commit a physical intrusion upon a "constitutionally protected area." B. By attaching the GPS device to the car, the police did not commit a search because they did not violate defendant's "reasonable expectation of privacy." C. By attaching the GPS device to the car, the police committed a search because they committed a physical intrusion upon a constitutionally protected area. D. By monitoring the car's movements using the GPS device, the police did not commit a search because their surveillance only obtained information about defendant's movements that were knowingly exposed to the public, which surveillance did not violate defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy.
C. By attaching the GPS device to the car, the police committed a search because they committed a physical intrusion upon a constitutionally protected area.
Which of the following types of roadblocks have not been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court? A. License and registration roadblocks. B. Roadblocks designed to uncover witnesses to a crime. C. Drug interdiction roadblocks. D. Alcohol interdiction checkpoints.
C. Drug interdiction roadblocks.
Now, let's think about how consent principles might apply to a hypothetical set of facts. Suppose that the police come to a woman's house (she is a grandmother) and ask for permission to search the woman's house. The police believe that the woman's grandson is involved in drug trafficking and they are hoping to find evidence of trafficking in his bedroom. Suppose that the police tell the woman: "We have a warrant to search the house. Will you allow us to enter?" The woman responds "Go ahead." The police search the house and find incriminating evidence in the grandson's bedroom. At a suppression hearing, the police are unable to show that they actually possessed a warrant to search the house. Which of the following statements is correct regarding whether the grandmother's consent to search was voluntary? A.Given that the police did not threaten or use violence against the grandmother, her consent appears to be voluntary and uncoerced. B. Given that the grandmother responded to the police request by saying "Go ahead," and not expressing any concerns, her consent appears to be voluntary and uncoerced. C. Given that the police asserted that they had a warrant, the grandmother's consent cannot be regarded as voluntary and uncoerced. D. The totality of the circumstances suggest that the grandmother's consent was not coerced.
C. Given that the police asserted that they had a warrant, the grandmother's consent cannot be regarded as voluntary and uncoerced.
A police officer, walking down the street, hears a woman screaming for help in a nearby house. The officer enters the house in an effort to provide help. Which of the following statements correctly states the constitutionality of the police officer's actions? A. The officer was required to obtain a warrant to enter the house, and therefore the entry was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. B. The officer was not allowed to make a warrantless entry into the house, but was only allowed to knock and inquire whether the occupants were in need of assistance. C. Given that the woman's screams suggested an emergency, the officer was permitted to make a warrantless entry into the house. D. The officer was not allowed to enter the house without an express invitation
C. Given that the woman's screams suggested an emergency, the officer was permitted to make a warrantless entry into the house.
A police officer has probable cause to arrest Hancock for forgery. However, the police have been unable to apprehend him. They believe that he has been hiding out in his home. Which of the following statements is accurate regarding whether the police can make a warrantless entry into Hancock's house to arrest him? A. Since the police have probable cause to arrest Hancock, they are free to make a warrantless entry into his house in order to effectuate the arrest. B. Even though not all crimes would give the police the right to make a warrantless entry into a house, forgery is a crime for which a warrantless entry to arrest is permissible. C. Given the special status accorded to the home, the police may not enter Hancock's residence to arrest him without a warrant. D. The home receives no special protection so that, if the police have the right to arrest Hancock outside of his home, they have an equal right to enter his home to effectuate a warrantless arrest.
C. Given the special status accorded to the home, the police may not enter Hancock's residence to arrest him without a warrant.
Now, let's modify the prior problem a bit. Suppose that, in addition to requiring all inmates to submit to a strip search, jail authorities also decide to subject them to DNA testing. The goal of the testing is to help the authorities be sure that the person that they have arrested is the person that he claims to be. Which of the following statements correctly states whether the jail authorities can subject inmates to DNA testing under the Fourth Amendment? A. DNA testing of jail inmates constitutes an extreme invasion of privacy and is never permitted. B. DNA testing is only permitted when jail authorities can provide a compelling justification for needing DNA results on a particular inmate. C. Jail authorities are entitled to subject all inmates to DNA testing. D. DNA testing is permitted only for inmates who have been charged with rape or sexual assault
