Crim Pro Final Exam Practice Questions

What are the factors used to determine whether the illegal act is sufficiently attenuated from the challenged evidence? (Wong Sun Rule)

(1) amount of time elapsed between the initial unlawful act and obtaining the challenged evidence; (2) an intervening act of free will; (3) the flagrancy of the violation; and (4) the nature of the derivative evidence. **courts will weigh all these factors when determining whether the challenged evidence has been sufficiently attenuated from the initial illegality**

Identify the two rationales for the exclusionary rule:

(1) judicial integrity; and (2) deterrence rationale.

An officer visiting the home of a murder witness to take a statement asks the witness if she has a pen. The witness directs the officer to look in an adjacent drawer. Upon opening the drawer the officer sees a pen and a marijuana cigarette. Does the officer have a lawful right of access to the item seized in plain view? A. Lawful Right of Access B. No Lawful Right of Access

A. Lawful Right of Access The officer was visiting the home for the limited purpose of taking the witness' statement. However, the officer received permission to open a drawer to look for a pen. Therefore, the officer has lawful access to the drawer when viewing the marijuana cigarette.

An officer stops D and his passenger P and asks them both to exit the vehicle. The officer places D under arrest for suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. After D is handcuffed and placed in the police cruiser, the officer searches the passenger compartment of D's vehicle incident to arrest based upon the reasonable belief that drugs or alcohol may be located in the vehicle. During the search, the officer opens P's purse, which is sitting on the passenger seat of the vehicle. A. Lawful search incident to arrest. B. Unlawful search incident to arrest.

A. Lawful search incident to arrest. During a search incident to arrest, officers may search the entire passenger compartment, including any containers therein.

If the drug sniffing dog had stayed on the curtilage instead of going to the front door in Jardines, then the search would have been permissible under the Fourth Amendment. A. True B. False

B. False o The officer needs a warrant (or an exception) to be on the curtilage

According to the Court, there is a constitutional difference between a false friend who is wearing a wire and a false friend who is not wearing a wire. A. True B. False

B. False o There is no constitutional difference o Last paragraph of the White case on page 43

An officer stops D's vehicle and arrests D's passenger, P, for a drug conspiracy. The officer then searches the passenger compartment of D's vehicle and discovers evidence incriminating D in the drug conspiracy. A. Automobile exception B. Search incident to arrest C. Inventory search

B. Search incident to arrest The search incident to arrest is limited to the passenger compartment and any containers therein. Such a search may occur when any occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle is arrested within the reaching distance of the vehicle or if there is reason to believe evidence of the crime of arrest might be located within the vehicle.

Which of the following best describes the "totality of the circumstances" analysis? A. A totality of the circumstances test weighs each of the relevant factors, but overbearing police conduct will usually carry more weight in the analysis. B. A totality of the circumstances test weighs each of the relevant factors, but if Miranda rights are not read to the suspect, then the confession will automatically be involuntary under the Fourteenth Amendment. C. A totality of the circumstances test weighs each of the relevant factors but the presumption of innocence will usually weigh more heavily in the analysis. D. A totality of the circumstances weighs each of the relevant factors with no one factor being outcome determinative.

D. A totality of the circumstances weighs each of the relevant factors with no one factor being outcome determinative.

Jack Frost, a police officer in Minnesota, went to an apartment building to investigate a tip from a confidential informant. The informant said that he had walked by the window of a ground-floor apartment and had observed people putting white powder into bags. The officer looked in the same window through a gap in the closed blind and observed the bagging operation for several minutes. He then notified headquarters, which began preparing affidavits for a search warrant while he returned to the apartment building. A search of the apartment pursuant to a warrant revealed cocaine residue on the kitchen table and plastic baggies. Frost identified Able, Baker, and Carter as the three people he had observed placing the powder into baggies. The police later learned that while Able was the lessee of the apartment, Baker and Carter lived in Chicago and had come to the apartment for the sole purpose of packaging the cocaine. Baker and Carter had never been to the apartment before and were only in the apartment for approximately 2½ hours. In return for the use of the apartment, Baker and Carter had given Able one-eighth of an ounce of the cocaine. You are the defense attorney for Baker and Carter. In a post-Rakas environment, what is your best argument that Baker and Carter have standing to challenge the officer's search of the apartment (i.e., when he "peeped" into the window)? A. Baker and Carter were legitimately on the premises when observed by the officer. B. The officer had no right to enter the curtilage of the dwelling to make the observation through the blinds. C. Because Baker and Carter were invited into the apartment, they are considered lessees for purposes of Fourth Amendment standing. D. Baker and Carter had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment even though they were not lessees.

D. Baker and Carter had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment even though they were not lessees.

An officer on routine neighborhood patrol hears what sounds like a woman's voice screaming "Help! Help!" coming from a home in the neighborhood. The officer approaches the door and hears the woman continuing to scream. At that point, the officer breaks down the door thinking that a crime is taking place. Once inside, the officer sees a woman who has been shot and also sees white powder, a scale and plastic baggies. Does the officer have a lawful or unlawful vantage point from which to conduct a plain view seizure? A. Lawful Vantage Point B. Unlawful Vantage Point

Lawful Vantage Point The officer has encountered what reasonably appear to be exigent circumstances. This allows the officer to enter the premises to aid those who may need assistance and to apprehend those who may be responsible for a crime. In this case, because the officer entered for the purpose of assisting the woman, he had a lawful vantage point.

List the Four Dunn Factors:

List the Four Dunn Factors: (1) Proximity to the home (2) Inclusion within an enclosure/fence surrounding the home (3) How the area is being used (4) Steps taken to prevent observation

Jack Inmate has been charged with unlawful weapon possession. He requested an attorney at his arraignment and has spoken with his attorney about his case. Please identify the actions the government may now lawfully take with respect to continuing to investigate the crime for which Jack has been indicted. Contacting Jack's lawyer to see if Jack wishes to talk about the weapons charge. A. Lawful B. Unlawful

Lawful Once the Sixth Amendment right has attached to a particular crime and the accused is represented by counsel, the government may choose to deal with the accused on that matter through counsel.

Jack Inmate has been charged with unlawful weapon possession. He requested an attorney at his arraignment and has spoken with his attorney about his case. Please identify the actions the government may now lawfully take with respect to continuing to investigate the crime for which Jack has been indicted. Contacting Jack to discuss the specifics of the weapons possession charge. A. Lawful B. Unlawful

Lawful The government may initiate contact with an accused once the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached and the accused has requested counsel as long as the accused is advised of his Miranda rights during a custodial interrogation.

Based on a suspicion that Danny was involved in a murder, the police located him at his place of employment for questioning. Danny responded to the officers' preliminary inquiries and agreed to go to the police station for further questioning. Approximately two hours later, a detective led Danny to an interrogation room and informed him of his Miranda rights. Danny inquired about the scope of his privilege to remain silent and then executed a written waiver of his Miranda rights. (The validity of that waiver is not at issue for purposes of this question). Danny is a mature adult and is thirty-two years old. He is of normal intelligence and has some high school education. Moreover, Danny has had previous experience with the criminal system; indeed, he has previously served a jail sentence. A 58 minute long interrogation session ensued. During the course of the interview, the detective told Danny that the victim had just died. That statement, which the detective knew to be untrue, supported another officer's earlier, and equally false, suggestion that the victim was still alive and could identify her attacker. (In fact, the victim had died at the scene.) The detective also told Danny that he had been positively identified at the victim's home earlier in the day. (In fact, the victim's brothers had only provided a general description of the perpetrator's car and clothing.) Finally, the detective indicated that blood stains had been found on Danny's front stoop. No such evidence was introduced at trial, and the police do not now contend that it ever in fact existed. Throughout the interview, the detective presented himself as sympathetic to Danny's plight. On several occasions, he stated that he did not consider Danny to be a criminal because whoever perpetrated the murder had a "mental problem" and needed medical help rather than punishment. Eventually, Danny fully confessed to the crime. After doing so, he lapsed into what the detective described as a "state of shock." Repeated efforts to rouse Danny from his stupor failed, and the police summoned an ambulance to transport him to the hospital. What impact would it have on the voluntariness of the confession if Danny is of normal intelligence and has served time in jail before? A. These are neutral factors and they would have no impact. B. These factors will impact the issue of whether Danny will be susceptible to psychological ploys and pressures by the police. C. These factors will allow the police to be more aggressive with Danny during the interrogation. D. These factors mean that Danny is already on equal footing with police officers in the interrogation room and therefore he does not need the constitutional protection.

B. These factors will impact the issue of whether Danny will be susceptible to psychological ploys and pressures by the police. One of the factors to be considered in the totality of the circumstances analysis is whether the suspect is intelligent and capable of understanding the consequences of speaking with the police. Thus, it is relevant that Danny is of normal intelligence and has been to jail before because that implies that he has some experience with the criminal justice system and might be more resistant to police tactics during interrogation. Again, these factors are considered relevant in the totality of the circumstances analysis; they are not outcome determinative.

An officer stops D in his vehicle and orders him out of the vehicle to arrest him on an outstanding warrant for armed robbery. After handcuffing and placing D in the police cruiser, the officer searches the entire passenger compartment and the trunk of D's vehicle incident to arrest based upon a reasonable belief that evidence of the robbery may be located in the vehicle. A. Lawful search incident to arrest. B. Unlawful search incident to arrest.

B. Unlawful search incident to arrest. A search of a vehicle incident to arrest is limited to the passenger compartment and any containers therein. Therefore, officers may not lawfully search the trunk during a search incident to arrest.

An officer arrives at D's home to arrest him on an outstanding warrant for domestic violence. It is early in the morning and D answers the door in his pajamas and robe. The officer allows D to get dressed and then handcuffs him and places him in the police cruiser. The officer then searches D's vehicle (which is sitting in D's driveway) incident to the arrest. A. Lawful search incident to arrest. B. Unlawful search incident to arrest.

B. Unlawful search incident to arrest. Officers may only search vehicles incident to arrest if the arrestee is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle. Because D appears to have been at home sleeping and not operating his vehicle, the officers have no lawful basis to conduct the search.

Jack Inmate has been charged with unlawful weapon possession. He requested an attorney at his arraignment and has spoken with his attorney about his case. Please identify the actions the government may now lawfully take with respect to continuing to investigate the crime for which Jack has been indicted. Contacting Jack and requesting that he waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel on the weapons charge. A. Lawful B. Unlawful

Lawful The government may initiate contact with an accused once the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached and the accused has requested counsel provided the government advises the accused of his Miranda rights and secures a valid waiver of those rights.

Jack Inmate has been charged with unlawful weapon possession. He requested an attorney at his arraignment and has spoken with his attorney about his case. Please identify the actions the government may now lawfully take with respect to continuing to investigate the crime for which Jack has been indicted. Placing an undercover officer in the cell with Jack who merely listens but does not question Jack. A. Lawful B. Unlawful

Lawful The government may initiate contact with the suspect after Sixth Amendment rights are triggered. However, because the use of an undercover agent is not the equivalent of a custodial interrogation, the government would not be required to provide any Miranda warnings.

Jack Inmate has been charged with unlawful weapon possession. He requested an attorney at his arraignment and has spoken with his attorney about his case. Please identify the actions the government may now lawfully take with respect to continuing to investigate the crime for which Jack has been indicted. Responding to a request from Jack to meet with the prosecutor without the presence of counsel. A. Lawful B. Unlawful

Lawful The government may lawfully respond when the accused initiates contact.

An officer armed with a valid arrest warrant goes to Joe's home to arrest him. Rather than waiting for an invitation to come in, the officer brushes past the roommate and enters the home to arrest Joe where the officer sees a marijuana cigarette in the ashtray. Does the officer have a lawful or unlawful vantage point from which to conduct a plain view seizure? A. Lawful Vantage Point B. Unlawful Vantage Point

Lawful Vantage Point A valid arrest warrant allows an officer to enter the home of the suspect to carry out the arrest. Here, although the officer brushed past the roommate, the officer nevertheless has a lawful vantage point based upon entering Joe's home with a valid arrest warrant.

An officer armed with a valid arrest warrant goes to Joe's home to arrest him. Joe's roommate invites the officer into the home where the officer sees a marijuana cigarette in the ashtray. Does the officer have a lawful or unlawful vantage point from which to conduct a plain view seizure? A. Lawful Vantage Point B. Unlawful Vantage Point

Lawful Vantage Point The officer has been invited into the home by Joe's roommate. Because the roommate likely has actual authority to allow people into the home, the officer has a lawful vantage point.

According to the Court in Whren, the Court has been unwilling to entertain challenges based upon an officer's ______ state of mind.

Subjective

Garbage is not protected under the Fourth Amendment because even though a person may manifest a _________ (subjective/objective) expectation of privacy, it is not one that ________ (society/The court) is prepared to recognize as reasonable.

Subjective Society Garbage is not protected under the Fourth Amendment because even though a person may manifest a subjective expectation of privacy, it is not one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.

What is the container doctrine?

the container doctrine applies to all containers (purses, briefcases, backpacks, etc.) in which people maintain legitimate expectations of privacy. Under the automobile exception, containers lose this protection once they are placed in a vehicle and they may be searched without a warrant if probable cause is directed to the vehicle or to the container.

The first element of the plain view doctrine is that the officer must have a lawful __________________.

vantage point That is, she must be in a place she has a right to be. An officer may obtain a lawful vantage point in a number of ways. For example, she may obtain consent to search, she may have a valid search or arrest warrant, she may be in the open field, or she may be acting under exigent circumstances.

Test for determining whether evidence has been gleaned from an independent source. (Murray v. United States)

whether the search pursuant to warrant was, in fact, a genuinely independent source of the information and tangible evidence.

What is a Sixth Amendment waiver?

A waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege

What factors does a court consider in determining whether a Sixth Amendment waiver has occurred?

A waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.

Which of the following statements would likely be considered appropriate for an officer to say to a suspect during an interrogation? A. "If you tell us the truth about your involvement in the crime, we will talk to the prosecutor about reducing the charges against you." B. "If you don't tell us the truth about your involvement in the crime, the prosecutor will definitely charge you with capital murder and you will get the death penalty because we have the evidence to support that charge." C. "The judge is more lenient with defendants who confess, and if we tell her you confessed, she will give you the same lenient treatment." D. None of the above.

A. "If you tell us the truth about your involvement in the crime, we will talk to the prosecutor about reducing the charges against you." In this example, the officer is merely promising to talk with the prosecutor and is not promising a particular outcome in the case.

What is the difference between a lawful vantage point and a lawful right of access factors to an item of contraband? A. A lawful vantage point means that the officer has a right to be in a particular location, whereas a lawful right of access means that the officer has a right to look in certain places while in that location. B. A lawful vantage point means that the officer has a right to look in certain places while on the premises, whereas a lawful right of access means that the officer is in a place where he has a right to be. C. A lawful vantage point means that an officer is in a place where he has a right to be when observing an item of contraband. A lawful right of access means that once the officer has made the observation he can go wherever he needs to in order to access the item.

A. A lawful vantage point means that the officer has a right to be in a particular location, whereas a lawful right of access means that the officer has a right to look in certain places while in that location.

Assume that during a custodial interrogation an officer holds a gun to the suspect's head and commands him to "tell the truth." Is there actual or threatened use of force? A. Actual or Threatened Use of Force B. No Actual or Threatened Use of Force

A. Actual or Threatened Use of Force By pointing a gun at the suspect's head and demanding a statement, the officer is implicitly threatening the suspect's life if the suspect does not comply with the officer's directives

Assume that a prison inmate is physically threatened by fellow prisoners because of a rumor that he is a suspect in the murder of a child. A paid government informant offers to protect the prison inmate from the violence if he will confess to the crime. Is there actual or threatened use of force? A. Actual or Threatened Use of Force B. No Actual or Threatened Use of Force

A. Actual or Threatened Use of Force This question is a little tricky because first there must be a determination of state action. Remember that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against government conduct in obtaining a confession. Here, there is a state actor -- the paid government informant. Although the informant did not personally threaten to harm the inmate, he did suggest that the violence would continue if the inmate did not confess. According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. Fulminante 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (upon which this fact pattern is based), "it was fear of physical violence, absent protection from his friend (and Government agent) Sarivola, which motivated Fulminante to confess." Id. at 288.

Assume that while the suspect is talking, the officer interrupts him and says "you need to start telling the truth." While saying this, the officer places his hand on his gun in the holster. Is there actual or threatened use of force? A. Actual or Threatened Use of Force B. No Actual or Threatened Use of Force

A. Actual or Threatened Use of Force While the threat in this case is more subtle than taking the gun out and pointing it at the suspect, the clear implication from the officer's conduct is that he doesn't believe the suspect and is prepared to take action to get the truth.

From the following choices, identify the best summary of the search incident to arrest standards as they apply to automobiles. A. An officer who has arrested the occupant or the recent occupant of a vehicle may search the passenger compartment and any containers therein to prevent the arrestee from obtaining weapons from the vehicle or destroying evidence contained in the vehicle if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle. If the arrestee is no longer within reaching distance of the vehicle, the passenger compartment and any containers therein may be searched if there is reason to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. B. An officer who has arrested the occupant or recent occupant of a vehicle may search the entire vehicle (passenger compartment and trunk) and any containers therein to prevent the arrestee from obtaining weapons from the vehicle or destroying evidence contained in the vehicle. C. An officer who has arrested the occupant or recent occupant of a vehicle may search the passenger compartment and any containers owned by the arrestee to prevent the arrestee from obtaining weapons from the vehicle or destroying evidence contained in the vehicle. Containers owned by passengers are excluded from the search incident to arrest even if they are found within the vehicle.

A. An officer who has arrested the occupant or the recent occupant of a vehicle may search the passenger compartment and any containers therein to prevent the arrestee from obtaining weapons from the vehicle or destroying evidence contained in the vehicle if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle. If the arrestee is no longer within reaching distance of the vehicle, the passenger compartment and any containers therein may be searched if there is reason to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

An officer stops D's vehicle and arrests him. After the vehicle is towed to the police station, the officer searches the entire vehicle for evidence related to the crime for which D was arrested. A. Automobile exception B. Search incident to arrest C. Inventory search

A. Automobile exception Because the officer is searching the entire vehicle for evidence of a crime, this falls under the automobile exception. While the officer did not conduct the search until the vehicle had been towed to the station, this is still a valid automobile exception search because automobiles have a lesser expectation of privacy.

An officer stop D's vehicle, arrests him and searches his trunk for evidence of recent illegal weapon sales. A. Automobile exception B. Search incident to arrest C. Inventory search

A. Automobile exception The automobile exception permits an officer to search anywhere in the vehicle where evidence might be located, including the trunk. Because the officer is arresting D for recent illegal weapons sales, the officer likely has probable cause to believe that evidence of that crime might be located in the trunk.

If one rationale for excluding evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is deterrence of illegal conduct by police officers, why would courts also exclude derivative or secondary evidence that is discovered as a direct result of the initial illegally seized evidence? Check all that apply. A. Because the government shouldn't benefit from any evidence that is tainted by illegal conduct of law enforcement officers. B. Because excluding secondary or derivative evidence maximizes deterrence by letting officers know that any evidence tainted by their illegal conduct will be excluded from the criminal trial of the person whose rights were violated. C. Because such secondary or derivative evidence is tainted by the illegal conduct used to secure the initial evidence. D. Because a factually guilty defendant deserves a reward if the police have obtained both initial and secondary evidence through unconstitutional means.

