Criminal Procedure

DEA Agent observed Defendant deplane her incoming flight from Miami, Florida. She was the last person off the flight and appeared nervous. With their suspicions aroused, Agent and his partner approached Defendant in the concourse, identified themselves, and asked to see her identification. The agents asked her how long she had been in Florida and what the purpose of her trip had been. She explained that she had been there only for a day and had gone to a seminar. When she could not name the location of the seminar, Agent asked her to accompany the agents to an interview room, located only about 50 feet from where they were standing. She agreed to go along. Once there, Agent asked if Defendant would allow him to search her purse. She said, "Go ahead." Agent found a packet of heroin in her purse. After her indictment for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

A reasonable person in Defendant's position would not have felt that her freedom was constrained. Further, she consented to the search. The court should deny the motion.

Officer arrested Defendant for armed robbery. During a post-arrest interrogation without Miranda warnings, Defendant admitted that he committed the crime and told the police where he left the weapon and proceeds of the crime. Based on that information, police found the physical evidence. Charged with armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the statements and the physical evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

A violation of Miranda does not require suppression of physical evidence gained as a result of a statement taken in violation of Miranda. The court should suppress the use of Defendant's statement, but not the physical evidence.

Officer Albert arrested Defendant for the murder of his wife. Officer read Defendant his Miranda rights and Defendant said that he would prefer to talk to counsel before he talked to the police. The next morning, Officer Bernard approached Defendant to investigate his involvement in the murder of Defendant's brother. Bernard had reason to believe Defendant killed his brother because the brother was having an affair with Defendant's wife. Bernard gave Defendant a new set of Miranda warnings, after which Defendant agreed to talk and admitted killing his brother and his wife. Charged with two counts of murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Absent a re-initiation of the conversation by Defendant, the police could not re-approach Defendant without counsel present. The court should grant the motion.

Officer arrested Defendant on a charge of murder. Office read Defendant his Miranda rights. After Defendant agreed to talk to Officer, Officer took him to an interrogation room. Over the next several hours, Defendant refused to confess to his role in the murder despite repeated efforts of several officers to get him to talk. Their efforts included the use of a false DNA report that Officer claimed showed that Defendant's DNA was found at the murder scene. Early the next morning, Defendant confessed. Charged with murder, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. During the suppression hearing, Defendant's attorney argued that the court should exclude the statement unless it found the statement voluntary by clear and convincing evidence. The court disagreed and found that the statement was voluntary by a preponderance of the evidence. The case is now on appeal. Which of the following answers best describes how the appellate court should decide the appeal?

Although the court should review the finding of voluntariness de novo, the trial court applied the correct burden of proof. The court should affirm the conviction.

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant committed a particularly heinous murder. Officer spent two years searching for Defendant, who was successful in eluding the police. On the day of Defendant's arrest, Officer received a tip that Defendant was in his home. Officer set up surveillance and saw a man whom Officer recognized as Defendant appear at a bedroom window. Concerned that Defendant would elude him again, Officer called for backup units to join him. When those units arrived, Officer knocked on the front door. When no one responded after a few seconds, Officer used a battering ram to break into Defendant's home. Officer arrested Defendant in his bedroom and after handcuffing Defendant, found a handgun in a bedside table. Forensic evidence determined that the handgun was the murder weapon. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

An officer needs an arrest warrant to make an in-home arrest (and probable cause that the suspect is at home at the time of the entry). As a result, the court should grant the motion.

Defendant was staying at an acquaintance's apartment. Officer received a radio call notifying Officer of a recent armed robbery. Suspecting the involvement of Defendant and his acquaintance, Officer and a backup team entered the apartment and searched the apartment for the two men. During the course of the search for the men, Officer located a shotgun similar to one used in the robbery. On trial for armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. The state claims that Defendant cannot object to the police conduct. Which of the following answers is the most accurate in light of Supreme Court precedent?

As an overnight guest, Defendant can object to the police conduct.