C. Jail authorities are entitled to subject all inmates to DNA testing.
Assume that police have applied for a search warrant from a magistrate who must make a determination of probable cause under governing Supreme Court precedents. Which of the following statements is a correct description of one of the propositions articulated by the Court regarding the probable cause doctrine? A.Probable cause literally means "cause" that is "probable," so the police must be able to show that it is more likely than not that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime exist, and can be found at the place to be searched. B. Probable cause requires that police must be able to show that they have at least a "reasonable suspicion" that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime exist, and can be found at the place to be searched. C. Probable cause requires that police must be able to show that the facts and circumstances would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that the fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime exist, and can be found at the place to be searched. D. The probable cause determination requires a magistrate to apply precise legal rules to determine by a "clear preponderance of the evidence" that the fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime exist, and can be found at the place to be searched.
C. Probable cause requires that police must be able to show that the facts and circumstances would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that the fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime exist, and can be found at the place to be searched.
The police obtained a warrant to search a home for evidence of a felony drug crime. When the police arrived, they found that the front door was closed and locked. Which of the following statements correctly describes the procedure that the Fourth Amendment requires at this point? A. The Fourth Amendment always requires the police to "knock and announce" themselves before entering a dwelling to execute a warrant to search for any type of evidence. B. The Fourth Amendment never requires the police to "knock and announce" themselves before entering a dwelling to execute a warrant to search for any type of evidence. C. The Fourth Amendment generally requires the police to "knock and announce" themselves, but the requirement does not apply when the police have a reasonable suspicion that their compliance would create either a threat of physical violence or a danger of the destruction of evidence. D. The Fourth Amendment's "knock and announce" requirement does not apply whenever police have a warrant to search for evidence of a felony drug crime.
C. The Fourth Amendment generally requires the police to "knock and announce" themselves, but the requirement does not apply when the police have a reasonable suspicion that their compliance would create either a threat of physical violence or a danger of the destruction of evidence.
which of the following statements accurately summarizes the scope of the search allowed under the inventory exception? A. The police may only check the glove box for the car's registration papers. B. The police may search only the interior of the vehicle. C. The police may search the entire vehicle, including the passenger compartment and the trunk. D. The police may not search the trunk of the vehicle.
C. The police may search the entire vehicle, including the passenger compartment and the trunk.
Which of the following statements correctly summarizes how warrants are treated under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution? A. The Fourth Amendment explicitly requires a warrant as the precondition for a valid search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment. B. The Fourth Amendment explicitly encourages the police to seek a warrant as the precondition for a valid search. C. The Fourth Amendment explicitly prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures," and stipulates the requirements for a valid warrant. D. The Fourth Amendment establishes a requirement that all searches and seizures must be "reasonable," and refers to a search based on a warrant as one example of a reasonable search.
C.The Fourth Amendment explicitly prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures," and stipulates the requirements for a valid warrant.
The so-called Terry stop and frisk exception has led the Court to articulate a series of rules governing police-citizen interactions. Suppose, for example, that a police officer is on routine patrol in your city. The officer, aware that some cars are not properly registered, and that some individuals will drive cars without proper insurance, decides to pull drivers over to check their driver's licenses and registration papers. Which of the following statements is correct regarding the officer's authority to pull drivers over? A. Since all drivers are expected to have their registration papers and proof of insurance with them, the officer is free to pull over any driver for the purpose of verifying their documentation. B. The officer must have a warrant, based on probable cause, in order to stop a motorist. C. The officer may stop a motorist without first obtaining a warrant, but must have "probable cause" for the stop. D. A police officer can only pull a motorist over if he develops a reasonable suspicion that the driver is committing a criminal act (e.g., a traffic violation)
D. A police officer can only pull a motorist over if he develops a reasonable suspicion that the driver is committing a criminal act (e.g., a traffic violation)
Which of the following tests has been used by the Supreme Court to determine whether the police have conducted a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment? A. A search occurs within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only when the police make a physical intrusion into a "constitutionally protected area" to gain information. B. A search occurs when the police violate an individual's subjective "expectation of privacy." C. A search occurs only when the police commit a physical intrusion into or upon an individual's person, house, papers, or effects, to gain information. D. A search occurs when the police violate an individual's "reasonable expectation of privacy" or they intrude into a constitutionally protected area.