A. Because the government shouldn't benefit from any evidence that is tainted by illegal conduct of law enforcement officers. B. Because excluding secondary or derivative evidence maximizes deterrence by letting officers know that any evidence tainted by their illegal conduct will be excluded from the criminal trial of the person whose rights were violated. C. Because such secondary or derivative evidence is tainted by the illegal conduct used to secure the initial evidence. support for the exclusion of derivative or secondary evidence in the criminal trial of the person whose rights were violated. That is: 1. The government should receive no benefit from any evidence that is tainted by the illegal conduct of law enforcement officers; 2. By excluding secondary or derivative evidence, deterrence of police officers who might otherwise violate the Constitution is maximized; and 3. Because such secondary or derivative evidence is tainted by the illegal conduct used to secure the initial evidence.

In Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004), the defendant pulled into a parking lot, parked and exited his vehicle before officers approached him. After a brief conversation and a pat-down search, Thornton was arrested for possession of drugs. He was then handcuffed and placed in the back seat of the patrol car. Officers then searched Thornton's vehicle and found a 9-millimeter handgun under the driver's seat. On appeal, Thornton argued that New York v. Belton was limited to situations where the officer initiated contact with an arrestee while he was still an occupant of the car. In Thornton, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that "Belton allows police to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a lawful custodial arrest of both "occupants" and "recent occupants".... The need for a clear rule, readily understood by police officers and not depending on differing estimates of what items were or were not within reach of an arrestee at any particular moment, justifies the sort of generalization which Belton enunciated." Justice Scalia, in a concurring opinion in Thornton, observes that if Belton searches are justifiable [under the factual circumstances presented in Thornton], it is not because the arrestee might grab a weapon or evidentiary item from his car, but simply because the car might contain evidence relevant to the crime for which he was arrested. Justice Scalia concludes: "[I]f we are going to continue to allow Belton searches on stare decisis grounds, we should at least be honest about why we are doing so." Which of the following statements best summarizes Justice Scalia's critique of the Thornton opinion? A. Justice Scalia concludes that it is reasonable to search Thornton's vehicle incident to arrest simply because the vehicle may contain evidence of the crime for which Thornton was arrested without regard to the fact that Thornton was secured in the police cruiser prior to the search. B. Justice Scalia concludes that officers should not be able to search vehicles incident to arrest if the arrestee has been handcuffed and secured in the police vehicle prior to the search. C. Justice Scalia concludes that officers should not handcuff and secure suspects in police cruisers until after they have conducted a search of the vehicle incident to arrest.

A. Justice Scalia concludes that it is reasonable to search Thornton's vehicle incident to arrest simply because the vehicle may contain evidence of the crime for which Thornton was arrested without regard to the fact that Thornton was secured in the police cruiser prior to the search. Justice Scalia argues that if the practice of searching automobiles incident to arrest in cases like Thornton is to continue, then the rationale should be changed to suit the factual circumstances under which many of those searches are conducted, i.e., when arrestees are already handcuffed and secured in police cruisers. Note that this is the approach the Court later adopted in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 , 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009) (When a suspect is no longer within the lunge area of the vehicle, police may only search the vehicle incident to arrest if there is reason to believe that evidence of the crime for which the person is being arrested may be found within the vehicle).

Why do you suppose the Court would limit the impeachment exception to the defendant's testimony only? Check all that apply. A. Because use of the tainted evidence to impeach defense witnesses would significantly increase the opportunities to introduce tainted evidence in criminal trials and lessen the ability to deter police officers from violating the Constitution when securing evidence. B. Because defendants might be reluctant to call witnesses who might testify truthfully for fear that the prosecutor might find some way to impeach them in order to use the tainted evidence. C. Because the possibility of a perjury prosecution will be a sufficient deterrent to witnesses who might be tempted to testify falsely in a criminal trial.

A. Because use of the tainted evidence to impeach defense witnesses would significantly increase the opportunities to introduce tainted evidence in criminal trials and lessen the ability to deter police officers from violating the Constitution when securing evidence. B. Because defendants might be reluctant to call witnesses who might testify truthfully for fear that the prosecutor might find some way to impeach them in order to use the tainted evidence. C. Because the possibility of a perjury prosecution will be a sufficient deterrent to witnesses who might be tempted to testify falsely in a criminal trial.

Assume that police officers enter a warehouse without a warrant. During this unlawful entry, the police discover several packages wrapped in burlap, which they suspect contain marijuana. The officers leave the warehouse without seizing the suspected contraband, but decide to keep the warehouse under surveillance and seek a warrant to search it. In the warrant application, the officers do not mention the illegal entry into the warehouse or anything they observed during that entry. Instead, the officers supply the magistrate with other evidence that they had discovered lawfully and independently before the unlawful entry. What argument is the defense attorney most likely to make? A. But for their illegal entry into the warehouse, the officers would not have had enough information to apply for a warrant to search the warehouse. It is not plausible to believe that their initial unlawful entry did not prompt them to secure a warrant regardless of other evidence they might have had. B. Because of their illegal entry into the warehouse, the officers can never establish an independent source to secure a warrant regardless of other evidence they might have had prior to the unlawful entry. C. The officers actively deceived that magistrate by not revealing the unlawful entry on the warrant application. The evidence should be excluded to deter this type of police conduct.

A. But for their illegal entry into the warehouse, the officers would not have had enough information to apply for a warrant to search the warehouse. It is not plausible to believe that their initial unlawful entry did not prompt them to secure a warrant regardless of other evidence they might have had. In order to challenge the government's claim of an independent source, the defense must argue that the initial illegality is directly linked to the information used to obtain the warrant.

During a one month period, a Pinkerton County Deputy Sheriff makes a decision to tow 100 vehicles after lawfully arresting the vehicle owners. Although the Deputy Sheriff follows the Pinkerton automobile policy to the letter for all of the searches, during 30 of the searches, she actually believes that she will find evidence of a crime while conducting the inventory search. Is this constitutional? A. Constitutional B. Unconstitutional

A. Constitutional As long as the officer is following the inventory search policy and is not motivated primarily to seek evidence of criminal activity, the officer's thoughts and beliefs about what she might find will not make the search unconstitutional.

Evidence gleaned from the unconstitutional behavior is: A. Direct Evidence B. Poisonous tree C. Secondary or derivative evidence

A. Direct Evidence

Assume that the police are looking for evidence of cocaine in plastic baggies. Where can they look? A. In the entire vehicle, including the trunk and glove compartment. B. In the entire vehicle, but not the trunk. C. In the entire vehicle, but not the glove compartment.

A. In the entire vehicle, including the trunk and glove compartment. The plastic baggies are small enough to reasonably fit anywhere in the vehicle. Therefore, searching the entire vehicle including the trunk and glove compartment is within the scope of the search.

The challenged evidence would have eventually been discovered by other lawful means. A. Inevitable discovery doctrine B. Independent source doctrine C. Sufficient attenuation doctrine D. Not applicable

A. Inevitable discovery doctrine

Assume that an officer has reasonable suspicion to detain D and also suspects that D may be armed and dangerous. During a frisk of D's outer garments, the officer feels what he believes to be a rock of crack cocaine in D's pocket. However, the officer isn't certain of his assessment, so he manipulates the item through D's clothing to be certain. If the officer then reaches into D's pocket and seizes the item (which turns out to be crack cocaine), would this seizure fall under the plain touch doctrine? A. No because the plain touch doctrine, like the plain view doctrine, requires that the item be immediately apparent as contraband. The fact that the officer has to manipulate the item through D's clothing indicates that its nature is not immediately apparent to the officer. B. No, because a Terry frisk is limited to a pat down to discover weapons only. Officers may not search for evidence. C. Yes, because the officer was certain that the item was crack cocaine as soon as he touched it. D. Yes, because the plain touch doctrine requires that the officer be certain that he is touching contraband and the officer in this case was trying to confirm his initial suspicions by manipulating the item in D's pocket.

A. No because the plain touch doctrine, like the plain view doctrine, requires that the item be immediately apparent as contraband. The fact that the officer has to manipulate the item through D's clothing indicates that its nature is not immediately apparent to the officer. The facts of this question are taken from Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993). In Dickerson, the Court determined that the plain touch doctrine may be used to seize items that are immediately apparent as contraband. Any further manipulation of the item before seizing it means that its character is not immediately apparent to the officer.

Sam Slade is arrested for the crime of drug trafficking. The officer takes Sam into custody and transports him to the station. Has the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached? A. No because there has been no adversarial judicial criminal proceeding against Sam. B. No because Sam has not been officially arrested. C. Yes, because Sam was arrested, his Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached. D. Yes, because being arrested and transported to the police station constitute an adversarial judicial criminal proceeding.

A. No because there has been no adversarial judicial criminal proceeding against Sam. Merely being arrested and transported to the police station do not constitute an adversarial judicial criminal proceeding.

Assume that the police believe Tony is filing false tax returns. Because the police do not have probable cause to obtain a search warrant for Tony's records, they decide to break into Tony's accountant's office. Upon entering the office, the officers open a file cabinet and discover mountains of evidence that Tony has been understating his income. Does Tony have standing to challenge the search of his accountant's office? A. No, because Tony does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in his accountant's office. B. No, because allowing his accountant to keep the tax files at the accountant's office means that Tony was consenting to the government viewing the documents at some point. C. Yes, because Tony has an ownership interest in his own personal tax returns. D. Yes, because Tony pays the accountant for the work, which gives Tony a legitimate expectation of privacy in the tax returns.

A. No, because Tony does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in his accountant's office. Because Tony does not have an ownership or possessory interest in his accountant's office, and because he likely does not have free access to the office or the right to exclude others from the office, it is unlikely that he has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the office.

An officer mistakenly transposes the numbers in the address of a home to be searched when filling out the warrant application (although the affidavit used to support the application contains the correct address). Instead of writing "123 Maple," the officer writes "213 Maple." Neither the officer nor the magistrate notices this discrepancy, although the officer does execute the search at the correct address of "123 Maple." The warrant is subsequently determined to be invalid for failure to meet the particularity requirement. Would it make a difference to the validity of the search in the previous question if the magistrate noticed the discrepancy between the affidavit and the warrant application, but thought it didn't matter and didn't bring it to the attention of the officers before signing the warrant application? Assume again that the officer was not aware of the transposing error and conducted the search on the proper residence, despite the typographical error on the warrant. A. No, it wouldn't make a difference to the validity of the search as long as the officer acted in good faith reliance upon the magistrate's issuance of the search warrant. B. Yes, it would make a difference to the validity of the search because the magistrate's error means that the warrant and the subsequent search were invalid.

A. No, it wouldn't make a difference to the validity of the search as long as the officer acted in good faith reliance upon the magistrate's issuance of the search warrant.

Assume that an officer is walking down a public sidewalk and sees what he recognizes as a marijuana plant sitting in the front window of a home. Assume that the officer knocks on the door of the residence, tells the homeowner that he (the officer) is searching homes in the neighborhood for a bicycle that was recently stolen from a neighbor and asks if the homeowner will consent to such a search. Assume that the surprised homeowner says "Sure, I don't have the bicycle so you can search all you want, but give me a minute." The homeowner then closes the front door and the officer hears scurrying around the house and a toilet flushing. The homeowner returns to the door and allows the officer in. Once inside, the officer goes straight to the bathroom and finds residue of the marijuana plant in the toilet bowl and seizes it. The officer arrests the homeowner on the spot and never conducts a search for the stolen bicycle. Is this a valid plain view seizure? A. No, the officer obtained consent to search for a stolen bicycle and searching for the bicycle would probably not include looking in the toilet bowl. Therefore, although the officer has a lawful vantage point (i.e., consent from the homeowner) and the marijuana residue is immediately apparent as contraband, he exceeds the scope of the justification for his entry into the home by searching in the toilet bowl. B. No, the officer obtained consent to search for a stolen bicycle and should have looked for the bicycle first before looking for evidence of other contraband. C. Yes, the officer obtained consent to search for a stolen bicycle and this would allow the officer to look anywhere in the home. Therefore, the officer has a lawful right of access to look in the toilet bowl. D. Yes. Although the officer was looking for evidence of a stolen bicycle, the officer knew the homeowner had marijuana in the home. Therefore the officer has a lawful right of access to expand the search to look for evidence of the marijuana.

A. No, the officer obtained consent to search for a stolen bicycle and searching for the bicycle would probably not include looking in the toilet bowl. Therefore, although the officer has a lawful vantage point (i.e., consent from the homeowner) and the marijuana residue is immediately apparent as contraband, he exceeds the scope of the justification for his entry into the home by searching in the toilet bowl.

Assume that officers stop D, who is driving a hatchback vehicle. Assume also that "hatchback vehicle" is defined as follows: "An automobile design containing a passenger cabin with an integrated cargo space accessed from behind the vehicle by a single, top-hinged tailgate or large flip-up window. Hatchbacks frequently include fold-down rear seats, which enable a substantial portion of the interior space to be used as a cargo area." If D is arrested and officers conduct a search of his hatchback vehicle incident to arrest, identify the best argument for allowing officers to search the entire vehicle including the cargo area. Remember that the search of a typical automobile incident to arrest covers the passenger compartment and any containers therein but not the trunk. A. Officers should be allowed to search the entire vehicle including the hatchback cargo area because, unlike typical automobile trunks that are separate from the passenger compartment, the hatchback's cargo space could possibly be accessed by D to obtain a weapon or destroy evidence during an arrest. B. Officers should be able to search the entire vehicle because it is all passenger compartment space and there is no trunk or cargo space. C. Officers should be allowed to search the entire vehicle because it is smaller than a typical passenger vehicle. Therefore, a full search of the vehicle incident to arrest would not be a substantial inconvenience to the arrestee.

A. Officers should be allowed to search the entire vehicle including the hatchback cargo area because, unlike typical automobile trunks that are separate from the passenger compartment, the hatchback's cargo space could possibly be accessed by D to obtain a weapon or destroy evidence during an arrest. If the officer is allowed to search the entire vehicle such a search should be based upon the rationales for searches of automobiles incident to arrest. That is, a hatchback vehicle might allow D to more easily access weapons or destroy evidence, and, therefore, the officer is justified in searching the entire vehicle including the cargo area.

Assume that officers suspect Jim of murdering his wife and take him into custody to interrogate him. For thirty-six hours after Jim's seizure, during which period he is held incommunicado, without sleep or rest, a sequence of officers, experienced investigators, and highly trained lawyers question him without respite. From the beginning of the questioning at 7 o'clock on Saturday evening until 6 o'clock on Monday morning, Jim denies that he had anything to do with the murder of his wife. Finally, after another hour of constant interrogation, Jim confesses to the murder. Did the police use psychological pressure to secure a confession? A. Psychological Pressure B. No psychological pressure

A. Psychological Pressure Jim has been subjected to a lengthy 36 hour detention and interrogation, while being held incommunicado and without sleep or rest. These are factors that are highly likely to psychologically overwhelm most suspects and lead to confessions that are involuntary.

An officer sees a person suspected of robbing a convenience store earlier that day driving along the highway. The suspect exits the highway, drives to a residential neighborhood, pulls into a garage attached to a home and closes the garage door behind him. The officer, who has followed the suspect to the home, breaks the lock on the garage door and opens it to search the vehicle. On what basis may the officer search the vehicle? A. Search Warrant B. Automobile Exception

A. Search Warrant The automobile exception does not permit unlawful intrusions onto private property to carry out searches of automobiles.

Which of the following summarizes the U.S. Supreme Court's approach to applying the exclusionary rule outside of the criminal trial context? Check all that apply. A. The Court will determine whether the application of the exclusionary rule will require courts to close their eyes to ongoing violations of the law. B. The Court will examine whether the cost of applying the exclusionary rule to a particular proceeding outweighs the benefits of any deterrent effect upon law enforcement behavior. C. The Court will determine whether the proceeding is civil in nature, but has as its object a criminal sanction.

A. The Court will determine whether the application of the exclusionary rule will require courts to close their eyes to ongoing violations of the law. B. The Court will examine whether the cost of applying the exclusionary rule to a particular proceeding outweighs the benefits of any deterrent effect upon law enforcement behavior. C. The Court will determine whether the proceeding is civil in nature, but has as its object a criminal sanction.

Why do you suppose the Court would allow evidence in under the Leon good faith exception? In other words, shouldn't the fact that a warrant has been determined to be invalid mean that the evidence should be excluded without regard to the good faith of the officer? A. The Leon good faith exception recognizes that if the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter officers from engaging in unconstitutional behavior, then there is nothing to deter when an officer has acted in good faith when securing and executing a warrant that is subsequently determined to be invalid. B. The Leon good faith exception is a recognition by the Court that nothing can really prevent officers from engaging in unconstitutional behavior. C. The Leon good faith exception recognizes that despite overtly unconstitutional behavior by officers, reliable evidence should not be excluded from criminal trials even if a warrant is subsequently determined to be invalid. D. The Leon good faith exception recognizes that the officer's independent judgment about the validity of the warrant should take precedence over the magistrate's when the warrant is subsequently determined to be invalid.

A. The Leon good faith exception recognizes that if the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter officers from engaging in unconstitutional behavior, then there is nothing to deter when an officer has acted in good faith when securing and executing a warrant that is subsequently determined to be invalid. The Leon good faith exception supports the deterrence rationale of the exclusionary rule. If the officer is acting in good faith when securing and executing the warrant, then there is nothing to deter even if the warrant is subsequently determined to be invalid.

Officer Ollie, while taking a break from his neighborhood patrol, visits Nellie's flower shop and converses with Harry, an employee of the shop. During this conversation, Officer Ollie notices an envelope with money protruding from it lying on the cash register. Upon further examination, Officer Ollie discovers that the envelope contains not only money, but illegal gambling slips. Officer Ollie then places the envelope back on the register and, without telling Harry what he had found, asks him to whom the envelope belongs. Harry tells him the envelope belongs to Nellie, the owner of the flower shop. Officer Ollie reports his discovery to local detectives and to the FBI, who interview Harry some four months later without referring to the incident involving Officer Ollie. About six months after that incident, Nellie is summoned before a federal grand jury, where she testifies that she has never taken illegal gambling bets at her shop. However, Harry testifies to the contrary, and, shortly thereafter, Nellie is indicted for perjury. Four months later Nellie's trial is scheduled to begin. Prior to trial, Nellie moves to suppress Harry's potential trial testimony arguing that it is the fruit of an unlawful search of the envelope in her flower shop. You should assume that Officer Ollie's search of the envelope is unlawful. You should also assume that Harry is coming forward of his own free will to offer testimony against Nellie. How do you think the court would analyze whether there was an intervening act of free will (such as a witness who agrees to voluntarily come forward to provide testimony) so as to break the causal chain between Officer Ollie's initial illegal search and Harry's proposed testimony at trial? A. The court will likely determine that Harry's testimony is an act of his own free will and in no way coerced or even induced by official authority despite Officer Ollie's unlawful discovery of the gambling slips. B. The court will likely determine that Harry feels compelled to testify against Nellie because he was present at the scene of the initial illegal discovery of the gambling slips. C. The court will likely determine that Harry's testimony is an act of free will as long as Harry quits his employment at the flower shop prior to his testimony at trial.