Defendant was arrested for murder. During his arraignment, he asked the court to appoint counsel for him because he was indigent. Before he had a chance to discuss his case with counsel, Defendant was returned to his cell. Officer, aware of the appointment of counsel, approached Defendant and, after reading Defendant the standard Miranda warnings, asked if he would discuss the charges with Officer. Defendant said, yes. After several hours, Defendant admitted that he committed the crime. On trial for murder, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

As long as Defendant's Miranda waiver was valid, the statement should be admissible on these facts. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant was arrested several years ago when Officer stopped him on the highway on suspicion of driving with a suspended license. After Officer arrested Defendant and put him in the police cruiser, Officer returned to the vehicle and conducted a full search of the passenger compartment, where Officer found a large quantity of cocaine in a closed glove compartment. Prior to trial, Defendant challenged the search on the ground that it exceeded the scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest. The court denied the motion and Defendant was found guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. After he appealed his conviction but before the court rendered its decision, the Supreme Court handed down Arizona v. Gant (2009). Defendant contends that the Court's holding supports his argument that search was unlawful. How should the appellate court rule on Defendant's appeal?

At the time of the search, consistent with prevailing precedent, the search was lawful. Even if at the time of the appeal, the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has shifted, the evidence should not be suppressed because the officer's reliance on precedent was objectively reasonable. The court should sustain Defendant's conviction.

Defendant was arrested on charges of armed robbery. Prior to taking him to be arraigned, Officer put Defendant in a lineup with five other men, similarly dressed and similar in appearance, in the jail. The victim of the robbery identified Defendant. During Defendant's trial for armed robbery, the prosecutor has called the victim to the stand and wants him to testify about the pretrial line-up and for him to identify him in court as well. Defendant has objected to the admission of both identifications. How should the court rule on Defendant's objections to the use of the identifications at trial?

Based on these facts, Defendant's constitutional rights have not been violated. The court should overrule both objections.

Officer suspected Defendant of committing a recent burglary. Knowing that Defendant was on probation, Officer called Defendant's home to set up an interview with him. When no one answered, Officer left a voicemail asking Defendant to contact him. When Defendant called back, Defendant agreed to meet Officer at the police station. Once there, Officer took Defendant to an interview room where, without providing Miranda warnings, Officer discussed Defendant's involvement in the burglary. Not long after the interview began, Defendant admitted that he was involved in the crime. After the interview, Officer allowed Defendant to leave the stationhouse but later formally arrested him when Defendant was charged with burglary. Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Because Defendant went to the station voluntarily, the fact that the questioning took place in the police station without more does not make it custodial interrogation. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant was charged with murder. Because of Defendant's erratic behavior, Defendant's counsel asked the court to order a hearing to determine whether Defendant was competent to stand trial. The court ordered the hearing. At the hearing, counsel introduced evidence of Defendant's long history of mental illness. After holding the hearing, the court ruled that Defendant was competent to stand trial. Upset that his counsel tried to have him declared incompetent to stand trial, Defendant filed a pro se motion to dismiss counsel and to represent himself at trial. How should the court rule on the motion in light of Supreme Court precedent?

Because the ability to conduct trial proceedings requires technical legal knowledge, the Court has held that a competency finding does not mean that a defendant has a right to represent himself. On similar facts, the Court found that the denial of the right to self-represent did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights. The court should deny the motion.

Officer, in reliance on an informant's tip, applied for a warrant to search Defendant's home. Informant, who had given Officer reliable information in the past, claimed that he had purchased drugs in Defendant's home. Magistrate authorized the search, which resulted in the seizure of several cartons of stolen goods but no drugs. After the search, Officer confronted Informant, who admitted that he lied to Officer with the hope of getting Defendant in trouble. On trial for possession of stolen property, Defendant has learned of Informant's lie and has moved to suppress the evidence. During the suppression hearing, evidence showed that Officer was negligent in relying on Informant's tip. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Because when he applied for the warrant Officer did not know that Informant was lying, nor was he reckless with regard to whether Informant was lying, the court should deny the motion.