D. A search occurs when the police violate an individual's "reasonable expectation of privacy" or they intrude into a constitutionally protected area.
The Fourth Amendment imposes which of the following requirements for the issuance of a search warrant? A. A search warrant may only be issued by a magistrate who is a lawyer. B. A search warrant may not be issued based on "hearsay" evidence. C. A search warrant may be issued based on a showing of a "reasonable suspicion."
D. A search warrant must particularly describe the places to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A school district is concerned by evidence of drug abuse by students in the district. Accordingly, the district decides to create a drug testing program for students involve in extra-curricular activities. Under the policy, all students are required to be tested before participating in an extra-curricular activity, must submit to random drug testing while participating in those activities, and agree to be tested at any time based on a reasonable suspicion that they are using drugs. Which of the following statements correctly summarizes the constitutionality of the program? A. The school district must obtain a warrant before requiring students to submit to drug testing. B. The school district may only test students who they have probable cause to believe are using or abusing illegal drugs. C. The school district may only test students who they have a reasonable suspicion are using illegal drugs. D. The drug testing program is reasonable and constitutional as a response to student drug abuse.
D. The drug testing program is reasonable and constitutional as a response to student drug abuse.
The Fourth Amendment provides, among other things, that no warrant shall issue except on a finding of "probable cause." Which of the following statements is an incorrect description of one of the propositions articulated by the Court regarding the role of probable cause in arrest warrants and search warrants? A. In order to obtain a search warrant, there must be probable cause to believe that the fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime exist, and probable cause to believe that such evidence may be found in the place to be searched. B. In order to obtain an arrest warrant, there must be probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, and that the person to be arrested has committed it. C. A valid arrest warrant carries with it the authority to enter the dwelling of the person to be arrested in order to perform the arrest, and police do not need to have probable cause that the person is inside his or her dwelling at the time the warrant is executed. D. A valid arrest warrant carries with it the authority to enter the dwellings of other individuals in order to perform the arrest of the person named in the warrant.
D. A valid arrest warrant carries with it the authority to enter the dwellings of other individuals in order to perform the arrest of the person named in the warrant.
Now, let's think a bit more regarding the meaning and application of the administrative exception to the warrant requirement. Although Camara held that administrative searches were subject to the Fourth Amendment, it treated them differently than searches for evidence of traditional criminal activity. Which of the following statements are correct regarding the Fourth Amendment rules applicable to administrative searches? A. Although the Fourth Amendment applies to administrative searches, the warrant requirement does not apply. B. Although both the Fourth Amendment and the warrant requirement apply to administrative searches, the courts do not require probable cause for an administrative search. C. Administrative searches can only be conducted when there is a "reasonable suspicion" that there are administrative violations. D. Both the warrant requirement, and the probable cause requirement, apply to administrative searches.
D. Both the warrant requirement, and the probable cause requirement, apply to administrative searches.
The police are investigating John and Jerry for alleged possession of illegal drugs (cocaine). As they approach the house where John and Jerry live, the officers see John setting on the front porch. When John sees the police, he panics and runs into the house, screaming for Jerry. Fearful that John and Jerry may destroy the cocaine, in order to escape detection, the police make an immediate warrantless entry into the house. Which of the following statements is correct regarding the permissibility of the warrantless entry? A. Given that the actions of the police officer (in approaching the house) precipitated the possible destruction of the evidence, the officers were not allowed to make a warrantless entry into the house. B. The officer's belief that John and Jerry might destroy evidence was unreasonable, and therefore they were not allowed to make a warrantless entry into the house. C. Even in an emergency situation, the police ere required to obtain a warrant before entering the house. D. Given that there was a substantial likelihood that John and Jerry intended to destroy the evidence, the police were allowed to make a warrantless entry into the house.
D. Given that there was a substantial likelihood that John and Jerry intended to destroy the evidence, the police were allowed to make a warrantless entry into the house.