A. The court will likely determine that Harry's testimony is an act of his own free will and in no way coerced or even induced by official authority despite Officer Ollie's unlawful discovery of the gambling slips. As long as Harry comes forward to voluntarily provide testimony in Nellie's case, this will be considered an act of free will and will likely be a strong factor in determining whether the causal chain between the initial illegality and Harry's proposed testimony at trial is broken.

Suppose an officer illegally arrests a suspect for dealing narcotics. During the search incident to arrest, the officer discovers a slip of paper with all of the dealer's customers' names. The customers are contacted by police and agree to testify against the dealer. What would be considered secondary or derivative evidence of the poisonous tree? A. The customers' testimony against the dealer. B. The slip of paper with the customers' names. C. The illegal arrest.

A. The customers' testimony against the dealer. Secondary or derivative evidence is that which is gleaned from the direct evidence. In this case, the testimony of the customers would be secondary or derivative evidence.

Determine whether the officer in this example could successfully rely upon the Leon good faith exception. An officer mistakenly transposes the numbers in the address of a home to be searched when filling out the warrant application (although the affidavit used to support the application contains the correct address). Instead of writing "123 Maple," the officer writes "213 Maple." Neither the officer nor the magistrate notices this discrepancy, although the officer does execute the search at the correct address of "123 Maple." The warrant is subsequently determined to be invalid for failure to meet the particularity requirement. A. Valid Good Faith B. Invalid Good Faith

A. Valid Good Faith

Based on a suspicion that Danny was involved in a murder, the police located him at his place of employment for questioning. Danny responded to the officers' preliminary inquiries and agreed to go to the police station for further questioning. Approximately two hours later, a detective led Danny to an interrogation room and informed him of his Miranda rights. Danny inquired about the scope of his privilege to remain silent and then executed a written waiver of his Miranda rights. (The validity of that waiver is not at issue for purposes of this question). Danny is a mature adult and is thirty-two years old. He is of normal intelligence and has some high school education. Moreover, Danny has had previous experience with the criminal system; indeed, he has previously served a jail sentence. A 58 minute long interrogation session ensued. During the course of the interview, the detective told Danny that the victim had just died. That statement, which the detective knew to be untrue, supported another officer's earlier, and equally false, suggestion that the victim was still alive and could identify her attacker. (In fact, the victim had died at the scene.) The detective also told Danny that he had been positively identified at the victim's home earlier in the day. (In fact, the victim's brothers had only provided a general description of the perpetrator's car and clothing.) Finally, the detective indicated that blood stains had been found on Danny's front stoop. No such evidence was introduced at trial, and the police do not now contend that it ever in fact existed. Throughout the interview, the detective presented himself as sympathetic to Danny's plight. On several occasions, he stated that he did not consider Danny to be a criminal because whoever perpetrated the murder had a "mental problem" and needed medical help rather than punishment. Eventually, Danny fully confessed to the crime. After doing so, he lapsed into what the detective described as a "state of shock." Repeated efforts to rouse Danny from his stupor failed, and the police summoned an ambulance to transport him to the hospital. If the leading case law precedents on lengthy interrogations find coercion in cases when interrogations last weeks or days, how do you think a court will evaluate the length of Danny's interrogation? Recall that Danny's interrogation lasted 58 minutes. A. The length of Danny's interrogation is likely to be considered relevant but not persuasive evidence of coercion because it was less than an hour. B. The length of Danny's interrogation will not be considered a relevant factor because it was less than an hour. C. The length of Danny interrogation is similar to the leading case law precedents and the court will likely find the interrogation to be coercive based upon the lengthy interrogation.

A. The length of Danny's interrogation is likely to be considered relevant but not persuasive evidence of coercion because it was less than an hour. Although the length of the interrogation was shorter than the leading case law precedents, it is nevertheless a relevant factor to be considered in the totality of the circumstances analysis.

Based on a suspicion that Danny was involved in a murder, the police located him at his place of employment for questioning. Danny responded to the officers' preliminary inquiries and agreed to go to the police station for further questioning. Approximately two hours later, a detective led Danny to an interrogation room and informed him of his Miranda rights. Danny inquired about the scope of his privilege to remain silent and then executed a written waiver of his Miranda rights. (The validity of that waiver is not at issue for purposes of this question). Danny is a mature adult and is thirty-two years old. He is of normal intelligence and has some high school education. Moreover, Danny has had previous experience with the criminal system; indeed, he has previously served a jail sentence. A 58 minute long interrogation session ensued. During the course of the interview, the detective told Danny that the victim had just died. That statement, which the detective knew to be untrue, supported another officer's earlier, and equally false, suggestion that the victim was still alive and could identify her attacker. (In fact, the victim had died at the scene.) The detective also told Danny that he had been positively identified at the victim's home earlier in the day. (In fact, the victim's brothers had only provided a general description of the perpetrator's car and clothing.) Finally, the detective indicated that blood stains had been found on Danny's front stoop. No such evidence was introduced at trial, and the police do not now contend that it ever in fact existed. Throughout the interview, the detective presented himself as sympathetic to Danny's plight. On several occasions, he stated that he did not consider Danny to be a criminal because whoever perpetrated the murder had a "mental problem" and needed medical help rather than punishment. Eventually, Danny fully confessed to the crime. After doing so, he lapsed into what the detective described as a "state of shock." Repeated efforts to rouse Danny from his stupor failed, and the police summoned an ambulance to transport him to the hospital. The detective lied to Danny about the victim's status and the witnesses' identification of him. How, if at all, are these lies likely to impact the voluntariness of Danny's confession? A. The lies will impact the voluntariness of Danny's confession if under a totality of the circumstances it is determined that Danny believed them and relied upon them in making his confession. B. The lies will have no impact on the voluntariness of Danny's confession. C. The lies will impact the voluntariness of Danny's confession only if Danny knew the officer was lying but decided to confess anyway. D. The lies will impact the voluntariness of Danny's confession only if they are determined to be credible lies.

A. The lies will impact the voluntariness of Danny's confession if under a totality of the circumstances it is determined that Danny believed them and relied upon them in making his confession. Lies and deception by police officers do not automatically render a confession involuntary. Such deceptive tactics will be considered as part of the totality of the circumstances analysis to determine if they were sufficient to overcome the will of the suspect. Typically, if the suspect believes the lies and confesses in reliance upon the lies, then there is a greater chance that the confession will be deemed involuntary.

What do you suppose is the rationale for the offense specific rule in the context of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel? A. The offense specific rule allows the government to continue to investigate crimes to which the Sixth Amendment right has not attached and allows the defendant to assert the protections of the Sixth amendment right for crimes to which the Sixth Amendment right has attached. B. The offense specific rule lets the government know that it may not lawfully continue to interrogate the suspect about any crimes without the presence of counsel. C. The offense specific rule lets the defendant know that she can assert the Sixth Amendment right to counsel for crimes for which she has not yet been indicted.

A. The offense specific rule allows the government to continue to investigate crimes to which the Sixth Amendment right has not attached and allows the defendant to assert the protections of the Sixth amendment right for crimes to which the Sixth Amendment right has attached.

During a one month period, a Pinkerton County Deputy Sheriff makes an initial decision to tow 100 vehicles after lawfully arresting the vehicle owners. However, after conducting pre-tow inventory searches pursuant to the Pinkerton policy on all of the vehicles, he elects to allow 57 of the owners to find alternative means to secure their vehicles instead of having them towed. If the conduct is unconstitutional, identify the best argument for persuading a court to your position. A. The officer's conduct is unconstitutional because his decision to not tow more than half the vehicles after conducting automobile inventory searches strongly suggests that he was using the inventory searches as a ruse for conducting criminal investigation searches. B. The officer's conduct is unconstitutional because he did not seek the vehicle owners' permission to conduct the inventory searches. C. The officer's conduct is unconstitutional because he allowed the vehicle owners to decide how to secure their vehicles in 57 cases.

A. The officer's conduct is unconstitutional because his decision to not tow more than half the vehicles after conducting automobile inventory searches strongly suggests that he was using the inventory searches as a ruse for conducting criminal investigation searches. Because the automobile inventory search can be conducted without a warrant and without probable cause, it may not be used to search for evidence of criminal activity.

According to the Court, when Officer McFadden approached Terry and spun him around, Terry was: A. seized B. under arrest C. still free to go D. resisting arrest

A. seized

An officer believes that he may not have enough probable cause to get a warrant. The officer is aware that a certain magistrate "rubber stamps" warrant applications without reviewing them carefully. The officer takes his warrant application to that magistrate, who, as expected, promptly issues the warrant. The warrant is subsequently determined to be invalid because it lacked probable cause What if the officer believed he had probable cause, but didn't want to take a chance that a magistrate would not approve the warrant, so he intentionally chose a magistrate who has a reputation for not looking carefully at warrant applications and "rubber stamping" them? A. The officer's conduct would invalidate the search because he knows that the magistrate has not acted in a neutral and detached manner when evaluating the basis for probable cause. Therefore, the officer may not rely upon the warrant in good faith. B. Because the officer believes the warrant is based upon probable cause, the magistrate's determination is irrelevant. Therefore, the officer may rely upon the warrant in good faith. C. If the officer assures the magistrate that the warrant is based on probable cause, then the magistrate is permitted to rubber stamp the warrant without careful review. Under those circumstances, the officer would be able to rely upon the warrant in good faith.

A. The officer's conduct would invalidate the search because he knows that the magistrate has not acted in a neutral and detached manner when evaluating the basis for probable cause. Therefore, the officer may not rely upon the warrant in good faith. Even if the officer believes the warrant is based upon probable cause, the magistrate must act in a neutral and detached manner in determining whether probable cause exists to issue the warrant. By seeking to obtain the opinion of a magistrate who does not perform this function, the officer has not acted in good faith in securing the warrant and, therefore, may not rely upon the warrant in good faith.

Which of the following describes the Court's approach to incorporating the Sixth Amendment? A. The values inherent in the Sixth Amendment are applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. B. The Sixth Amendment does not apply to the States. C. The Sixth Amendment applies directly to the States. D. The Court has overruled the Sixth Amendment

A. The values inherent in the Sixth Amendment are applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.

Which options do officers have if they arrive at a third party's home armed only with an arrest warrant and they believe the arrestee is in the home? (Choose all answers that apply) A. They can wait for the arrestee to leave the home and make an arrest in public. B. They can ask the homeowner for consent to enter. C. They can ask the homeowner to bring the arrestee outside. D. They can immediately enter with the warrant. E. They can wait for the homeowner to leave and then break into the home to make the arrest.

A. They can wait for the arrestee to leave the home and make an arrest in public. B. They can ask the homeowner for consent to enter. C. They can ask the homeowner to bring the arrestee outside.

The Voluntariness Doctrine uses which test to evaluate the voluntariness of a confession? A. Totality of the circumstances B. Scintilla of evidence C. Clear and convincing evidence D. A two-prong test that examines officer behavior and the suspect's knowledge of the law

A. Totality of the circumstances

A defendant who does not invoke any Miranda rights at the beginning of an interrogation can nevertheless invoke the Miranda rights at any time later in the interrogation. A. True B. False

A. True

According to the Court in Bostick, the test for whether a person has been seized should not focus on whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave. Instead, the test should focus on whether a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the encounter. A. True B. False

A. True

According to the Court in Maryland v. Pringle, if an officer has probable cause to believe a person has committed a felony in his presence, then the officer may arrest that person without the need to have the probable cause assessed by a neutral and detached magistrate. A. True B. False

A. True

If the primary purpose of a search is to look for drugs and arrest the person, then that search cannot fall under the special needs category. A. True B. False

A. True

It is important to know the distinction between the curtilage and open field because the curtilage receives Fourth Amendment protection while the open field does not. A. True B. False

A. True

The Fifth Amendment is distinct from Miranda because the Fifth Amendment is concerned with actual compulsion. A. True B. False

A. True

The standard for a non-routine search at the border is reasonable suspicion. A. True B. False

A. True

The standard for when a person has been seized is whenever an officer accosts a person and restrains their freedom to walk away. A. True B. False

A. True

When police ask questions of a suspect in custody without administering Miranda warnings, the "bright line" rule of Miranda states that such a statement is presumed compelled and inadmissible. A. True B. False

A. True

The test for whether a consent to search is valid is "voluntariness," which can include whether the officer advised the person of their right to refuse the consent search. A. True B. False

A. True o Knowledge of the right to refuse is a factor although it is not a prerequisite

Officers observe D coming out of a convenience store and about to enter his vehicle. The officers know that D is a suspect in a string of armed bank robberies during the past month, so they approach him and place him under arrest. Because D is potentially dangerous, he is immediately handcuffed and placed in the police cruiser for transport to the station. Can the officers lawfully search D's vehicle incident to arrest? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes Although D was not yet in his vehicle, it is likely that he was a recent occupant having just emerged from a convenience store. Therefore, even though D had been secured in the police cruiser, officers may still search the passenger compartment and any containers therein incident to D's arrest on the theory that there is reason to believe that there may be evidence of the robbery located in the vehicle.

Assume that officers suspect Jim of drug trafficking and arrive at his home to interrogate him. Although Jim is allowed to have restroom breaks and food, he is always accompanied by an officer when he takes such breaks. When Jim's wife arrives home during the interrogation, the officers take her to a separate room and instruct her that she is to threaten to take the children and leave Jim if he doesn't "come clean" with the police. Jim's wife follows the officers instructions, and fearing that he will never see his children again, Jim provides a full confession. Assume that the officers knew that Jim loved his wife and children dearly and was deeply ashamed that his conduct might negatively impact them. Would the officers' conduct be considered psychological pressure sufficient to render the confession involuntary? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes Although the officers did not directly threaten Jim, they used his wife as an instrumentality to carry out a threat that would take advantage of Jim's particular susceptibilities. It is likely that Jim's confession was given as a direct result of this play on his weaknesses.

An officer has probable cause to believe that Meg, a small time drug dealer, is driving to drop off an ounce of cocaine to one of her regular buyers. The officer stops the vehicle and sees Meg's large purse sitting alongside her in the vehicle. Can the officer search Meg's purse for the contraband (in addition to searching other locations in the vehicle)? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes Because an ounce of cocaine is small enough to be concealed in her purse (a container), the officer may search any location where the contraband may be found.

Officers stop D's vehicle and approach. After a period of questioning, D is asked to step out of the vehicle and is arrested while standing next to his vehicle and unsecured. Can the officers lawfully search D's vehicle incident to arrest? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes D is right outside of his vehicle and unsecured, and therefore the police may search the passenger compartment of his vehicle and any containers located therein as part of D's lunge area.

Officers observe D fixing a flat tire on his vehicle. At the time of the arrest, D is not handcuffed. The officers recognize D as a person wanted for several misdemeanor traffic violations. Officers approach D to arrest him outside the vehicle. Can the officers lawfully search D's vehicle incident to arrest? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes D is unsecured and right outside of his vehicle and therefore the police may search the passenger compartment of his vehicle and any containers located therein as part of D's lunge area.

Assume that police officers place an undercover officer in the cell with Joe and the undercover officer intentionally engages Joe in conversation about the crimes for which he has been indicted. Has the government deliberately elicited a statement from Joe? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes Even though Joe is not aware that he is speaking to a government agent, the term "deliberate elicitation" also covers these kinds of indirect and surreptitious interrogations that are the functional equivalent of direct interrogations. Clearly the government placed the undercover officer in the cell with Joe to get incriminating statements. Thus, before the statements could be admitted against Joe, a court would have to determine that Joe knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Officers observe D driving with his passenger, P. The officers know that P is wanted on an outstanding warrant for disturbing the peace. The officers approach D's vehicle and order both occupants out of the car. P is then placed under arrest while unsecured and standing near the vehicle. Can the officers lawfully search D's vehicle incident to P's arrest? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes The search of an automobile incident to arrest is not limited to instances when owners or drivers of the vehicles are arrested. Instead, occupants and recent occupants of the vehicles provide the factual basis for searching vehicles incident to arrest.

Suppose one team of officers seizes a piece of evidence illegally. Unbeknownst to this team of officers, another group of officers has already obtained, but not yet executed, a lawful search warrant for that same evidence. Even if the initial illegal seizure had never taken place, the evidence would still have come into the hands of the government lawfully from an independent source (the executed warrant). Therefore, the evidence should be admissible in the defendant's criminal trial. Is this a proper application of the independent source doctrine? A. Yes it is an accurate statement of the independent source doctrine because the government has a lawful source for the evidence that is not tainted or causally connected to the initial illegal search. B. Yes it is an accurate statement of the independent source doctrine because there are at least two teams involved in seizing the evidence. C. No it is not an accurate statement of the independent source doctrine because the two teams of officers have worked together to seize the evidence. D. No it is not an accurate statement of the independent source doctrine because once the evidence has been seized illegally, it may not be seized again.

A. Yes it is an accurate statement of the independent source doctrine because the government has a lawful source for the evidence that is not tainted or causally connected to the initial illegal search. The government can show that despite the initial illegal search, a valid warrant had been sought for the same evidence and, therefore, the evidence would have come into the government's hand lawfully from an independent source.

An officer on routine patrol recognizes a stolen vehicle sitting parked on a public street. The officer realizes that it is the stolen vehicle that has been reported because of its unusual lime green color and its personalized license plate that reads "LIME." The officer calls a police tow truck to seize the vehicle. Is the item immediately apparent to the officer as contraband or other evidence of a crime? A. Immediately Apparent B. Not immediately apparent

A. immediately apparent Given the unusual color and license plate, the officer likely has probable cause to believe that this is the vehicle that has been reported stolen. Its character as a stolen item is immediately apparent to the officer.

Unlike the plain view doctrine, which requires probable cause to believe the item is contraband, the plain feel or plain touch doctrine only requires that the officer have reasonable suspicion to believe the item is contraband. A. True B. False

B. False

When determining whether there is reasonable suspicion, the totality of the circumstances means that each individual factor can be innocently explained away. A. True B. False

B. False

When the Court decided Gates and established the "totality of the circumstances" test for probable cause, it simultaneously overruled the Aguilar-Spinelli two-prong test. A. True B. False

B. False

The U.S. Supreme Court has the power to draft, enact and enforce the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. A. True B. False

B. False o The Court must submit the rules to congress for approval

An officer arrives at D's home to arrest him pursuant to a warrant. Upon arriving, the officer observes D through an unlocked screen door and walks into the home to arrest D. Which justification makes the officer's vantage point lawful. Assume for each of the scenarios that once the officer arrives at the location she discovers marijuana. A. Consent B. Open Field C. Arrest Warrant D. Exigent Circumstances E. This scenario would not constitute a lawful vantage point.

Arrest Warrant

The Warren Court Due Process Model was focused primarily on providing more flexibility to law enforcement. A. True B. False

B. False o The Due Process Model focuses on providing more rights for criminal defendants and more obstacles for the government o The Crime Control Model focuses primarily on providing more flexibility to law enforcement

The U.S. Supreme Court extended the plain view doctrine to include items that are immediately apparent as contraband based upon tactile observation. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (establishing the plain touch or plain feel doctrine). Similar to the plain view doctrine, the officer must have a lawful vantage point and must have a lawful right of access to the item. Why do you suppose the Court would extend the plain view rationale to the context of a Terry frisk? A. A Terry frisk already permits an officer to search the suspect's pockets for weapons and evidence. Therefore, an officer who lawfully searches the suspect's clothing and feels an object that is immediately apparent as contraband should be able to seize that item because there has been no invasion of the suspect's privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer's search for weapons and evidence. B. A Terry frisk already permits the officer to feel for weapons. Therefore, an officer who lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels an object that is immediately apparent as contraband should be able to seize that item because there has been no invasion of the suspect's privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer's frisk for weapons. C. A Terry frisk already permits the officer to feel for weapons. Therefore, an officer who discovers a weapon while frisking the suspect should be able to look in the suspect's pocket. If the pocket also contains contraband, then the officer should be able to seize it under the plain view doctrine.