Officer received a call concerning a barroom brawl. When Officer arrived, he arrested Defendant and Defendant's friend Abe for assault and battery of Vinnie, who was badly beaten. Defendant's counsel was able to secure Defendant's release on bail when he was arraigned before a magistrate. Subsequently, Vinnie died. Officer contacted Abe and told him that Abe was going to be charged with murdering Vinnie. In exchange for leniency, Abe agreed to wear a wire to get Defendant to make incriminating statements about Defendant's role in the crime. Defendant's discussion with Abe, in which Defendant made statements showing that Defendant, not Vinnie, was the aggressor in the fight, was captured on tape. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Defendant had a Sixth Amendment right to counsel for the assault and battery charge and the assault and battery charges are lesser included offenses of murder. The court should grant the motion.

FBI Agent suspected Defendant of being connected to the Mob. Unable to get hard evidence against him, Agent arranged with a local restaurant to place a "bug" in a private dining room that Defendant reserved for a dinner with one of his associates. The bug allowed Agent to overhear and tape several incriminating conversations between Defendant and his associate. As a result, Agent was able to secure a warrant for the arrest of Defendant and a warrant to search his home. The evidence seized at his home allowed the government to indict Defendant for violations of the federal racketeering statute. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy that his private conversation would not be overheard. As a result, the use of the bug was an unreasonable search. The court should grant the motion.

Unable to determine whether Defendant was operating an illegal gambling operation, Officer asked one of his informants to get to know Defendant. Informant did so and told Officer that Defendant did maintain an apartment from which he conducted his activities as a bookie. Officer arranged to tape a phone conversation between Defendant and Informant. Informant called and placed a bet with Defendant. Charged with illegal gambling, Defendant has moved to suppress the conversation recorded by Informant on the grounds that the police conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation with a person who, as it turns out, is working with the police and was recording the conversation. The court should deny the motion.

Officer lacked probable cause to arrest Defendant for drug trafficking. Officer arranged for Informant to wear a wire to see if Defendant would sell Informant a sizeable amount of cocaine. Defendant and Informant first met in a restaurant but then when they began to discuss the sale of cocaine, Informant suggested that they go to Defendant's home to avoid public scrutiny. Defendant agreed. While in Defendant's home, Informant and Defendant discussed the terms of the sale, a conversation that was transmitted to Officer, who was located nearby. After Defendant made the sale, Officer secured arrest and search warrants for Defendant and his home. The search netted a large amount of cocaine. Charged with the sale of cocaine, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation with a person who, unbeknownst to him, happens to be transmitting the conversation to the police. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant was charged with murder. He pled guilty and was sentenced to a term of 30 years in prison. Neither counsel nor the court advised Defendant that he had to serve at least 15 years in prison before he was eligible for parole. He filed a petition for habeas corpus and argued that counsel was ineffective and that the court violated Defendant's rights by failing to warn him concerning the length of the minimum sentence he must serve. How should the court rule on Defendant's petition for habeas corpus?

Defendant must demonstrate not only that counsel failed to warn him but that counsel's performance was below the objective standard of reasonableness and that had he been properly advised, he would have gone to trial. If Defendant makes that showing, the court should grant the petition.

Defendant, a white man, was charged with murder. During voir dire, the prosecution used five peremptory challenges to eliminate African-Americans from the jury. Defendant challenged the prosecution's use of its peremptory challenges as violating equal protection. The prosecution then explained to the trial court why the prosecution had excluded the prospective jurors, including concerns about the prospective jurors' demeanor during voir dire. The trial court accepted the prosecution's explanations and excluded those prospective jurors from the final panel. Defendant wants to challenge the exclusion of those prospective jurors from the jury. Which of the following best describes the law governing Defendant's claim?

Defendant must prove that the trial court's finding that the prosecution's non-racially motivated explanation was clearly erroneous.