One issue that sometimes arises in consent cases is the question of who may consent to a search. Presumably, the owner of a house always has the right to consent to a search of his own house. Do others also have that right? Suppose that Rodriguez lived with a woman for some time before she moved out. After she moved out, she called the police and told them that Rodriguez had beaten her. She referred to his apartment as "our apartment," and she had a key to the apartment. With that key, she allowed the police to enter the home and conduct a search. In fact, the woman had moved out of the apartment and had no right to enter. She had taken the key without Rodriguez's knowledge. Which of the following statements correctly indicates whether her consent to enter the apartment was valid? A. Only the owner of property has authority to consent to a search of that property. B. The consent was invalid because the police should have demanded proof that she actually lived there. C. The woman would have authority to consent to a search of the apartment had she actually lived there, but did not have authority because she had moved out. D. The consent was valid because the police reasonably believed, based on the circumstances, that the woman had authority to consent to the search.
D. The consent was valid because the police reasonably believed, based on the circumstances, that the woman had authority to consent to the search.
Assume that a police officer presents an affidavit to a magistrate that contains some false statements of fact. The magistrate is unaware of the falsity of these statements, and issues the warrant based on the affidavit. The warrant is executed, evidence is seized, and the defendant is charged with a crime based on that evidence. Now defendant seeks to challenge the warrant and files a motion to suppress the evidence. Which of the following statements correctly describes the rule that a reviewing court will apply in this scenario? A. The court will automatically suppress evidence when a warrant affidavit included police misrepresentations of fact. B. The court will automatically suppress evidence when a warrant affidavit included police misrepresentations of fact, but only when there is proof that the misrepresentations were deliberate and intentional. C. The court will refuse to suppress evidence even though the warrant affidavit included police misrepresentations of fact. D. The court will suppress evidence when a warrant affidavit included police misrepresentations of fact made with reckless disregard for the truth, assuming that the remaining facts in the warrant affidavit would not have established probable cause.
D. The court will suppress evidence when a warrant affidavit included police misrepresentations of fact made with reckless disregard for the truth, assuming that the remaining facts in the warrant affidavit would not have established probable cause.
Now, let's think a bit more about the automobile exception, and the justifications for creating that exception. Which of the following statements incorrectly indicates one of the justifications articulated by the Court for allowing warrantless searches of automobiles: A. The fact that automobiles are mobile. B. The fact that there is a "diminished expectation of privacy" in an automobile. C. The fact that the circumstances giving rise to the need to search a vehicle can arise unexpectedly. D. The fact that automobiles are commonly used in the commission of crimes.
D. The fact that automobiles are commonly used in the commission of crimes.
OK, so we know that the police can seek consent to conduct a search. Now, we need to think about the requirements for a valid consent. Which of the following statements accurately states the requirements for a valid consent? A. In order to have a valid consent, the police must inform a suspect of the right to refuse consent. B. In order to have a valid consent, the police must inform a suspect of the right to refuse consent, as well as the potential consequences of giving consent. C. In order to have a valid consent, the police must obtain written consent. D. The police can obtain a valid consent without informing the suspect of the right to refuse consent.
D. The police can obtain a valid consent without informing the suspect of the right to refuse consent.
The police have a warrant to arrest the occupants of a home for participation in an armed robbery. When the police arrive at the home to execute the warrant, they have reason to believe that others are present on the premises, and the police are fearful for their safety. Which of the following statements accurately describes the actions that the police may take (in addition to making arrests pursuant to the warrants)? A. An arrest warrant gives the police the right to search the entire house for evidence related to the robbery and the arrests. B. Once the police locate the person to be arrested, they must immediately subdue him and exit the house. C. Although the police may not search the house, they are entitled to make a "protective sweep" of the house for weapons, and can examine any container that may possibly contain a weapon. D. The police may make a "protective sweep" of the house in order to ensure that others are not present who may launch an attack against the police
D. The police may make a "protective sweep" of the house in order to ensure that others are not present who may launch an attack against the police
Assume that police had probable cause and exigent circumstances to make a warrantless entry into an apartment to look for weapons. Once inside the apartment, the police noticed that the apartment is very poorly furnished and in bad condition. However, there was one expensive-looking item in the apartment, which was a speaker system and related equipment. One police officer decided to examine the equipment more closely, and so she picked up the equipment, and turned it over to find the serial numbers. Then she called the police station to find out whether those numbers matched the numbers on stolen equipment, and they did. So the police seized the equipment. Which of the following statements correctly describes whether or not this seizure was lawful? A. The seizure was lawful under the plain view doctrine because of the officer's lawful vantage point when she noticed the equipment, and because the incriminating character of the expensive equipment was "immediately apparent." B. The seizure was lawful under the plain view doctrine because the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that the equipment was stolen before she picked it up. C. The plain view doctrine could not be invoked by the police because they entered the apartment without a warrant. D. The seizure was not lawful under the plain view doctrine because the officer went beyond visual observation of the equipment and physically moved it so that she could examine the serial numbers.