B. A Terry frisk already permits the officer to feel for weapons. Therefore, an officer who lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels an object that is immediately apparent as contraband should be able to seize that item because there has been no invasion of the suspect's privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer's frisk for weapons. The plain feel doctrine, which allows an item to be seized based upon the officer's probable cause belief that the item is contraband, does not impose a greater intrusion upon the suspect's privacy interest than already envisioned by the Terry frisk itself.

the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that a witness summoned to appear and testify before the grand jury may not refuse to answer questions on the ground that such questions are based on evidence obtained from an unlawful search or seizure. What do you suppose is the rationale for such a decision? A. Officers who violate the Constitution in order to apprehend the person who committed a crime should be rewarded by permitting the grand jury to see and hear all of the evidence discovered by police. B. Allowing a grand jury witness to invoke the exclusionary rule would unduly interfere with the effective and expeditious discharge of the grand jury's duties, and extending the exclusionary rule to grand jury proceedings would achieve only a speculative and minimal advance in deterring police misconduct at the expense of substantially impeding the grand jury's role. C. Grand jurors will be able to selectively ignore evidence that is illegally obtained and keep their focus on the legally obtained evidence. So there is no harm in allowing them to see all of the evidence. D. Permitting the grand jurors to see evidence that is illegally seized by the police will allow the grand jurors to consider charging the police with violating constitutional standards.

B. Allowing a grand jury witness to invoke the exclusionary rule would unduly interfere with the effective and expeditious discharge of the grand jury's duties, and extending the exclusionary rule to grand jury proceedings would achieve only a speculative and minimal advance in deterring police misconduct at the expense of substantially impeding the grand jury's role. Historically, the grand jury stood as a barrier between the citizen and law enforcement. When seeking to determine whether a person should be charged with a crime, the Court has concluded that "society's interest is best served by a thorough and extensive investigation..and [a] grand jury investigation is not fully carried out until every available clue has been run down and all witnesses examined in every proper way to find if a crime has been committed." United States v. Calandra , 414 U.S. 338, 344 (1974).

Jack Frost, a police officer in Minnesota, went to an apartment building to investigate a tip from a confidential informant. The informant said that he had walked by the window of a ground-floor apartment and had observed people putting white powder into bags. The officer looked in the same window through a gap in the closed blind and observed the bagging operation for several minutes. He then notified headquarters, which began preparing affidavits for a search warrant while he returned to the apartment building. A search of the apartment pursuant to a warrant revealed cocaine residue on the kitchen table and plastic baggies. Frost identified Able, Baker, and Carter as the three people he had observed placing the powder into baggies. The police later learned that while Able was the lessee of the apartment, Baker and Carter lived in Chicago and had come to the apartment for the sole purpose of packaging the cocaine. Baker and Carter had never been to the apartment before and were only in the apartment for approximately 2½ hours. In return for the use of the apartment, Baker and Carter had given Able one-eighth of an ounce of the cocaine. What is your best argument as prosecutor that Baker and Carter do not have standing to contest the officer's search? A. Baker and Carter were not legitimately on the premises. B. Although Baker and Carter were invitees and legitimately on the premises, they did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises because they were not overnight guests, they had not been in the apartment very long, and they were present for illicit purposes. C. Although Baker and Carter had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises, they were there for an illicit purpose and that negated the expectation of privacy. D. Baker and Carter violated Able's lease agreement and therefore cannot have standing to contest the search.

B. Although Baker and Carter were invitees and legitimately on the premises, they did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises because they were not overnight guests, they had not been in the apartment very long, and they were present for illicit purposes. The proper standard for determining whether a defendant has standing is whether he has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises searched. Here, Baker and Carter might have been invited onto the premises legitimately, but the length of time of their stay and the nature of their business cut strongly against establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises.

Which of the following statements best explains why officers are permitted to search automobiles incident to arrest even when arrestees are secured in a police cruiser? A. Although unlikely, it is certainly possible that an arrestee who is handcuffed and placed in a police cruiser may be able to free himself and gain access to weapons or destroy evidence in his vehicle. Therefore, officers should be permitted to search the vehicle incident to arrest even though the arrestee is handcuffed and secured in the police cruiser. B. Although it is unlikely that an arrestee who has been handcuffed and secured in a police cruiser will be able to lunge for weapons or destroy evidence in his vehicle, it may be reasonable to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the crime for which the person is being arrested. C. Although the arrestee has been handcuffed and secured in the police vehicle, his confederates may be able to access the vehicle to obtain weapons or to destroy evidence. Therefore, officers should be permitted to search the vehicle incident to arrest. D. Although the arrestee has been handcuffed and secured in the police vehicle, officers must nevertheless conduct a search of the automobile incident to arrest in order to prevent the theft of valuables from the vehicle.

B. Although it is unlikely that an arrestee who has been handcuffed and secured in a police cruiser will be able to lunge for weapons or destroy evidence in his vehicle, it may be reasonable to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the crime for which the person is being arrested. he U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009) concluded that a search incident to arrest is permissible when there is reason to believe that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.

The case of Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 (1988), presented a situation in which the accused had been charged with a crime, but had not yet retained or received appointed counsel. The question in that case was whether the government could question him about the crimes for which he had been indicted without the presence of counsel. Prior to questioning Patterson about the crimes, the officers read the Miranda warning to him and obtained a waiver under Miranda. On appeal, Patterson claimed that questioning him outside the presence of counsel violated the Sixth Amendment because he did not validly waive his right to have counsel present during the interrogations. Thus, the question before the Court was whether waiving his right to counsel under Miranda was an effective waiver of his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The Court determined that "the Miranda warnings given petitioner made him aware of his right to have counsel present during the questioning. By telling petitioner that he had a right to consult with an attorney, to have a lawyer present while he was questioned, and even to have a lawyer appointed for him if he could not afford to retain one on his own, [the government] conveyed to petitioner the sum and substance of the rights that the Sixth Amendment provided him," and "the Miranda warnings also served to make petitioner aware of the consequences of a decision by him to waive his Sixth Amendment rights during postindictment questioning. Petitioner knew that any statement that he made could be used against him in subsequent criminal proceedings. This is the ultimate adverse consequence petitioner could have suffered by virtue of his choice to make uncounseled admissions to the authorities." Patterson, 487 U.S. at 293-4. Which of the following statements best summarizes the Court's conclusion in Patterson? A. An accused person who waives his rights under Miranda during a custodial interrogation may still have a valid claim on appeal that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. B. An accused person who waives his rights under Miranda during a custodial interrogation has also been apprised of his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment and will be deemed to have waived that right as well. C. Rights under Miranda take precedence over the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

B. An accused person who waives his rights under Miranda during a custodial interrogation has also been apprised of his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment and will be deemed to have waived that right as well.

What is the role of anonymous tips in the reasonable suspicion analysis? A. Anonymous tips can be used as long as the police are able to ultimately identify the tipster. B. Anonymous tips may be used when they have some indicia of reliability. C. Anonymous tips may never be used because the societal cost is too high. D. Anonymous tips will usually be enough on their own without the need for further corroboration.

B. Anonymous tips may be used when they have some indicia of reliability.

Officer Ollie, while taking a break from his neighborhood patrol, visits Nellie's flower shop and converses with Harry, an employee of the shop. During this conversation, Officer Ollie notices an envelope with money protruding from it lying on the cash register. Upon further examination, Officer Ollie discovers that the envelope contains not only money, but illegal gambling slips. Officer Ollie then places the envelope back on the register and, without telling Harry what he had found, asks him to whom the envelope belongs. Harry tells him the envelope belongs to Nellie, the owner of the flower shop. Officer Ollie reports his discovery to local detectives and to the FBI, who interview Harry some four months later without referring to the incident involving Officer Ollie. About six months after that incident, Nellie is summoned before a federal grand jury, where she testifies that she has never taken illegal gambling bets at her shop. However, Harry testifies to the contrary, and, shortly thereafter, Nellie is indicted for perjury. Four months later Nellie's trial is scheduled to begin. Prior to trial, Nellie moves to suppress Harry's potential trial testimony arguing that it is the fruit of an unlawful search of the envelope in her flower shop. You should assume that Officer Ollie's search of the envelope is unlawful. You should also assume that Harry is coming forward of his own free will to offer testimony against Nellie. How would applying the exclusionary rule (i.e., excluding Harry's testimony at Nellie's trial) serve to deter Officer Ollie's behavior in this case, if at all? A. Application of the exclusionary rule in this situation would have a profound impact in terms of deterring the behavior of police officers such as Officer Ollie because Officer Ollie's behavior in the flower shop was an egregious violation of the Constitution. B. Application of the exclusionary rule in this situation would probably not have the slightest deterrent effect on the behavior of officers such as Officer Ollie because Officer Ollie's conduct was not sufficiently deliberate such that exclusion can meaningfully deter it. C. Application of the exclusionary rule in this situation would serve to deter Officer Ollie from this kind of egregious constitutional violation but would likely not have the slightest deterrent effect on the behavior of other officers.

B. Application of the exclusionary rule in this situation would probably not have the slightest deterrent effect on the behavior of officers such as Officer Ollie because Officer Ollie's conduct was not sufficiently deliberate such that exclusion can meaningfully deter it. Officer Ollie did not set out to intentionally violate the constitution. Therefore, applying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to prevent Harry from testifying would exact a high cost on the truth-finding objective of the criminal justice system with very little corresponding benefit in terms of deterrence.

An officer observes a motor home traveling along the highway and has probable cause to believe that the occupants may be in possession of a controlled substance. When the officer stops the motor home, the occupants ask him if he has a warrant to search their "home." On what basis may the officer search the motor home? A. Search Warrant B. Automobile Exception

B. Automobile Exception Although the motor home can function as both a means of transport and a residence, at the time it was observed by the officer, it was clearly being used as an automobile. Therefore, both automobile exception rationales - mobility and lesser expectation of privacy -- would allow the officer to search the motor home without a warrant. You should also be aware that, in California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court set forth a number of factors that might be relevant in determining whether a warrant is required under these circumstances, including the location of the motor home, whether it is connected to utilities, whether it is readily mobile and whether it has convenient access to public roads.

An officer sees a person suspected of robbing a convenience store earlier that day driving along the highway. The officer pulls the vehicle over believing that the suspect may have the ill-gotten gains in the vehicle. The officer arrests the suspect and impounds the vehicle. The vehicle is now located in the secure police impound lot. On what basis may the officer search the vehicle? A. Search Warrant B. Automobile Exception

B. Automobile Exception If officers have probable cause to search automobiles on the scene, they may also do so later at the impound lot under the automobile exception's lesser expectation of privacy rationale.

An officer sees a person suspected of robbing a convenience store earlier that day driving along the highway. The officer pulls the vehicle over believing that the suspect may have the ill-gotten gains in the vehicle. On what basis may the officer search the vehicle? A. Search Warrant B. Automobile Exception

B. Automobile Exception The mobility rationale of the automobile exception allows officers to search vehicles based upon probable cause without obtaining a warrant.

If the officers in Kyllo had been standing on the defendant's curtilage when pointing the thermal imagining device, that would not have mattered in the Court's analysis because the curtilage is not protected. A. True B. False

B. False o As learned in Collins, officers must have a warrant to be on the curtilage

Assume that Officer Ollie suspects his neighbor Ned of embezzlement and tax fraud based upon the fact that Ned purchases expensive vehicles and takes lavish vacations that seem inconsistent with Ned's job as manager at the local burger joint. One day, while on duty, Officer Ollie stops by the burger joint for a meal. When Ned sees Ollie, he invites him back to his office at the rear of the restaurant. Once in the office, Ollie spots Ned's tax returns (which Ned was completing during his lunch break) and several bundles of cash in Ned's partially open briefcase. Ned laughs and says to Ollie, "Don't look too closely, I don't want you to see all the money I'm not reporting!" while pointing to the bundles of cash in his briefcase. Officer Ollie immediately seizes both the tax returns and the money as evidence of Ned's embezzlement and tax fraud. As prosecutor in this case, what's your best argument that this seizure is consistent with the plain view doctrine? A. Officer Ollie is certain that Ned is committing tax fraud and embezzlement. Therefore, Ned's tax return and the bundles of cash were immediately apparent as evidence of the crimes of tax fraud and embezzlement. The items were properly seized because they were in plain view when Officer Ollie entered Ned's office. B. Based upon Ned's spending habits and his likely income, Office Ollie has reason to believe that Ned is engaging in the crimes of embezzlement and tax fraud. Upon hearing Ned's comments in the office, Officer Ollie develops probable cause to believe that Ned has underreported his income on his tax returns and that the bundles of cash are the ill-gotten gains of Ned's embezzlement. Therefore, the items were properly seized because they were in plain view when Officer Ollie entered Ned's office. C. Because Ned admitted that he was engaging in embezzlement and tax fraud, Officer Ollie could properly seize the instrumentalities of those crimes. Therefore, the tax return and bundles of cash were properly seized because they were in plain view when Officer Ollie entered Ned's office.

B. Based upon Ned's spending habits and his likely income, Office Ollie has reason to believe that Ned is engaging in the crimes of embezzlement and tax fraud. Upon hearing Ned's comments in the office, Officer Ollie develops probable cause to believe that Ned has underreported his income on his tax returns and that the bundles of cash are the ill-gotten gains of Ned's embezzlement. Therefore, the items were properly seized because they were in plain view when Officer Ollie entered Ned's office.

Assume that Officer Ollie spots a man, Neil, loitering outside of a high school. Officer Ollie suspects that Neil is selling drugs to high school students. Officer Ollie approaches Neil and immediately arrests him. During the search incident to arrest, the officers discover a note in Neil's pocket that describes the location of the body of a murder victim. Assume also that the police had already been actively searching for the body of the murder victim, and had search teams canvassing in the exact location that the note described. Upon reading the note, Officer Ollie immediately goes to the location indicated on the note and discovers the body. It is subsequently determined that Officer Ollie lacked probable cause to arrest Neil, and therefore Neil was subjected to an unlawful arrest. Which of the following arguments best explains why the inevitable discovery doctrine might (or might not) apply to this situation? A. Because another group of police officers was already searching for the body, the fact that Officer Ollie discovered its exact location as a result of an unlawful arrest is irrelevant. B. Because another group of police officers was already searching for the body in the exact location revealed by the note, the police would have inevitably discovered it if they had continued their search efforts. C. The inevitable discovery doctrine could not apply here because Officer Ollie did not discover the body until after he found the note as a result of the unlawful arrest.

B. Because another group of police officers was already searching for the body in the exact location revealed by the note, the police would have inevitably discovered it if they had continued their search efforts. The inevitable discovery doctrine contemplates that evidence has been discovered through unlawful means. The critical question then becomes whether the police would have inevitably discovered the item through a lawful means. To prove this, the government will have to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that they would have inevitably discovered the item.

Which of the following best summarizes the reason that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at the initiation of adversarial proceedings? A. Because the language of the Sixth Amendment expressly provides that the right to counsel should attach at the initiation of adversarial criminal proceedings. B. Because it is at this point that the government forces are aligned against the defendant and in order to preserve the right to a fair trial, the accused must have effective representation. C. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a trial right and does not attach at the initiation of adversarial criminal proceedings. D. At the initiation of adversarial proceedings, the defendant must have counsel in order to prove his innocence.

B. Because it is at this point that the government forces are aligned against the defendant and in order to preserve the right to a fair trial, the accused must have effective representation.

The Court in Carpenter was concerned about applying the third party doctrine to cell-site records because: A. Cell-site record information contains intimate details of cell phone users conversations. B. Cell-site record information is qualitatively different from other records turned over to third parties. C. The Court had no concerns with cell-site information. D. Cell-site information is covered by a contract with the cell phone company.

B. Cell-site record information is qualitatively different from other records turned over to third parties.

A child's age is never a factor in the custody analysis. A. True B. False

B. False

A defendant who does not invoke Miranda rights is presumed to have waived those rights. A. True B. False

B. False

A frisk automatically occurs whenever a person has been lawfully stopped by a police officer. A. True B. False

B. False

A person who is unknowingly in the presence of an undercover police officer is considered to be "in custody." A. True B. False

B. False

A suspect who says, "My lawyer said she wanted to be here," can be said to have invoked the Miranda right to counsel during an interrogation. A. True B. False

B. False

An arrest warrant for a person may be used to enter a third party's home as long as the police have reason to believe the arrestee is inside the dwelling. A. True B. False

B. False

During a search incident to arrest outside of a vehicle, officers may search anywhere in the vehicle where evidence might be located, including the trunk. A. True B. False

B. False

If an officer does not have probable cause to get a warrant, clear and convincing evidence will suffice. A. True B. False

B. False

If there is a determination that a person does not have actual authority to consent, the Fourth Amendment analysis ends. A. True False

B. False

Routine searches at the border require a warrant. A. True B. False

B. False

The Court in Arizona v. Gant overruled the Court in New York v. Belton. A. True B. False

B. False

The Court in Miranda held that the warnings were optional if there was evidence that suspects already understood their rights to remain silent and to have counsel present. A. True B. False

B. False

The Sixth Amendment eventually provided the doctrinal basis for Miranda v. Arizona. A. True B. False

B. False

The Supreme Court has determined that no-knock warrants are unconstitutional. A. True B. False

B. False

What do you suppose is the rationale for allowing evidence that is tainted by illegal police conduct to be admitted into the trial of the person whose rights were violated? Stated differently, why are there exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine? Check all that apply. A. If the challenged evidence is critical to a conviction, then it should not be excluded from the trial. Therefore, exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine are necessary to secure convictions. B. If the challenged evidence can be attributed to separate legal sources or sufficiently disconnected from its illegal source, then the government is not benefiting from its wrongdoing when the evidence is admitted during the trial of the person whose rights were violated. C. If the challenged evidence is reliable, then it should not be excluded from the trial. Therefore, exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine are necessary to allow the introduction of reliable evidence.

B. If the challenged evidence can be attributed to separate legal sources or sufficiently disconnected from its illegal source, then the government is not benefiting from its wrongdoing when the evidence is admitted during the trial of the person whose rights were violated.

Now assume that officers are looking for a 6 ounce container of cyanide. Where can they look? A. In the entire vehicle, but not the trunk. B. In the entire vehicle, including the trunk and glove compartment. C. In the entire vehicle, but not the glove compartment.

B. In the entire vehicle, including the trunk and glove compartment. Given the size of a 6 ounce container of cyanide, the officer may reasonably look anywhere in the vehicle and still be within the scope of a lawful search.