Officer arrested Defendant on a charge of burglary. During arraignment, the court appointed counsel for Defendant. Unable to make bail, Defendant remained in jail awaiting trial. Officer learned that the owner of the home that Defendant had burglarized was missing; police efforts thus far had not been successful in locating Owner. Not certain whether Defendant knew anything about Owner's whereabouts, Officer approached Defendant in his cell, gave him Miranda warnings, obtained a waiver from Defendant, and asked Defendant if he knew what may have happened to Owner. Defendant admitted to having murdered Owner and hiding his body. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Defendant waived both his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, so Officer may question him about both the charged crime and the missing Owner. The court should deny the motion.

Officer stopped Defendant for speeding. During the course of the stop, Officer developed suspicion that Defendant was high on drugs. As he was giving Defendant the ticket for speeding, Officer asked whether Defendant was high on marijuana. Defendant admitted that he was. Officer then noticed a pouch of marijuana on the floor of the vehicle and arrested Defendant for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana, Defendant has moved to suppress the statement. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Defendant was not in custody within the meaning of Miranda. The court should deny the motion.

Agent was investigating Defendant for money-laundering and suspected that Defendant and Banker were co-conspirators. Unable to develop probable cause against Defendant, Agent persuaded Informant to break into Banker's home and to search his home for incriminating evidence. There, Informant found detailed records implicating Defendant and Banker in the scheme. Indicted for money-laundering, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights have not been violated. The court should deny the motion.

Shipping Co. handles a large number of packages, including many shipped from areas where illegal drugs originate. Concerned about the spread of drugs, Shipping Co. management put in place a policy that required employees to hold suspicious packages for further inspection before delivering them. Employee detained a package addressed to Defendant when Employee noticed leaking talcum powder, often used to mask the smell of marijuana. Upon opening it, Employee discovered three pounds of marijuana. After several days, Employee contacted Officer, who arranged to do a controlled delivery of the package. After receiving the package, Defendant was arrested for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The court should deny the motion.

Officer arrested Defendant for murder. Prior to submitting the case to a grand jury, the prosecutor arranged for Defendant to be placed in a line-up. During the line-up, all of the individuals in the line-up were ordered to repeat, "Your money or your life," so that the witness could identify the perpetrator by his voice as well. The witness identified Defendant after he repeated the words he was ordered to say. Indicted for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the identification. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion in light of Supreme Court precedent?

Defendant's constitutional rights were not violated by the procedure used by the police. The court should deny the motion.

Officer, in charge of an investigation into a murder, focused on Defendant as a prime suspect. Officer learned that Defendant had been arrested and arranged to interview Defendant. The interrogation began at midday and lasted for three hours. It took place in a small room; Defendant sat in a chair and was not in any way confined. At the beginning of the interrogation, Officer gave Defendant a standard form stating Defendant's Miranda warnings. Officer asked Defendant to read the warnings out loud. Defendant complied. Officer then read the warnings to Defendant; after doing so, Officer asked Defendant to sign the form. Defendant did not do so. Despite that, Officer began questioning Defendant about his participation in the murder. At no point did Defendant ask to remain silent or to consult with an attorney. Over the course of the interrogation, Defendant answered a few questions with limited responses, but mostly remained silent. Finally, Officer asked Defendant whether he felt guilty about what he did. Defendant began to cry. Officer asked whether Defendant wanted to tell him about shooting the murder victim. Defendant responded, "Yes." He gave a full confession. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Defendant's course of conduct implied a waiver of his right to silence and his mere act of remaining silent after being read his rights was not a clear invocation of his right to silence. The court should deny the motion.

Officer Albert arrested Defendant for the murder of his wife. During his arraignment that day, Defendant was asked by the court whether he wanted counsel appointed to represent him in the murder case. The next morning, Officer Bernard approached Defendant to investigate his involvement in both the murder of Defendant's wife and brother. Bernard had reason to believe Defendant killed his brother and wife because the brother was having an affair with Defendant's wife. Bernard gave Defendant his Miranda warnings, after which Defendant agreed to talk and admitted killing them both. Charged with both murders, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Defendant's request for counsel was not the type of request that prevents the police from seeking to interrogate the defendant if he waives his Miranda rights. The court should deny the motion.