D. The seizure was not lawful under the plain view doctrine because the officer went beyond visual observation of the equipment and physically moved it so that she could examine the serial numbers.
Even though the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant as a precondition to a valid search, Supreme Court precedents endorse a "warrant preference." In other words, when the police conduct a search without a warrant, the search is presumptively unconstitutional. Which of the following statements incorrectly describes the warrant preference? A. The use of warrants helps to protect the citizenry against the random or arbitrary acts of government agents. B. The use of warrants helps to assure the citizenry that an intrusion is authorized by law. C. The use of warrants requires the detached and neutral scrutiny of a neutral magistrate to determine whether the probable cause and particularity requirements are satisfied. D. The use of warrants does not require the establishment of parameters for the scope of searches.
D. The use of warrants does not require the establishment of parameters for the scope of searches.
The police suspected that defendant was growing marijuana in her back yard, which was surrounded by a high wall. Given the impossibility of viewing the back yard at the ground level, the police obtained the use of a small airplane and flew over the back yard. From their vantage point 1,000 feet up in the sky, the police observed a patch of marijuana plants that was growing in the yard. Which of the following statements correctly describes whether the police conduct was a search under the Fourth Amendment? A. There was a search because the police use of the airplane constituted an intrusion into a "constitutionally protected area." B. There was a search because the police use of the airplane violated defendant's "reasonable expectation of privacy." C. There was a search because the police cannot use technology to enhance their human senses. D. There was no search because the defendant knowingly exposed her back yard to the view of members of the flying public.
D. There was no search because the defendant knowingly exposed her back yard to the view of members of the flying public.
Defendant was waiting for a plane at an airport, with his backpack on the ground next to him, when he was approached by DEA agents who had a drug-sniffing dog with them. Without asking defendant's permission, the DEA agents directed the dog to sniff the backpack, and the dog alerted to the presence of drugs. Which of the following statements correctly explains whether the police conduct was a search under the Fourth Amendment? A. There was no search because the backpack was not a constitutionally protected area. B. There was no search because there was no physical intrusion into the backpack, even though it qualified as a constitutionally protected area. C. There was a search because the police violated the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the interior of his backpack. D. There was no search because the police did not violate the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy.
D. There was no search because the police did not violate the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy.
The Court has also created an "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement. Which of the following statements correctly indicates the meaning and scope of that exception? A. When the police have probable cause to believe that the fruits, instrumentalities or evidence of crime exist in a vehicle, and there is no time to obtain a warrant, they can make a warrantless search of the vehicle. B. The Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches of automobiles. C. The police may only search an automobile without a warrant when they have probable cause to believe that it contains weapons. D. When the police have probable cause to believe that the fruits, instrumentalities or evidence of crime exist in a vehicle, they can make a warrantless search of the vehicle.
D. When the police have probable cause to believe that the fruits, instrumentalities or evidence of crime exist in a vehicle, they can make a warrantless search of the vehicle.
Now that we know that the police have the right to make a search incident to a valid arrest, and the justifications for that exception, let's think about the permissible scope of that search. Suppose that a man is arrested in the living room of his home (presumably based on a warrant authorizing the arrest). Which of the following statements correctly summarizes the scope of the search that the police may make incident to that arrest? A.The police can search the entire first floor of the house as part of a search incident to arrest. B.The police may not only search the first floor of the house, but also the second floor of the house, as part of a search incident to legal arrest. C.The police may search not only the first and second floors of the house, but also the attic and the garage, as part of a search incident to legal arrest. D.The police may only search the area within the individual's area of "immediate control" under the search incident to legal arrest exception.
D.The police may only search the area within the individual's area of "immediate control" under the search incident to legal arrest exception.