The challenged evidence can be attributed to a separate legal source. A. Inevitable discovery doctrine B. Independent source doctrine C. Sufficient attenuation doctrine D. Not applicable

B. Independent source doctrine

An officer believes that he may not have enough probable cause to get a warrant. The officer is aware that a certain magistrate "rubber stamps" warrant applications without reviewing them carefully. The officer takes his warrant application to that magistrate, who, as expected, promptly issues the warrant. The warrant is subsequently determined to be invalid because it lacked probable cause. Would the officer have a valid Leon good faith argument? A. Valid Good Faith B. Invalid Good Faith

B. Invalid Good Faith The officer in this instance could not reasonably rely upon the warrant in good faith because he was aware that probable cause was lacking and intentionally sought the approval of a magistrate who would not challenge the warrant application. Neither the officer nor the magistrate performed the responsibilities of his office. No reasonably well-trained officer would have relied upon this warrant and the Leon good faith exception will not apply.

An officer believes she has probable cause to obtain a warrant. However, when the magistrate asks the officer about the reliability of a confidential informant who supplied the basis for the officer's probable cause, the officer lies to the magistrate to make the informant appear to be more credible. The warrant is subsequently determined to be invalid for lack of probable cause. Does the officer have a valid claim of good faith under the Leon exception? A. Valid Good Faith B. Invalid Good Faith

B. Invalid Good Faith The officer intentionally deceived the magistrate and therefore cannot rely in good faith on the warrant.

A lawfully impounded automobile may be searched without a warrant or probable cause to inventory the contents of the vehicle. The U.S. Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369 (1976), set forth the rationale as follows: "When vehicles are impounded, local police departments generally follow a routine practice of securing and inventorying the automobiles' contents. These procedures developed in response to three distinct needs: the protection of the owner's property while it remains in police custody; the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property; and the protection of the police from potential danger. The practice has been viewed as essential to respond to incidents of theft or vandalism. In addition, police frequently attempt to determine whether a vehicle has been stolen and thereafter abandoned." When conducting the search, police officers must act pursuant to standard departmental procedures and may not use the inventory search as a means to conduct a criminal investigation search of the vehicle. Requiring that officers act pursuant to standardized regulations serves to limit the discretion of officers in the execution of these searches and ensures that all vehicles are treated "equally." Standardized regulations and limited officer discretion make it less likely that officers will use the inventory search as a ruse for criminal investigation searches of automobiles. Given this analysis, which of the following statements is most accurate? A. Courts will not consider whether officers are actually searching for evidence of criminal activity as long as they are conducting inventory searches pursuant to standard departmental regulations. B. Inventory searches may not be used to search for evidence of criminal activity. They must be conducted pursuant to standardized departmental regulations so as to limit officer discretion and protect against using automobile inventory searches as a ruse for criminal investigations. C. A standardized departmental policy that maximizes officer discretion during an inventory search will likely pass constitutional muster as long as officers do not actually use it to search for evidence of criminal activity. D. An officer who suspects criminal activity may use an automobile inventory search to locate evidence. Once discovered, that evidence may then be used to form the basis for probable cause to secure a search warrant.

B. Inventory searches may not be used to search for evidence of criminal activity. They must be conducted pursuant to standardized departmental regulations so as to limit officer discretion and protect against using automobile inventory searches as a ruse for criminal investigations.

The curtilage does not have protection from above because: (choose all answers that apply) A. Most homeowners don't care who sees what happens on the curtilage. B. It is outside. C. Any member of the flying public can look down on the curtilage. D. It is next to the home which does not receive any protection under the Fourth Amendment.

B. It is outside. C. Any member of the flying public can look down on the curtilage.

One team of officers goes into a home without a warrant and illegally seizes evidence. In an attempt to get the evidence introduced at trial, the government argues that although they had no plans to seek a warrant at the time of the illegal search, they could have gotten a warrant if they had sought one. Therefore, the fact that they could have gotten a warrant provides an independent source for allowing the evidence in at trial. How would a court rule in this scenario? A. It is likely that courts would treat this as an independent source doctrine case because the police could have gotten a warrant. Therefore, the evidence could have come into their hands from a lawful source. B. It is unlikely that courts would treat this as an independent source case because the proposed independent source (the search warrant) does not actually exist. The police did not seek a warrant so there is no objective evidence to establish that they would have had an independent source for the evidence.

B. It is unlikely that courts would treat this as an independent source case because the proposed independent source (the search warrant) does not actually exist. The police did not seek a warrant so there is no objective evidence to establish that they would have had an independent source for the evidence.

Assume that officers take Dan into custody on suspicion of murder. After an hour of questioning does not produce a confession, the police falsely tell Dan that an eyewitness has just come forward and picked Dan out of a photo lineup. Dan tells the officers that he does not believe that story about the eyewitness, but decides to confess to get things "off his chest." Does the lie make Dan's confession involuntary? A. Yes B. No

B. No Although the officers did lie to Dan, looking at the totality of the circumstances, it does not appear that Dan relied upon the deception in confessing his guilt. Therefore, the lie alone cannot make this confession involuntary.

An officer has probable cause to believe that Greg is on his way to deliver an illegal handgun to a buyer. The officer stops Greg's vehicle and notices that Greg's wallet is lying on the passenger seat next to him. Can the officer search Greg's wallet for the contraband (in addition to searching other locations in the vehicle)? A. Yes B. No

B. No Due to its size, the wallet is unlikely to contain the handgun. Therefore, the police do not have probable cause to search the wallet for the handgun.

An officer has probable cause to believe that Peg is transporting a stolen 27 inch television to a potential buyer. The officer stops Peg's car and sees a box on the backseat labeled "15 inch Color Television" and notices that the box is exactly the size to accommodate a 15 inch television. Can the officer search the box for the contraband (in addition to searching other locations in the vehicle)? A. Yes B. No

B. No It is unlikely that the stolen television would reasonably be found in a box that is nearly half the size of the actual television.

An officer has probable cause to believe that Craig is transporting a stolen .22 caliber revolver to a potential buyer. The officer stops Craig's vehicle and sees a .22 revolver matching the description of the stolen weapon on Craig's front seat in plain view. The officer also sees a briefcase on the floor in front of the passenger's seat. Can the officer search the briefcase for the contraband (in addition to searching other locations in the vehicle)? A. Yes B. No

B. No Once the officer has located the contraband, he does not have probable cause to search further in the vehicle.

An officer visiting the home of a murder witness to take a statement asks the witness if she has a pen. The witness directs the officer to look in an adjacent drawer. Upon opening the drawer the officer sees a pen. However, the officer also recognizes a marijuana odor coming from the drawer and uses the pen to move aside a piece of paper in the drawer. Under the paper, the officer discovers a marijuana cigarette. Does the officer have a lawful right of access to the item seized in plain view? A. Lawful Right of Access B. No Lawful Right of Access

B. No Lawful Right of Access The officer was in the home for the limited purpose of taking the witness' statement. The officer received permission to open an adjacent drawer to look for a pen. Once the pen was located, the officer's justification for being in the drawer was exhausted. The officer does not have a lawful right of access to continue searching the drawer.

An officer visiting the home of a murder witness to take a statement looks in a drawer while the witness is out of the room and finds a marijuana cigarette. Does the officer have a lawful right of access to the item seized in plain view? A. Lawful Right of Access B. No Lawful Right of Access

B. No Lawful Right of Access The officer was invited into the home for the limited purpose of taking the witness' statement. He may not conduct any searches unless he obtains consent or has a valid search warrant.

Consider again this language from the Rakas opinion: "The question is whether the challenged search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment rights of a criminal defendant who seeks to exclude the evidence obtained during it." Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 140 (1978). Given this statement by the Court, could the defendant in Rakas have argued that the evidence should be suppressed in his criminal case because the police violated the 4th Amendment rights of the owner of the vehicle by conducting an unlawful search? (Recall, of course, that Rakas was not the owner of the vehicle.) A. No, Rakas could not make this argument in his trial unless the owner of the vehicle specifically gave him permission to argue on the owner's behalf. B. No, Rakas could not make this argument because the exclusionary rule may only be used to suppress evidence in the trial of the defendant whose rights were violated. Therefore, Rakas must explain how his rights were violated in order to avail himself of the exclusionary rule. C. Yes, Rakas could make this argument because he had the owner's permission to be in the vehicle. In other words, he was legitimately on the premises and he may therefore avail himself of any exclusionary rule argument that the owner of the vehicle might have. D. Yes, Rakas could make this argument because he and the owner of the vehicle were co-conspirators. Therefore, they may share an exclusionary rule claim to suppress evidence against them.

B. No, Rakas could not make this argument because the exclusionary rule may only be used to suppress evidence in the trial of the defendant whose rights were violated. Therefore, Rakas must explain how his rights were violated in order to avail himself of the exclusionary rule. According to the excerpt, the Court is explaining that claims under the exclusionary rule are personal in nature and a defendant must demonstrate that his personal 4th Amendment rights were violated in order to raise a valid exclusionary rule claim.

Assume that the police believe Tony is filing false tax returns. Because the police do not have probable cause to obtain a search warrant for Tony's records, they decide to break into Tony's accountant's office. Upon entering the office, the officers open a file cabinet and discover mountains of evidence that Tony has been understating his income. Would it make a difference if Tony had been present in his accountant's office during the unlawful break-in, waiting for his accountant to return from lunch? A. No, unless Tony verbally objects to the break-in and search as it is occurring. B. No. Tony may be legitimately on the premises, but he does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in his accountant's office or file cabinet. C. Yes, because Tony is legitimately on the premises and gains standing to object to a search of the premises. D. Yes, because Tony is a witness to the break-in and gains standing to object to a search of the premises.

B. No. Tony may be legitimately on the premises, but he does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in his accountant's office or file cabinet. While Tony is legitimately on the premises waiting for his accountant, that would not be sufficient to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy. Instead, Tony would have to demonstrate that he had free access to the office and the right to exclude others from the premises before he could be found to have a legitimate expectation of privacy.

An officer conducting a routine traffic stop sees some white powder in a baggie sitting on the front passenger's seat. The officer reaches into the vehicle, seizes the baggie and "taste tests" the powder to determine if it is cocaine. Is the item immediately apparent to the officer as contraband or other evidence of a crime? A. Immediately Apparent B. Not immediately apparent

B. Not immediately apparent Because the officer has to "taste test" the item to determine its character, it is not immediately apparent as contraband. The taste test is likely to be considered a further search of the item.

An officer on patrol in a neighborhood known for illegal drug sales sees a person coming out of what the officer believes is a location where crack cocaine is being sold. The person has a brown paper bag in his hand. Believing that the paper bag contains crack cocaine, the officer grabs the bag, opens it and finds the crack cocaine. Is the item immediately apparent to the officer as contraband or other evidence of a crime? A. Immediately Apparent B. Not immediately apparent

B. Not immediately apparent The bag itself was not contraband and the officer had to conduct a further search to determine that the bag contained cocaine. This further search would invalidate a plain view seizure.

An officer responding to an exigent circumstance notices that there is expensive stereo equipment in an otherwise squalid apartment. To confirm his suspicion, the officer lifts a piece of the stereo equipment to check the serial number. Is the item immediately apparent to the officer as contraband or other evidence of a crime? A. Immediately Apparent B. Not immediately apparent

B. Not immediately apparent These are the facts of Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987). In Hicks, the Court determined that lifting the stereo equipment to view the serial number was an additional search of the item to confirm its character. The Court stated that "taking action, unrelated to the objectives of the authorized intrusion, which exposed to view concealed portions of the apartment or its contents, did produce a new invasion of respondent's privacy unjustified by the exigent circumstance that validated the entry." Id. at 325.

The initial illegal conduct is: A. Direct Evidence B. Poisonous tree C. Secondary or derivative evidence

B. Poisonous Tree

In Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U. S. 98 (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a person may not contest the search of a location on the basis of an ownership interest in the property seized. Thus, in the previous question, Rick could not have contested the search of Jill's purse simply by claiming an ownership interest in the drugs that were in her purse. The Court reasoned that "while... ownership of the drugs is undoubtedly one fact to be considered in this case, Rakas emphatically rejected the notion that "arcane" concepts of property law ought to control the ability to claim the protections of the Fourth Amendment." Id. at 105. What is the likely impact of rejecting the notion that "arcane" concepts of property law ought to control standing? A. Rejecting concepts of property law and ownership as the sole factors for determining standing is likely to broaden the category of defendants who can bring motions to suppress. B. Rejecting concepts of property law and ownership as the sole factors for determining standing is likely to narrow the category of defendants who can bring motions to suppress. C. Rejecting concepts of property law and ownership as the sole factors for determining standing is unlikely to have any effect on the category of defendants who can bring motions to suppress.

B. Rejecting concepts of property law and ownership as the sole factors for determining standing is likely to narrow the category of defendants who can bring motions to suppress. Rejecting ownership of contraband as the sole criterion for establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy likely means that fewer defendants will have standing to contest searches because they will have to take the extra step of demonstrating a legitimate expectation of privacy in the location being searched. And, merely placing an item in a particular location is not sufficient to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in that location.

Consider this language from Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 447 (1974): "The deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule necessarily assumes that the police have engaged in willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct which has deprived the defendant of some right. By refusing to admit evidence gained as a result of such conduct, the courts hope to instill in those particular investigating officers, or in their future counterparts, a greater degree of care toward the rights of an accused. Where the official action was pursued in complete good faith, however, the deterrence rationale loses much of its force." What is the Court saying about the deterrence rationale as it relates to the exclusionary rule? A. The Court is saying that the deterrence rationale is no longer a valid basis for the exclusionary rule. B. The Court is saying that if officers have acted in good faith then the deterrence rationale cannot be as effective as it is in cases when the officers have engaged in willful or negligent misconduct. C. The Court is saying that the deterrence rationale has served its purpose in deterring officers who engage in willful or negligent misconduct, so it should now be used to target officers who act in good faith. D. The Court is saying that the deterrence rationale has served its purpose in deterring officers who engage in willful or negligent misconduct, so it should now be used to target accused persons.

B. The Court is saying that if officers have acted in good faith then the deterrence rationale cannot be as effective as it is in cases when the officers have engaged in willful or negligent misconduct. The Court is acknowledging that the deterrence theory is still valid, but is most effective in instances when police have not acted in good faith in conducting the search or seizure.

The rationale for the holding in Illinois v. Rodriguez is: A. The Fourth Amendment does not allow third party consent searches. B. The Fourth Amendment does not govern consent searches so any third party can consent to a search for another person. C. The Fourth Amendment requires that officers be reasonable when assessing whether a third party can give consent. D. The Fourth Amendment requires that police officers be correct when determining whether a third party has given consent.

C. The Fourth Amendment requires that officers be reasonable when assessing whether a third party can give consent.

Officer Ollie, while taking a break from his neighborhood patrol, visits Nellie's flower shop and converses with Harry, an employee of the shop. During this conversation, Officer Ollie notices an envelope with money protruding from it lying on the cash register. Upon further examination, Officer Ollie discovers that the envelope contains not only money, but illegal gambling slips. Officer Ollie then places the envelope back on the register and, without telling Harry what he had found, asks him to whom the envelope belongs. Harry tells him the envelope belongs to Nellie, the owner of the flower shop. Officer Ollie reports his discovery to local detectives and to the FBI, who interview Harry some four months later without referring to the incident involving Officer Ollie. About six months after that incident, Nellie is summoned before a federal grand jury, where she testifies that she has never taken illegal gambling bets at her shop. However, Harry testifies to the contrary, and, shortly thereafter, Nellie is indicted for perjury. Four months later Nellie's trial is scheduled to begin. Prior to trial, Nellie moves to suppress Harry's potential trial testimony arguing that it is the fruit of an unlawful search of the envelope in her flower shop. You should assume that Officer Ollie's search of the envelope is unlawful. You should also assume that Harry is coming forward of his own free will to offer testimony against Nellie. How do you suppose the court will analyze the amount of time that has elapsed between the illegal conduct (the search of the envelope at the flower shop) and the challenged evidence (Harry's proposed testimony at Nellie's trial), considering that more than a year has elapsed since the illegal search at the flower shop and Harry's proposed trial testimony? A. The court would likely determine that as a matter of law an insufficient amount of time has elapsed to dissipate the taint between Officer Ollie's illegal search and Harry's proposed testimony at Nellie's trial. B. The court would likely determine that because more than a year has passed between Officer Ollie's illegal search and Harry's proposed testimony at Nellie's trial, a sufficient period of time has elapsed so as to dissipate the taint. C. The court would likely ask Harry if he believed that a sufficient amount of time had elapsed between Officer Ollie's unlawful search and Harry's proposed testimony at Nellie's trial.

B. The court would likely determine that because more than a year has passed between Officer Ollie's illegal search and Harry's proposed testimony at Nellie's trial, a sufficient period of time has elapsed so as to dissipate the taint. Because Officer Ollie's conduct in searching the envelope was not flagrant and because Harry is coming forward of his own free will, one year will likely be sufficient to dissipate the taint.

Assume that Officer Ollie spots a man, Neil, loitering outside of a high school. Officer Ollie suspects that Neil is selling drugs to high school students. Officer Ollie approaches Neil and immediately arrests him. During the search incident to arrest, Officer Ollie discovers a note in Neil's pocket that describes the location of drugs stashed under a bush 50 yards away from the school. Another officer walks over to the bush and secures the drugs. It is subsequently determined that Officer Ollie lacked probable cause to arrest Neil, and therefore Neil was subjected to an unlawful arrest. How is this scenario likely to be examined under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine? A. The illegal arrest is the poisonous tree. However, because the slip of paper was discovered during the search incident to arrest, it is not direct evidence of the initial illegality. Therefore, there is no secondary or derivative evidence from the illegal arrest. B. The illegal arrest and search incident to arrest are the poisonous tree. The slip of paper discovered during the search is direct evidence of the initial illegality. The drugs discovered as a result of the slip of paper are secondary or derivative evidence. C. Because Officer Ollie personally believed he had probable cause to arrest Neil, there is no poisonous tree. D. The illegal arrest and the search incident to arrest are the poisonous tree. The slip of paper and the drugs are both secondary evidence of that poisonous tree.

B. The illegal arrest and search incident to arrest are the poisonous tree. The slip of paper discovered during the search is direct evidence of the initial illegality. The drugs discovered as a result of the slip of paper are secondary or derivative evidence.

What do you suppose was the impact of "reframing" the test for standing from "legitimately on the premises" to "legitimate expectation of privacy'? A. The likely impact would be a broadening of the category of defendants who have standing to challenge searches and seizures. B. The likely impact would be a narrowing of the category of defendants who have standing to challenge searches and seizures. C. The likely impact would be insignificant because the standards are functionally the same.

B. The likely impact would be a narrowing of the category of defendants who have standing to challenge searches and seizures. The standard of "being legitimately on the premises" allowed a very broad category of visitors to gain standing to contest searches. For example, a casual visitor to a home could claim standing to challenge a search of the home merely because she was invited to the home and was legitimately on the premises. In contrast, a legitimate expectation of privacy is more difficult to demonstrate. The defendant would have to show that she maintained a privacy interest in the location by virtue of having regular and "free" access to the premises and having the right to exclude others. This is a much higher standard than merely being legitimately on the premises. Therefore, it is likely that fewer defendants would meet the test for standing under the "legitimate expectation of privacy" standard.

Assume that an officer has been given consent to search a home for illegal weapons. During that search, the officer discovers a suitcase filled with marijuana. Which statement best explains why the officer shouldn't have to obtain a warrant to seize the marijuana? A. The officer is lawfully on the premises pursuant to a valid consent to search the home. Because the owner did not place any specific limitations on what the officer could search for, the owner's consent to search for weapons arguably included consent to search for drugs as well. B. The officer is lawfully on the premises pursuant to a valid consent search and as long as he is looking in places where illegal weapons might be concealed when discovering the marijuana, then it would be a needless inconvenience to force the officer to obtain a warrant to seize the marijuana. C. There is no valid justification for permitting the officer to seize the marijuana under these circumstances. The officer must obtain a warrant. D. The officer may seize the marijuana because it might be considered a weapon and the officer has obtained the owner's consent to search for illegal weapons.

B. The officer is lawfully on the premises pursuant to a valid consent search and as long as he is looking in places where illegal weapons might be concealed when discovering the marijuana, then it would be a needless inconvenience to force the officer to obtain a warrant to seize the marijuana.

Suppose an officer illegally arrests a suspect for dealing narcotics. During the search incident to arrest, the officer discovers a slip of paper with all of the dealer's customers' names. The customers are contacted by police and agree to testify against the dealer. What would be considered direct evidence of the poisonous tree? A. The customers' testimony against the dealer. B. The slip of paper with the customers' names. C. The illegal arrest.

B. The slip of paper with the customers' names. Direct evidence is that which is gleaned directly from the unconstitutional behavior. In this case, the direct evidence would be the slip of paper with the customers' names.

Why does the Court in Jones rely upon the trespass doctrine? A. The Court actually doesn't use the trespass doctrine in Jones because the Katz test was applied to resolve the case. B. Justice Scalia made up the trespass doctrine to anger Justice Alito. C. Because the officers placed the GPS device on the wrong day and in the wrong geographical location. D. Because Jones was trespassing on various people's private property as he was committing crimes.

C. Because the officers placed the GPS device on the wrong day and in the wrong geographical location.

Assume that Officer Ollie suspects his neighbor Ned of embezzlement and tax fraud based upon the fact that Ned purchases expensive vehicles and takes lavish vacations that seem inconsistent with Ned's job as manager at the local burger joint. One day, while on duty, Officer Ollie stops by the burger joint for a meal. When Ned sees Ollie, he invites him back to his office at the rear of the restaurant. Once in the office, Ollie spots Ned's tax returns (which Ned was completing during his lunch break) and several bundles of cash in Ned's partially open briefcase. Ned laughs and says to Ollie, "Don't look too closely, I don't want you to see all the money I'm not reporting!" while pointing to the bundles of cash in his briefcase. Officer Ollie immediately seizes both the tax returns and the money as evidence of Ned's embezzlement and tax fraud. As defense attorney in the previous question, what is your best argument that the seizure is not consistent with the plain view doctrine? A. Officer Ollie has no evidence that Ned is engaging in embezzlement or tax fraud. Ned's statement in his office was merely a joke and could not serve to make the tax return and the bundles of cash immediately apparent as contraband. B. While Officer Ollie may have had reason to believe that Ned was engaging in embezzlement and tax fraud based upon Ned's lavish spending, that suspicion did not rise to the level of probable cause merely because Ned made an off-hand comment about concealing assets. Therefore, the tax return and cash are not immediately apparent as contraband and cannot be seized under the plain view doctrine. C. Officer Ollie was an off-duty invitee in Ned's office and as such he cannot make plain view seizures. Therefore, even if the tax return and bundles of cash were immediately apparent as contraband, Officer Ollie could not seize them.

B. While Officer Ollie may have had reason to believe that Ned was engaging in embezzlement and tax fraud based upon Ned's lavish spending, that suspicion did not rise to the level of probable cause merely because Ned made an off-hand comment about concealing assets. Therefore, the tax return and cash are not immediately apparent as contraband and cannot be seized under the plain view doctrine.

What is the difference between the inevitable discovery doctrine and the independent source doctrine? A. With the inevitable discovery doctrine, the government can identify a wholly independent source from which the challenged evidence was obtained (such as a valid warrant), while the independent source doctrine focuses on what would have happened if the government had continued its investigation. B. With the independent source doctrine, the government can identify a wholly independent source from which the challenged evidence was obtained (such as a valid warrant), while the inevitable discovery doctrine focuses on what would have happened if the government had continued its investigation. C. With the independent source doctrine, the government can identify a wholly independent source from which the challenged evidence was obtained (such as a valid warrant), while the inevitable discovery doctrine focuses on whether the government actually believes it would have discovered the challenged evidence if it had continued its investigation.

B. With the independent source doctrine, the government can identify a wholly independent source from which the challenged evidence was obtained (such as a valid warrant), while the inevitable discovery doctrine focuses on what would have happened if the government had continued its investigation.

Assume that police officers enter a warehouse without a warrant. During this unlawful entry, the police discover several packages wrapped in burlap, which they suspect contain marijuana. The officers leave the warehouse without seizing the suspected contraband, but decide to keep the warehouse under surveillance and seek a warrant to search it. In the warrant application, the officers do not mention the illegal entry into the warehouse or anything they observed during that entry. Instead, the officers supply the magistrate with other evidence that they had discovered lawfully and independently before the unlawful entry. Did the officers have an independent source for obtaining the warrant? What is the government likely to argue in this case? A. Although the officers initially entered the warehouse unlawfully and viewed the bales of marijuana, they supplied the magistrate with evidence that they believed was unrelated to that unlawful entry in order to obtain the warrant. Therefore, the basis for probable was derived from what the officers subjectively believed was a wholly independent source, and the evidence will be admissible. B. Although the officers initially entered unlawfully and viewed the bales of marijuana, they supplied the magistrate with evidence that was remotely linked to that illegal entry in order to obtain the warrant. Therefore, the basis for probable was derived from a remotely independent source and the evidence will be admissible. C. Although the officers initially entered unlawfully and viewed the bales of marijuana, they supplied the magistrate with evidence that was completely unrelated to that entry in order to obtain the warrant. Therefore, the basis for probable cause was derived from a wholly independent source and the evidence will be admissible.

C. Although the officers initially entered unlawfully and viewed the bales of marijuana, they supplied the magistrate with evidence that was completely unrelated to that entry in order to obtain the warrant. Therefore, the basis for probable cause was derived from a wholly independent source and the evidence will be admissible. The independent source doctrine requires that the officers provide the magistrate with a basis for probable cause that is wholly independent of the initial illegality.

From the following choices, identify the best summary of automobile inventory search standards. A. An officer who has lawfully arrested a person may secure the arrestee's vehicle and perform an inventory search after giving the arrestee notice and opportunity to seek an alternative, less intrusive means to secure the vehicle. B. An officer who has lawfully arrested a person may secure the arrestee's vehicle and perform an inventory search to determine if the vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity. C. An officer who has lawfully arrested a person may secure the arrestee's vehicle and inventory its contents to protect the arrestee's property from theft, to protect the police from claims or disputes as to the property, and to protect officer safety.

C. An officer who has lawfully arrested a person may secure the arrestee's vehicle and inventory its contents to protect the arrestee's property from theft, to protect the police from claims or disputes as to the property, and to protect officer safety.

From the following choices, identify the best summary of the automobile exception. A. An officer does not need probable cause or a warrant to search an automobile under the automobile exception as long as the officer is following standardized departmental regulations when conducting the search. B. An officer who has probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is located within a vehicle may search the passenger compartment and the glove compartment and any containers therein. C. An officer who has probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is located within a vehicle may search anywhere in the vehicle including any containers that might reasonably hold the evidence.

C. An officer who has probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is located within a vehicle may search anywhere in the vehicle including any containers that might reasonably hold the evidence.

During a one month period, a Pinkerton County Deputy Sheriff makes a decision to tow 100 vehicles after lawfully arresting the vehicle owners. Although the Deputy Sheriff follows the Pinkerton automobile policy to the letter for all of the searches, during 30 of the searches, she actually believes that she will find evidence of a crime while conducting the inventory search. If the conduct is constitutional, identify your best argument for persuading the court to your position. A. The inventory searches are constitutional because the officer lawfully arrested the vehicle owners prior to the searches. B. The inventory searches are constitutional because the officer only believed that she would find evidence of a crime in less than one third of the searches conducted during the month. C. As long as the officer is conducting the searches pursuant to the Pinkerton policy and does so consistently for each vehicle she decides to tow, her subjective beliefs during some of those searches will not invalidate the searches.

C. As long as the officer is conducting the searches pursuant to the Pinkerton policy and does so consistently for each vehicle she decides to tow, her subjective beliefs during some of those searches will not invalidate the searches.

Why does the Court in U.S. v. Place determine that dog sniffs are not searches under the Fourth Amendment? A. Because dogs are merely guessing so there is no Fourth Amendment protection from being unlucky. B. In fact, the Court did determine that dog sniffs are searches because you have a legitimate expectation of privacy in every item in your luggage regardless of its status as illegal contraband. C. Because the dog is trained to sniff out narcotics and there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in such contraband. D. Because the dog is only trained to detect food products and there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in food in your luggage.

C. Because the dog is trained to sniff out narcotics and there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in such contraband.

How is the Leon good faith exception best summarized? A. An officer may reasonably rely upon his independent judgment when securing and executing a search warrant and the evidence will be admissible even if the warrant is subsequently determined to be invalid. B. An officer may deceive the magistrate when securing a warrant and as long as the magistrate is unaware of the deception when issuing the warrant, the evidence will be admissible even if the warrant is subsequently determined to be invalid. C. If an officer has reasonably relied upon a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate, the evidence will be admissible even if it is later determined that the warrant was invalid. D. If an officer has reasonably relied upon the determination by a neutral and detached magistrate, the evidence will be admissible even if it is later determined that the officer knew that the warrant lacked probable cause.

C. If an officer has reasonably relied upon a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate, the evidence will be admissible even if it is later determined that the warrant was invalid. The Leon good faith exception will allow evidence in when officers have reasonably relied in good faith on a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate even if the warrant is subsequently determined to be invalid.

Assume now that the officer is looking for rifles used in a shooting minutes before the search. Where can they look? A. In the entire vehicle, including the trunk and glove compartment. B. In the entire vehicle, but not the trunk C. In the entire vehicle, but not the glove compartment.

C. In the entire vehicle, but not the glove compartment. Given that an average rifle is too long to be concealed in a typical glove compartment, a search of the glove compartment would be outside the scope of a lawful search for this evidence.

An officer stops D's vehicle and arrests him. After D has been transported to the police station, the officer searches the entire vehicle and the containers therein for any valuables. Once the search is complete, the officer completes a standardized form describing the contents of the vehicle and its containers. A. Automobile exception B. Search incident to arrest C. Inventory search

C. Inventory search The fact that the officer searched the vehicle for valuables and completed a form at the conclusion of the search suggests that this is an inventory search.

Don Driver is stopped for speeding along the interstate. After issuing Don a citation for speeding, the officer tells him that he suspects Don is transporting illegal narcotics in the vehicle. The officer requests permission to search the vehicle and Don consents. The officer finds narcotics and arrests Don. Has Don's Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached to the narcotics offense? Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attach to these circumstances? A. Yes because the citation for speeding is a formal charge. B. Yes because Don has been arrested by a police officer. C. No because at this point Don has merely been arrested and there has been no adversarial judicial proceeding. D. No because the officer did not have probable cause to search Don's vehicle.

C. No because at this point Don has merely been arrested and there has been no adversarial judicial proceeding. Don was arrested for trafficking in narcotics. Because there has been no adversarial judicial proceeding on that crime, Don's Sixth Amendment right to counsel has not attached.

After being transported to the station, Sam is told that he will be arraigned the next day. When asked if he would like to make a statement, Sam invokes his Miranda right to counsel. Has Sam's Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached? A. Yes, invoking the Miranda right to counsel also invokes the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in this instance. B. Yes, because his arraignment is imminent. C. No, because Sam has not been subject to an adversarial judicial criminal proceeding. D. No, because Sam stated that he didn't want counsel.

C. No, because Sam has not been subject to an adversarial judicial criminal proceeding. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at the initiation of adversarial judicial criminal proceedings.

suppose that several witnesses observe a shooting and see that the shooter has reddish-brown shoulder length hair. Further assume that upon arrest, although the suspect has changed his hair color and length (it's now black and short), he admits to the police that his hair was reddish-brown and shoulder length on the night of the crime. However, this statement is suppressed because it is determined to be the fruit of an unlawful arrest. Finally, assume that during the trial the defendant does not take the stand, but instead has a defense witness take the stand to say that the defendant's hair was black and short on the night of the crime (despite the defendant's earlier admission that his hair was reddish-brown and shoulder length). Could the prosecutor impeach this defense witness by introducing the statement that the defendant made upon his arrest even though the statement has been excluded from the prosecutor's case-in-chief? A. Yes, because defendants should not be allow to lie "by proxy" as the defendant is doing in this example. B. Yes, because the statement was excluded as a fruit of the defendant's unlawful arrest. That exclusion of evidence does not apply to any defense witnesses. C. No, because the impeachment exception applies only to impeaching the defendant and not to defense witnesses. D. No, because defense witnesses are not required to tell the absolute truth.

C. No, because the impeachment exception applies only to impeaching the defendant and not to defense witnesses. The exclusionary rule requires that the evidence be excluded from the trial of the person whose rights were violated. The impeachment exception permits such illegally obtained evidence to be used only against the defendant.

Assume that an officer has been given consent to search a home for illegal weapons. During that search, the officer discovers a suitcase filled with marijuana. After discovering the baggies of marijuana in the suitcase, would the officer be able to open the baggies and touch the marijuana to confirm that it is, in fact, marijuana? A. Yes, because the officer is allowed to seize the marijuana under the plain view doctrine and, once seized, the officer is free to do whatever he chooses with the contraband. B. Yes, because the plain view doctrine allows officers to conduct searches and tests on evidence that is discovered so that they can be certain that it is contraband. C. No, because the plain view doctrine only permits officers to seize items that are immediately apparent as contraband. No further searches of the contraband may be conducted at this point. D. No, because the owner of the contraband did not consent to the use of the plain view doctrine.

C. No, because the plain view doctrine only permits officers to seize items that are immediately apparent as contraband. No further searches of the contraband may be conducted at this point. The plain view doctrine allows only a seizure of the item. Once seized, the evidence must be dealt with pursuant to other relevant 4th Amendment standards that are beyond the scope of this lesson.

Evidence gleaned from the direct evidence is: A. Direct Evidence B. Poisonous tree C. Secondary or derivative evidence

C. Secondary or Derivative evidence

The connection between the challenged evidence and the illegal conduct has been adequately reduced in strength. A. Inevitable discovery doctrine B. Independent source doctrine C. Sufficient attenuation doctrine D. Not applicable

C. Sufficient attenuation doctrine

Consider the context of a deportation hearing. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that "the social costs of applying the exclusionary rule in deportation proceedings are both unusual and significant. The first cost is one that is unique to continuing violations of the law. Applying the exclusionary rule in proceedings that are intended not to punish past transgressions but to prevent their continuance or renewal would require the courts to close their eyes to ongoing violations of the law. This Court has never before accepted costs of this character in applying the exclusionary rule." INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1046 (1984). Given this analysis, can you articulate what the Court is concerned with when it speaks of courts being required to "close their eyes to ongoing violations of the law"? A. The Court is concerned that those arrested for being in the country unlawfully will continue to resist arrest, which would be an ongoing violation of the law requiring them to submit to arrest. B. The Court is concerned that the government will continue a pattern of illegally arresting those suspected of being in the country illegally. C. The Court is concerned that the exclusion of evidence during a deportation proceeding might force the government to dismiss the case and free the defendant who would then be allowed to remain unlawfully in the United States. The defendant's unlawful presence in the country would constitute an ongoing violation of the law. D. The Court is concerned that the deportation hearing itself is an ongoing violation of the law.

C. The Court is concerned that the exclusion of evidence during a deportation proceeding might force the government to dismiss the case and free the defendant who would then be allowed to remain unlawfully in the United States. The defendant's unlawful presence in the country would constitute an ongoing violation of the law.

Suppose an officer illegally arrests a suspect for dealing narcotics. During the search incident to arrest, the officer discovers a slip of paper with all of the dealer's customers' names. The customers are contacted by police and agree to testify against the dealer. In this example, what would be considered the poisonous tree? A. The customers' testimony against the dealer. B. The slip of paper with the customers' names. C. The illegal arrest.

C. The illegal arrest The poisonous tree is the initial illegal conduct by the government, in this case the illegal arrest.

Officer Ollie, while taking a break from his neighborhood patrol, visits Nellie's flower shop and converses with Harry, an employee of the shop. During this conversation, Officer Ollie notices an envelope with money protruding from it lying on the cash register. Upon further examination, Officer Ollie discovers that the envelope contains not only money, but illegal gambling slips. Officer Ollie then places the envelope back on the register and, without telling Harry what he had found, asks him to whom the envelope belongs. Harry tells him the envelope belongs to Nellie, the owner of the flower shop. Officer Ollie reports his discovery to local detectives and to the FBI, who interview Harry some four months later without referring to the incident involving Officer Ollie. About six months after that incident, Nellie is summoned before a federal grand jury, where she testifies that she has never taken illegal gambling bets at her shop. However, Harry testifies to the contrary, and, shortly thereafter, Nellie is indicted for perjury. Four months later Nellie's trial is scheduled to begin. Prior to trial, Nellie moves to suppress Harry's potential trial testimony arguing that it is the fruit of an unlawful search of the envelope in her flower shop. You should assume that Officer Ollie's search of the envelope is unlawful. You should also assume that Harry is coming forward of his own free will to offer testimony against Nellie. How would the court analyze the nature of the derivative evidence in this case? United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 276-77 (1978). A. The court will likely determine that while Harry is testifying on his own volition, the illegality that led to the discovery of Harry's testimony (the unlawful search at the flower shop) plays a meaningful part in Harry's willingness to testify. Therefore, Harry's testimony will be excluded. B. The court will likely determine that Harry's testimony is similar to documentary or inanimate evidence and should be excluded. C. The court will likely determine that Harry is testifying entirely of his own volition, and the illegality that led to the discovery of the Harry's testimony (the unlawful search at the flower shop) does not play any meaningful part in Harry's willingness to testify.

C. The court will likely determine that Harry is testifying entirely of his own volition, and the illegality that led to the discovery of the Harry's testimony (the unlawful search at the flower shop) does not play any meaningful part in Harry's willingness to testify. There is nothing in the facts to suggest that Harry has in any way been coerced to testify. Moreover, Harry's testimony is likely based upon his personal knowledge of the gambling operation and his willingness to cooperate rather than the illegal search that uncovered the gambling slips.

Officer Ollie, while taking a break from his neighborhood patrol, visits Nellie's flower shop and converses with Harry, an employee of the shop. During this conversation, Officer Ollie notices an envelope with money protruding from it lying on the cash register. Upon further examination, Officer Ollie discovers that the envelope contains not only money, but illegal gambling slips. Officer Ollie then places the envelope back on the register and, without telling Harry what he had found, asks him to whom the envelope belongs. Harry tells him the envelope belongs to Nellie, the owner of the flower shop. Officer Ollie reports his discovery to local detectives and to the FBI, who interview Harry some four months later without referring to the incident involving Officer Ollie. About six months after that incident, Nellie is summoned before a federal grand jury, where she testifies that she has never taken illegal gambling bets at her shop. However, Harry testifies to the contrary, and, shortly thereafter, Nellie is indicted for perjury. Four months later Nellie's trial is scheduled to begin. Prior to trial, Nellie moves to suppress Harry's potential trial testimony arguing that it is the fruit of an unlawful search of the envelope in her flower shop. You should assume that Officer Ollie's search of the envelope is unlawful. You should also assume that Harry is coming forward of his own free will to offer testimony against Nellie. How do you suppose the court would examine the flagrancy of the constitutional violation in this case? In other words, was Officer Ollie's conduct in the flower shop a serious and purposeful violation of the Constitution such that it must be deterred by imposing the sanction of the exclusionary rule? A. The court would likely determine that Officer Ollie was seeking to avoid the warrant requirement by entering the flower shop under the pretense of a friendly visit. Therefore, Officer Ollie's conduct would be in flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment. B. The court would likely determine that there was sufficient evidence that Officer Ollie entered the flower shop and picked up the envelope with the intent of finding tangible evidence bearing on an illegal gambling operation. Therefore, Officer Ollie's conduct was a somewhat flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment. C. The court would likely determine that there was no evidence that Officer Ollie entered the flower shop or picked up the envelope with the intent of finding tangible evidence bearing on an illegal gambling operation, much less any suggestion that he entered the shop and searched with the intent of finding a willing and knowledgeable witness to testify against Nellie. Therefore, Officer Ollie's conduct was not a flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment.

C. The court would likely determine that there was no evidence that Officer Ollie entered the flower shop or picked up the envelope with the intent of finding tangible evidence bearing on an illegal gambling operation, much less any suggestion that he entered the shop and searched with the intent of finding a willing and knowledgeable witness to testify against Nellie. Therefore, Officer Ollie's conduct was not a flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Officer Ollie's behavior in the flower shop, although unconstitutional, appears to have been an inadvertent mistake that led to the discovery of evidence of a crime and a witness willing to testify. This would likely not be considered a flagrant constitutional violation such that this behavior must be deterred by excluding the evidence.

Based on a suspicion that Danny was involved in a murder, the police located him at his place of employment for questioning. Danny responded to the officers' preliminary inquiries and agreed to go to the police station for further questioning. Approximately two hours later, a detective led Danny to an interrogation room and informed him of his Miranda rights. Danny inquired about the scope of his privilege to remain silent and then executed a written waiver of his Miranda rights. (The validity of that waiver is not at issue for purposes of this question). Danny is a mature adult and is thirty-two years old. He is of normal intelligence and has some high school education. Moreover, Danny has had previous experience with the criminal system; indeed, he has previously served a jail sentence. A 58 minute long interrogation session ensued. During the course of the interview, the detective told Danny that the victim had just died. That statement, which the detective knew to be untrue, supported another officer's earlier, and equally false, suggestion that the victim was still alive and could identify her attacker. (In fact, the victim had died at the scene.) The detective also told Danny that he had been positively identified at the victim's home earlier in the day. (In fact, the victim's brothers had only provided a general description of the perpetrator's car and clothing.) Finally, the detective indicated that blood stains had been found on Danny's front stoop. No such evidence was introduced at trial, and the police do not now contend that it ever in fact existed. Throughout the interview, the detective presented himself as sympathetic to Danny's plight. On several occasions, he stated that he did not consider Danny to be a criminal because whoever perpetrated the murder had a "mental problem" and needed medical help rather than punishment. Eventually, Danny fully confessed to the crime. After doing so, he lapsed into what the detective described as a "state of shock." Repeated efforts to rouse Danny from his stupor failed, and the police summoned an ambulance to transport him to the hospital. How would the detective's false sympathetic attitude toward Danny likely be evaluated? A. The show of false sympathy has no relevance in the totality of the circumstances analysis because it did not convey the officer's true feelings about Danny's guilt. B. Courts do not condone displays of false sympathy and if that factor caused Danny to confess, then his confession will be deemed involuntary. C. The detective's false sympathetic attitude will be considered a relevant factor but will not necessarily make Danny's confession involuntary.

C. The detective's false sympathetic attitude will be considered a relevant factor but will not necessarily make Danny's confession involuntary.

Choose the statement that best summarizes the deterrence rationale. A. The deterrence rationale holds that the courts have primary responsibility for deterring unlawful police conduct. B. The deterrence rationale holds that courts should be deterred from allowing unlawfully obtained evidence to be introduced into a criminal trial. C. The deterrence rationale holds that excluding unlawfully obtained evidence from criminal trials is an effective means to deter police officers from engaging in such unlawful conduct. D. The deterrence rationale holds that even in cases where officers have obtained evidence unlawfully, criminals are nevertheless deterred from committing further crimes if they are convicted based upon that evidence.

C. The deterrence rationale holds that excluding unlawfully obtained evidence from criminal trials is an effective means to deter police officers from engaging in such unlawful conduct. Remember that the deterrence rationale focuses on police conduct and aims to deter unlawful conduct by preventing the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials.

Hale and Bopp Comet were identical twin brothers. They were also wanted on suspicion of robbery for cleaning out the local bank and holding employees at gunpoint. After the robbery, the Comet brothers fled the scene. Believing that the police were probably hot on their trails, the Comet brothers packed up everything they owned and hit the road in their 15-foot motor home. Unknown to the Comets, the police had issued warrants for their arrests and had also sent bulletins to police departments within a fifty mile radius of the robbery. The Comets drove for a while and finally decided to stop at a trailer park camp outside of a small city in Oregon. As Hale and Bopp were entering the trailer park camp, a deputy sheriff on patrol spotted them and, thinking they looked a little "unusual," decided to approach them and have a chat. As the Comets were hooking up their motor home to a stationary generator provided by the trailer camp, the deputy sheriff approached them. Assuming that probable cause exists, can the officer search the motor home pursuant to the automobile exception? Hale and Bopp Comet were identical twin brothers. They were also wanted on suspicion of robbery for cleaning out the local bank and holding employees at gunpoint. After the robbery, the Comet brothers fled the scene. Believing that the police were probably hot on their trails, the Comet brothers packed up everything they owned and hit the road in their 15-foot motor home. Unknown to the Comets, the police had issued warrants for their arrests and had also sent bulletins to police departments within a fifty mile radius of the robbery. The Comets drove for a while and finally decided to stop at a trailer park camp outside of a small city in Oregon. As Hale and Bopp were entering the trailer park camp, a deputy sheriff on patrol spotted them and, thinking they looked a little "unusual," decided to approach them and have a chat. As the Comets were hooking up their motor home to a stationary generator provided by the trailer camp, the deputy sheriff approached them. Assuming that probable cause exists, can the officer search the motor home pursuant to the automobile exception? A. No, because the motor home is now clearly their residence, the officer will need a warrant to search. B. No, because even though they aren't using the vehicle as a home, it is now stationary and will soon be their "residence." C. Yes, because the motor home is not yet connected to the utilities and is still readily mobile, it will fall under the automobile exception. D. Yes, because it is clear that the motor home contains evidence from the robbery since they used it to escape.

C. Yes, because the motor home is not yet connected to the utilities and is still readily mobile, it will fall under the automobile exception. Although the motor home is in a trailer park camp and the brothers have the intent to establish it as a residence, it is not yet connected and could still reasonably be used as an automobile to flee the scene.

Assume that Officer Ollie spots a man, Neil, loitering outside of a high school. Officer Ollie suspects that Neil is selling drugs to high school students. Officer Ollie approaches Neil and immediately arrests him. During the search incident to arrest, the officers discover a note in Neil's pocket that describes the location of the body of a murder victim. Assume also that the police had already been actively searching for the body of the murder victim, and had search teams canvassing in the exact location that the note described. Upon reading the note, Officer Ollie immediately goes to the location indicated on the note and discovers the body. It is subsequently determined that Officer Ollie lacked probable cause to arrest Neil, and therefore Neil was subjected to an unlawful arrest. Would it make a difference if, at the time of Officer Ollie's discovery of the body, the police search team was five miles away from the location described by the note following up on a lead as to the location of the body that eventually turns out to be false? A. No, because the mere fact that they have a search team indicates that they would have inevitably discovered the body. B. No, because five miles is within a reasonable distance such that they would have likely stumbled upon the body at some point. C. Yes, because under these circumstances, there is no evidence that the police were in a position to inevitably discover the body at the time the note was discovered through the unlawful arrest. D. Yes, because under these circumstances, the government would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they would have inevitably discovered the body.

C. Yes, because under these circumstances, there is no evidence that the police were in a position to inevitably discover the body at the time the note was discovered through the unlawful arrest. The police must not only prove that they had a search team, but they must also demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that they would have inevitably discovered the body. These facts do not provide any evidence that the police were moving in a direction that would have led them to inevitably discover the body.

According to the Court in Wardlow, a police officer's hunch is: A. enough for reasonable suspicion as long as the officer has discussed the hunch with two other police officers B. more than enough for reasonable suspicion C. not enough for reasonable suspicion D. the same as probable cause

C. not enough for reasonable suspicion

An officer asks D if he can search D's car for evidence of illegal drugs. D says "Yes," and the officer searches the car and a suitcase in the vehicle. Which justification makes the officer's vantage point lawful. Assume for each of the scenarios that once the officer arrives at the location she discovers marijuana. A. Consent B. Open Field C. Arrest Warrant D. Exigent Circumstances E. This scenario would not constitute a lawful vantage point.

Consent

Identify one reason why courts might want to exclude otherwise reliable evidence if it has been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. A. Courts might want to exclude otherwise reliable evidence if it is seized unconstitutionally so that factually guilty defendants gain a reward in the criminal justice system. B. Courts might want to exclude otherwise reliable evidence if it is seized unconstitutionally because juries are usually opposed to illegal police tactics. C. Courts might want to exclude otherwise reliable evidence if it is seized unconstitutionally because the fact that is has been illegally seized makes it less reliable. D. Courts might want to exclude otherwise reliable evidence if it is seized unconstitutionally because exclusion is an effective means to deter officers who might violate the Constitution while searching for and seizing evidence.

D. Courts might want to exclude otherwise reliable evidence if it is seized unconstitutionally because exclusion is an effective means to deter officers who might violate the Constitution while searching for and seizing evidence. This is known as the deterrence rationale for the exclusionary rule. If officers are aware that reliable evidence will be excluded from the criminal trial of the defendant whose rights were violated, then those officers are less likely to violate the Constitution and risk letting a factually guilty defendant go free.

Assume that police officers place an undercover officer in the cell with Joe. The undercover officer observes Joe writing in his journal. Late at night, while Joe is sleeping, the undercover officer reads Joe's journal without his knowledge and finds incriminating statements about the crime for which Joe has been indicted. Has the government "deliberately elicited" incriminating statements from Joe? A. Yes because the officer deliberately invaded Joe's privacy by viewing his journal. B. Yes because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel also protects Joe's private writing from seizure by the government. C. No because Joe's Sixth Amendment right to counsel has not attached. D. No because the government did not deliberately elicit the incriminating statements in Joe's journal.

D. No because the government did not deliberately elicit the incriminating statements in Joe's journal. While it is true that the officer invaded Joe's privacy by viewing his private journal, the undercover officer did not obtain these statement by "deliberate elicitation." Instead, Joe voluntarily wrote the statements in his journal without any prompting from the officer. Note: Joe might have a claim against the government under the Fourth Amendment, but that is beyond the scope of this lesson.

Nick North becomes aware that he and his company are being investigated by a federal grand jury for insider trading. Nick decides to seek the advice of his attorney in preparation for the grand jury indictment. Has Nick's Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached? A. Yes because Nick has sought the advice of counsel. B. Yes because the grand jury indictment is imminent and Nick has sought the advice of counsel. C. No because a grand jury is not authorized to issue an indictment. D. No because the grand jury has not issued an indictment and, therefore, there has been no adversarial judicial criminal proceeding.

D. No because the grand jury has not issued an indictment and, therefore, there has been no adversarial judicial criminal proceeding. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at the initiation of adversarial judicial criminal proceedings. Because Nick has not yet been indicted, his Sixth Amendment right to counsel has not attached even though he has sought the advice of counsel.

Assume that a police officer orders Jill to empty her purse, which contains drugs that are controlled substances under state law. Upon emptying her purse, Jill tells Rick, who is standing nearby, to "take what is his" from the contents of the emptied purse. Rick immediately claims ownership of the controlled substances. Assume that Rick has only known Jill for a short time and has never had free access to her purse. Does Rick have standing to challenge the search of Jill's purse? A. Yes, because Jill allowed Rick to place the drugs in her purse, thereby giving him a legitimate expectation of privacy in the purse. B. Yes, because when Jill told Rick to "take what is his" she transferred her expectation of privacy to Rick. C. No, because Rick didn't immediately tell the officer on the scene that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the purse. D. No, because Rick doesn't own the purse and has no right to access it or exclude others from accessing it.

D. No, because Rick doesn't own the purse and has no right to access it or exclude others from accessing it. While it's true that Jill allowed Rick to store the drugs in her purse, that factor alone cannot provide Rick with a legitimate expectation of privacy in Jill's purse. In other words, a defendant cannot unilaterally create a legitimate expectation of privacy merely by placing an item in a certain location. Instead, Rick would have to also show that he had free access to Jill's purse and the ability to exclude others from accessing the purse before it could be determined that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy.

In Colorado v. Bertine, when responding to the question of whether an arrestee should be permitted to make arrangements for securing his vehicle upon arrest, the Court observed that "while giving [the arrestee] an opportunity to make alternative arrangements would undoubtedly have been possible...the real question is not what 'could have been achieved,' but whether the Fourth Amendment requires such steps. The reasonableness of any particular governmental activity does not necessarily or invariably turn on the existence of alternative 'less intrusive' means." If an officer routinely ignores requests from arrestees to release vehicles to family members who are present at the scene of the arrest, and instead chooses to tow the vehicles after conducting pre-tow inventory searches, would this conduct raise suspicions that the officer is using inventory searches as a ruse for criminal investigations? A. Yes, because the Court's opinion in Colorado v. Bertine suggests that arrestees wishes as to how vehicles will be secured upon arrest should take precedence over the officers' choices. B. Yes, because allowing the arrestees' relatives to secure the vehicles is the least intrusive alternative. C. No, because once an arrest has occurred, the Fourth Amendment requires that the officer secure the vehicle and conduct an inventory search in order to preserve evidence of possible criminal activities. D. No, because once an arrest has occurred, the Fourth Amendment requires that the officer act reasonably which doesn't necessarily mean giving the arrestee an opportunity to secure his vehicle.

D. No, because once an arrest has occurred, the Fourth Amendment requires that the officer act reasonably which doesn't necessarily mean giving the arrestee an opportunity to secure his vehicle.

Assume that an officer is walking down a public sidewalk and sees what he recognizes as a marijuana plant sitting in the front window of a home. Can the officer go into the home to seize the plant? A. Yes, the officer may enter the home because he has a lawful vantage point on the public sidewalk and the marijuana plant is immediately apparent as contraband. B. Yes, the officer may enter the home because the occupants assume the risk that officers might enter under the plain view doctrine if they place items of contraband in plain view of the public. Officers do not have to shield their eyes from obvious contraband. C. No, the officer may not enter the home because the plain view doctrine only allows officers to view contraband and not to seize it. D. No, the officer may not enter the home because although he has a lawful vantage point from the public sidewalk, he doesn't have a lawful right of access to the plant because it is inside the home, where the homeowner has a legitimate expectation of privacy under the 4th Amendment despite the presence of apparent contraband in the window.

D. No, the officer may not enter the home because although he has a lawful vantage point from the public sidewalk, he doesn't have a lawful right of access to the plant because it is inside the home, where the homeowner has a legitimate expectation of privacy under the 4th Amendment despite the presence of apparent contraband in the window.

The challenged evidence can be attributed to a separate source regardless of the legality of that source. A. Inevitable discovery doctrine B. Independent source doctrine C. Sufficient attenuation doctrine D. Not applicable

D. Not Applicable

The challenged evidence was discovered through lawful means. A. Inevitable discovery doctrine B. Independent source doctrine C. Sufficient attenuation doctrine D. Not applicable

D. Not applicable

The connection between the challenged evidence and the illegality has been strengthened. A. Inevitable discovery doctrine B. Independent source doctrine C. Sufficient attenuation doctrine D. Not applicable

D. Not applicable

In Minnesota v. Dickerson, the Court determined that the seizure of evidence was unconstitutional because: A. the officer did not place Dickerson under arrest. B. Dickerson objected to the frisk. C. although the officer had a lawful vantage point, he did not have a lawful right of access. D. although the officer had a lawful vantage point and a lawful right of access, he did not immediately recognize the item in Dickerson's pocket as contraband.

D. although the officer had a lawful vantage point and a lawful right of access, he did not immediately recognize the item in Dickerson's pocket as contraband.

Which answer below best reflects the rationale for the outcome in the Atwater case? A. Officers may arrest anyone for any crime as long as they have probable cause to believe the crime was committed in their presence because having probable cause is the same as having a warrant. B. Officers may arrest anyone for any crime as long as they have probable cause to believe the crime was committed in their presence because magistrates are too busy to deal with minor criminal offenses. C. Officers may arrest anyone for any crime as long as they have probable cause to believe the crime was committed in their presence because there is ample room in jails to support such arrests. D. Officers may arrest anyone for any crime as long as they have probable cause to believe the crime was committed in their presence because this is a simple standard for officers to remember and enforce.

D. Officers may arrest anyone for any crime as long as they have probable cause to believe the crime was committed in their presence because this is a simple standard for officers to remember and enforce.

What are the rationales for the search incident to arrest? A. Proving probable cause and supporting the arrest. B. Showing police dominance and making the arrested person uncomfortable. C. Gaining evidence at the scene and getting a waiver of Miranda. D. Protecting officer safety and preventing the destruction of evidence.

D. Protecting officer safety and preventing the destruction of evidence.

What is the most important factor that the government must demonstrate when trying to prove that evidence comes from a wholly independent lawful source? A. That there is a causal connection between the lawful and unlawful sources. B. That the defendant was not aware of an unlawful source when the evidence was seized lawfully. C. That the officers who conducted the unlawful search were acting contrary to police department guidelines. D. That there is no causal connection between the lawful source and the unlawful source of the evidence.

D. That there is no causal connection between the lawful source and the unlawful source of the evidence. Because the unlawful search is tainted, the government must show that the lawful search is wholly independent and not causally connected to the unlawful search.

Which definition best explains the meaning of the "curtilage"? A. An area on the main level inside the home where people engage in family activities B. The basement C. A resilient and smooth elastic tissue, a rubber-like padding that covers and protects the ends of long bones at the joints, and is a structural component of the rib cage, the ear, the nose, the bronchial tubes, the intervertebral discs, and many other body components. D. The area immediately adjacent to the home in which people generally participate in domestic activities.

D. The area immediately adjacent to the home in which people generally participate in domestic activities.

The Miranda "public safety" exception allows officer to: A. delay Miranda warnings when officers believe the suspect has relevant information about a crime committed by another member of the general public. B. delay Miranda warnings when suspects publicly declare they know their rights. C. delay Miranda warnings only when the suspect is in a public place. D. delay Miranda warnings when there is an immediate threat to their own safety or to the safety of others.

D. delay Miranda warnings when there is an immediate threat to their own safety or to the safety of others.

The drug dog is allowed to walk around a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop because: A. The dog sniff is a search but during the typical traffic stop there is probable cause to search the vehicle. B. The vehicle owner has consented to such searches by driving on public roadways. C. The dog can't smell anything through vehicles. D. The dog sniff is not a search.

D. The dog sniff is not a search.

consider the context of a quasi-criminal proceeding such as a forfeiture proceeding. The Court has determined that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may not be used in a forfeiture proceeding because, while civil in nature, a forfeiture proceeding's "object, like a criminal proceeding, is to penalize for the commission of an offense against the law." One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 700 (1965). Which of the following best restates the holding in the 1958 Plymouth Sedan case? A. The exclusionary rule does not permit the use of illegally obtained evidence in any trial of any person. Because the forfeiture proceeding is a trial, the exclusionary rule will be applicable to such proceedings. B. The exclusionary rule does not permit the use of illegally obtained evidence in any trial of the person whose rights were violated. Because the forfeiture proceeding is a trial, the exclusionary rule will be applicable to such proceedings. C. The exclusionary rule does not permit the use of illegally obtained evidence in civil trials of the person whose rights were violated. Because the forfeiture proceeding has as its object a criminal sanction, the exclusionary rule will be applicable to such proceedings as well. D. The exclusionary rule does not permit the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial of the person whose rights were violated. Because a forfeiture proceeding has as its object a criminal sanction, the exclusionary rule will be applicable to such proceedings as well.

D. The exclusionary rule does not permit the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial of the person whose rights were violated. Because a forfeiture proceeding has as its object a criminal sanction, the exclusionary rule will be applicable to such proceedings as well. The exclusionary rule prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in the criminal trial of the person whose rights were violated. A forfeiture proceeding, which has as its object a criminal sanction, will also be subject to the application of the exclusionary rule.

Identify the standard that the government must meet in order to prove that the challenged evidence would have inevitably been discovered. A. The government must prove that it had probable cause to believe that the challenged evidence would have inevitably been discovered through lawful means. B. The government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the challenged evidence would have inevitably been discovered through lawful means. C. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the challenged evidence would have inevitably been discovered through lawful means. D. The government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged evidence would have inevitably been discovered through lawful means.

D. The government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged evidence would have inevitably been discovered through lawful means.

Choose the statement that best summarizes the judicial integrity rationale for the Exclusionary Rule. A. The judicial integrity rationale holds that courts must defer to the expertise of the prosecution and police on search and seizure issues. B. The judicial integrity rationale holds that courts will normally sanction police conduct in search and seizure cases. C. The judicial integrity rationale holds that courts will examine police conduct in search and seizure cases only in instances when the court's integrity has been called into question. D. The judicial integrity rationale holds that courts will examine challenges to unlawful police conduct so as to avoid sanctioning such behavior and to prevent the introduction of evidence that might taint the integrity of the court.

D. The judicial integrity rationale holds that courts will examine challenges to unlawful police conduct so as to avoid sanctioning such behavior and to prevent the introduction of evidence that might taint the integrity of the court. Recall the language of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Weeks: "[T]he tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confession...should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts, which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution, and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights." This language indicates that the courts maintain integrity by ensuring that unlawfully obtained evidence is excluded from all criminal cases.

Which of the following is a clear way for suspects to know they are in custody? A. The officer grabs the person's arm and moves them out of the flow of sidewalk traffic. B. The officer tells the person, 'You are not free to leave." C. The officer asks for identification. D. The officer says, "You are under arrest."

D. The officer says, "You are under arrest."

Assume that the Pinkerton County Sheriff's Department has a pre-printed "Pinkerton Sheriff/Vehicle Tow Report" inventory sheet that memorializes the condition of a vehicle and the contents found within the vehicle prior to the tow. In addition to the pre-printed vehicle checklists on the inventory sheet, a blank space is provided to allow officers to make notations or provide descriptions of items found within the vehicle during the inventory process. Assume also that although it isn't written on the form, the Pinkerton Sheriff's Office has a standard automobile inventory policy of opening all containers in vehicles that might contain valuables. In light of these facts and the standards for inventory searches, how would you evaluate the Pinkerton County Sheriff's policy on automobile inventory searches? A. The policy is not completely written and therefore would likely be found unconstitutional. B. The policy allows opening all containers in automobiles and therefore permits officers to more easily look for evidence of criminal activity. C. The policy allows officers to conduct inventory searches prior to towing vehicles. This makes it less likely that the search is a legitimate inventory search because the vehicle is not yet completely within the custody of the Sheriff's Department. D. The policy, although not completely written, is standardized and sufficiently guides and limits officer conduct during automobile inventory searches.

D. The policy, although not completely written, is standardized and sufficiently guides and limits officer conduct during automobile inventory searches.

Assume that Officer Oscar has a hunch that a convicted felon is carrying a weapon in his vehicle. Officer Oscar waits until the felon is away from the vehicle, opens the unlocked door and searches the glove compartment. In the glove compartment, Officer Oscar finds a gun. After having the gun dusted for fingerprints, Officer Oscar discovers that the fingerprints match the convicted felon and proceeds to arrest the felon for being in possession of a weapon. How is this scenario likely to be examined under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine? A. The arrest of the convicted felon is the poisonous tree, the fingerprints are direct evidence and the gun is secondary or derivative evidence. B. The unlawful search of the car is the poisonous tree, the gun is secondary or derivative evidence and the fingerprints are direct evidence leading to the arrest. C. The unlawful search of the car is secondary or derivative evidence of Officer Oscar's hunch and the gun is direct evidence. The direct evidence led to the convicted felon's illegal arrest, which is the poisonous tree. D. The unlawful search of the vehicle is the poisonous tree. The gun is direct evidence of that illegal search and the fingerprints are secondary or derivative evidence.

D. The unlawful search of the vehicle is the poisonous tree. The gun is direct evidence of that illegal search and the fingerprints are secondary or derivative evidence.

Customs agents saw two trucks drive to a private airstrip and approach two small planes. The agents approached the trucks, smelled marijuana, and then saw in the backs of the trucks packages wrapped in a manner that marijuana smugglers customarily employed. The agents took the trucks to headquarters and searched the packages without a warrant. Is this a valid search under the automobile exception? A. No, because the officers did not have probable cause to search the trucks. The probable cause was only related to the packages. The officers should have secured a warrant to search the packages. B. No, because when the officers moved the trucks to headquarters, they were no longer mobile and therefore the automobile exception would not apply. C. Yes, because the automobile exception permits any packages in the vehicles to be searched as long as there is probable cause to search the vehicles. D. Yes, because the officers had probable cause to believe that the marijuana might be contained in the trucks as well as within the packages in the trucks.

D. Yes, because the officers had probable cause to believe that the marijuana might be contained in the trucks as well as within the packages in the trucks. Although the probable cause was likely directed to the packages, the fact that they were located in a vehicle permits them to be searched under the automobile exception.

An officer observes D acting suspiciously outside of a bank. Suspecting that a robbery may be afoot, the officer approaches D, searches his pockets thoroughly and discovers marijuana. Which justification makes the officer's vantage point lawful. Assume for each of the scenarios that once the officer arrives at the location she discovers marijuana. A. Consent B. Open Field C. Arrest Warrant D. Exigent Circumstances E. This scenario would not constitute a lawful vantage point.

E. This scenario would not constitute a lawful vantage point.

An officer responding to a burglary alarm arrives at the home, sees the front door open and walks into the home. Which justification makes the officer's vantage point lawful. Assume for each of the scenarios that once the officer arrives at the location she discovers marijuana. A. Consent B. Open Field C. Arrest Warrant D. Exigent Circumstances E. This scenario would not constitute a lawful vantage point.

Exigent Circumstances

The issuing magistrate must determing if there is a ________ (reasonable doubt/fair probability) that probable cause exists, while the reviewing judge must determine whether the magistrate had a __________ (scintilla of evidence/substantial basis) to issue the warrant.

Fair Probability Substantial Basis The issuing magistrate must determing if there is a fair probability that probable cause exists, while the reviewing judge must determine whether the magistrate had a substantial basis to issue the warrant.

An officer standing in a open field observes a closed suitcase with luggage tags identifying the owner. Suspecting that drug dealers abandoned the suitcase as they were driving along the highway, the officer opens the suitcase to discover cocaine secreted beneath the clothing. Is the application of the plain view doctrine valid or invalid under the circumstances? A. Valid B. Invalid

Invalid Although the officer has a lawful vantage point and a lawful right of access to the suitcase, it is not immediately apparent as contraband. The officer had to open the suitcase and further search it to locate the contraband. While the officer suspects that the suitcase might have been abandoned by drug dealers, there is some evidence (luggage tags on the suitcase) that the true owners might be located with reasonable diligence. The plain view doctrine would likely not apply in this instance because the suitcase itself was not immediately apparent as contraband and the officer likely did not have a lawful right of access to the inside of the suitcase where he discovered the contraband. In sum, it would not be a needless inconvenience in this case to require the officer to obtain a warrant before searching the suitcase.

An officer pulls a motorist over for speeding. When the officer approaches the vehicle and asks the motorist for his license, the motorist opens her purse. Inside the purse, the officer observes a handgun and immediately seizes it on a hunch that it is an unlicensed weapon. Is the application of the plain view doctrine valid or invalid under the circumstances? A. Valid B. Invalid

Invalid The issue here is whether the item is immediately apparent as contraband. Because people may lawfully possess handguns, the officer is probably not justified in concluding that the handgun is unlicensed without first inquiring of the owner about the status of the gun. Such an inquiry would not be needlessly inconvenient under the circumstances.

An officer picking her daughter up from the elementary school nurse's office peers over the counter into the nurse's purse and notices what the officer believes is cocaine. The officer walks behind the nurse's desk and immediately seizes the purse and its contents. Is the application of the plain view doctrine valid or invalid under the circumstances? A. Valid B. Invalid

Invalid While the officer has a lawful vantage point, she does not have a lawful right of access to the purse as it is unlikely that parents picking up their children are routinely invited to walk behind the nurse's desk. Therefore, this would not be a valid plain view seizure because the officer exceeded the scope of her justification for being in the nurse's office (i.e., picking up her child) while discovering the contraband. It would not be a needless inconvenience for the officer to obtain a warrant before seizing the nurse's purse.

An officer enjoying a backyard barbeque in his yard notices marijuana growing in an adjacent neighbor's yard. The officer jumps the fence and seizes the plants. Which factor invalidates the plain view seizure? A. No Lawful Vantage Point B. No Lawful Right of Access C. Not Immediately Apparent as Contraband

No Lawful Right of Access

An officer is invited into a home to discuss drug trafficking with a suspect. The officer asks to use the restroom and while in there opens a medicine cabinet and discovers evidence of drug trafficking. Which factor invalidates the plain view seizure? A. No Lawful Vantage Point B. No Lawful Right of Access C. Not Immediately Apparent as Contraband

No Lawful Right of Access

An officer goes into a home without a warrant to search for evidence of a robbery that took place two weeks ago. During the search, the officer discovers marijuana in baggies ready to be sold. Which factor invalidates the plain view seizure? A. No Lawful Vantage Point B. No Lawful Right of Access C. Not Immediately Apparent as Contraband

No Lawful Vantage Point

An officer conducting a search incident to arrest finds white powder in a baggie in the arrestee's pocket. The officer opens the baggie and "taste tests" the white powder to verify that it is cocaine.

Not Immediately Apparent as Contraband

What is the primary purpose of the Leon good faith exception?

The Leon good faith exception supports the deterrence rationale of the exclusionary rule. If the officer is acting in good faith when securing and executing the warrant, then there is nothing to deter even if the warrant is subsequently determined to be invalid.

The item discovered must be _____________________________ as contraband or evidence of a crime.

immediately apparent This means that the officer must have probable cause to believe that the item is contraband or evidence of a crime without the need for further investigation.

When determining whether a defendant has standing to contest a search or seizure, the court will ask: Does the defendant have a _______________________?

legitimate expectation of privacy

The second element of the plain view doctrine is that the officer must have a lawful ____________________.

right of access In order to use the plain view doctrine, the officer must discover the item while staying within the scope of the initial justification for his intrusion into areas protected by the 4th Amendment. If the officer stays within the scope, then he has a lawful right of access to the item.

An officer chases a fleeing felon into a warehouse. While searching for the felon, the officer finds bundles of marijuana. After apprehending the felon, the officer seizes the marijuana. Is the application of the plain view doctrine valid or invalid under the circumstances? A. Valid B. Invalid

Valid In this example, the officer has a lawful vantage point based upon exigent circumstances (hot pursuit). Once in the warehouse, the officer may look in any location where the fleeing felon might be located. Since he discovered the marijuana while looking for the felon, this would be a valid plain view seizure. Under the circumstances, it would be a needless inconvenience to require the officer to obtain a warrant for contraband discovered during a lawful pursuit.

Policy Rationale for the independent source doctrine (Murray v. United States)

The independent source doctrine does not rest upon such metaphysical analysis, but upon the policy that, while the government should not profit from its illegal activity, neither should it be placed in a worse position than it would otherwise have occupied

What makes an officer's plain touch search valid?

To be consistent with the plain touch doctrine, when the officer feels an item in a suspect's pocket during a Terry frisk, he may seize that item if he has probable cause to believe it is contraband. He may not further manipulate the item to determine its character, it must be immediately apparent as contraband.

Based on a suspicion that Danny was involved in a murder, the police located him at his place of employment for questioning. Danny responded to the officers' preliminary inquiries and agreed to go to the police station for further questioning. Approximately two hours later, a detective led Danny to an interrogation room and informed him of his Miranda rights. Danny inquired about the scope of his privilege to remain silent and then executed a written waiver of his Miranda rights. (The validity of that waiver is not at issue for purposes of this question). Danny is a mature adult and is thirty-two years old. He is of normal intelligence and has some high school education. Moreover, Danny has had previous experience with the criminal system; indeed, he has previously served a jail sentence. A 58 minute long interrogation session ensued. During the course of the interview, the detective told Danny that the victim had just died. That statement, which the detective knew to be untrue, supported another officer's earlier, and equally false, suggestion that the victim was still alive and could identify her attacker. (In fact, the victim had died at the scene.) The detective also told Danny that he had been positively identified at the victim's home earlier in the day. (In fact, the victim's brothers had only provided a general description of the perpetrator's car and clothing.) Finally, the detective indicated that blood stains had been found on Danny's front stoop. No such evidence was introduced at trial, and the police do not now contend that it ever in fact existed. Throughout the interview, the detective presented himself as sympathetic to Danny's plight. On several occasions, he stated that he did not consider Danny to be a criminal because whoever perpetrated the murder had a "mental problem" and needed medical help rather than punishment. Eventually, Danny fully confessed to the crime. After doing so, he lapsed into what the detective described as a "state of shock." Repeated efforts to rouse Danny from his stupor failed, and the police summoned an ambulance to transport him to the hospital. Under the Due Process analysis, what test is to be used to determine if Danny's confession is voluntary?

Totality of the Circumstances When determining the voluntariness of a confession under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause, courts will look at the totality of circumstances. Under this analysis, all factors are relevant, but no one factor is outcome determinative.

During a one month period, a Pinkerton County Deputy Sheriff makes an initial decision to tow 100 vehicles after lawfully arresting the vehicle owners. However, after conducting pre-tow inventory searches pursuant to the Pinkerton policy on all of the vehicles, he elects to allow 57 of the owners to find alternative means to secure their vehicles instead of having them towed. Is this constitutional? A. Constitutional B. Unconstitutional

Unconstitutional

Based on a suspicion that Danny was involved in a murder, the police located him at his place of employment for questioning. Danny responded to the officers' preliminary inquiries and agreed to go to the police station for further questioning. Approximately two hours later, a detective led Danny to an interrogation room and informed him of his Miranda rights. Danny inquired about the scope of his privilege to remain silent and then executed a written waiver of his Miranda rights. (The validity of that waiver is not at issue for purposes of this question). Danny is a mature adult and is thirty-two years old. He is of normal intelligence and has some high school education. Moreover, Danny has had previous experience with the criminal system; indeed, he has previously served a jail sentence. A 58 minute long interrogation session ensued. During the course of the interview, the detective told Danny that the victim had just died. That statement, which the detective knew to be untrue, supported another officer's earlier, and equally false, suggestion that the victim was still alive and could identify her attacker. (In fact, the victim had died at the scene.) The detective also told Danny that he had been positively identified at the victim's home earlier in the day. (In fact, the victim's brothers had only provided a general description of the perpetrator's car and clothing.) Finally, the detective indicated that blood stains had been found on Danny's front stoop. No such evidence was introduced at trial, and the police do not now contend that it ever in fact existed. Throughout the interview, the detective presented himself as sympathetic to Danny's plight. On several occasions, he stated that he did not consider Danny to be a criminal because whoever perpetrated the murder had a "mental problem" and needed medical help rather than punishment. Eventually, Danny fully confessed to the crime. After doing so, he lapsed into what the detective described as a "state of shock." Repeated efforts to rouse Danny from his stupor failed, and the police summoned an ambulance to transport him to the hospital. Given all the factors described, was Danny's confession voluntary or involuntary? (sample essay)

Under a totality of the circumstances analysis, all factors are relevant and no one factor is outcome determinative. The factors to be weighed in this case are: (1) Danny's age, maturity, education and prior experience with the criminal justice system; (2) the length of Danny's interrogation; (3) the fact that the officer lied to Danny about the status of the victim, the witnesses' identification, and the non-existent blood evidence; (4) the detective's false display of sympathy and suggestion that Danny would receive "mental help" instead of punishment; and (5) Danny's eventual lapse into a "state of shock" after his confession. Sample answer for voluntary confession: Taking all of these factors into account and evaluating the totality of the circumstances, Danny's confession is voluntary. Danny was a mature adult, had prior experience with the criminal justice system and his interrogation lasted less than an hour. Although the officer lied to Danny and displayed a false sympathetic attitude, it does not appear that Danny relied upon this in making his confession. The fact that Danny passed out after the interrogation might have been a result of finally relieving his conscience through confession of his guilt. Sample answer for involuntary confession: Taking all of these factors into account and evaluating the totality of the circumstances, Danny's confession is involuntary. Although Danny was a mature adult and had prior experience with the criminal justice system, his will was overborne by the extreme deceptiveness of the officers during the interrogation. Lying to Danny about the status of the victim and the witnesses' identification likely made Danny feel as if his guilt was a forgone conclusion. In addition, telling Danny that he might receive "mental help" instead of punishment might have caused Danny to underestimate the gravity of his situation and make him more likely to confess in order to receive this "benefit." The fact that Danny's interrogation only lasted an hour does not mean that he was not subjected to coercive tactics. Indeed, the best evidence of the significance of the coercion is the fact that Danny collapsed from the pressure after confessing.

Assume that a husband and wife occupy a home as co-tenants. An officer arrives on the scene of a domestic violence incident while both the husband and wife are still present. When the officer requests consent to search the entire home, the husband says, "NO!" while the wife says, "Yes." The officer proceeds to search the home and finds evidence of drug trafficking in an upstairs bedroom. Does the officer have a lawful or unlawful vantage point from which to conduct a plain view seizure? A. Lawful Vantage Point B. Unlawful Vantage Point

Unlawful Vantage Point The officer has encountered co-tenants with joint authority over the premises. The U.S. Supreme Court in Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) determined that under these circumstances, the present and objecting co-tenant's wishes must be respected. Here, because the husband was present and objected to a search, the officer did not have a lawful vantage point when he searched the residence.

Can an officer have a lawful vantage point and no lawful right of access to an item of contraband?

Yes