Two weeks after Defendant was indicted for armed robbery, Officer brought Witness to the police station where she showed him a photograph of Defendant and asked if Witness could identify the perpetrator. Not surprisingly, Witness said yes, that the person in the photo was the perpetrator of the robbery. At trial, the prosecutor put Witness on the stand and asked Witness about the out-of-court identification. Defense counsel objected. In addition, the prosecutor made clear that she hoped to have Witness make in-court identification as well. How should the court rule on Defendant's objections to the use of the identifications at trial?

Defendant's right to counsel attached at the time of the indictment, but that right did not extend to a photo-line-up. Further, as long as Witness can make the in-court identification based on his original observations of Defendant as opposed to being based on the photo show-up, the in-court identification is proper. The court should overrule both objections.

When Police attempted to arrest Defendant for armed robbery, he resisted. Police arrested Defendant after a shoot-out in which Defendant was seriously injured. While he was being treated for his injuries, Defendant was given a sedative. Officer was assigned to watch Defendant while he was in the hospital and realized Defendant was in a confused state as a result of the sedative. After seeing a nurse give Defendant an additional injection for pain, Officer gave Defendant his Miranda warnings. Defendant did not ask for an attorney and did not ask to remain silent. Officer then asked Defendant questions about his involvement in the robbery. Largely because of his confusion caused by the medication, Defendant admitted his involvement. Charged with armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Defendant's statement was involuntary. The court should grant the motion.

Defendant, a sailor on shore leave, was involved in a fistfight in a bar that turned into a drunken brawl. Waking in jail in the morning, Defendant remembered the fight but little else. Officer approached Defendant, gave him Miranda warnings, and asked if Defendant waived his rights. Defendant, believing that he would be charged with simple battery, agreed to waive his rights and admitted that he hit another patron in the bar. Only later did he learn that the patron had died and Defendant was being investigated for murder. Charged with murder, Defendant moved to suppress his statement. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Defendant's waiver was knowing and intelligent despite not being told that he was being investigated for murder. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant was charged with murdering his ex-wife. Severely depressed and suicidal, Defendant was initially found incompetent to stand trial. Treated while awaiting trial, Defendant was found competent to stand trial. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss his court-appointed attorneys and to represent himself. The trial judge is uncertain how to handle Defendant's motion. Which of the following offers the trial judge the best guidance on how to decide the motion consistent with Supreme Court precedent?

Deny the motion if you otherwise believe that Defendant cannot properly handle self-representation because the Court has found that a state is free to compel a defendant to accept counsel under similar circumstances.

Defendant was a prisoner in a state prison. He kept personal items in a locker, which, consistent with prison regulations, he kept locked. Both Defendant and prison guards had the combination to the locker. In addition to his personal items, like a journal and his legal papers, he kept a small amount of narcotics. Prison Guard located the narcotics when Prison Guard unlocked the locker so that Prison Guard could inspect the contents. Charged with possession of narcotics, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Despite Defendant's subjective expectation of privacy, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in items kept in his locker in prison. Hence, the protection of the Fourth Amendment does not apply in the prison setting. The court should deny the motion

Officer was investigating Defendant for his involvement in a murder for hire. Officer talked to two witnesses to the crime whose descriptions of the suspect matched Defendant and who picked Defendant out of a photo array. In filling out an application for a search warrant of Defendant's home, to be sure that the magistrate would issue the warrant, Officer added, falsely, that he had also received information from an informant, identifying Defendant as the murderer. After the magistrate issued the warrant and during the search of Defendant's home, a second officer found the murder weapon. On trial for murder, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Despite inclusion of false information in the warrant, the warrant otherwise established probable cause. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant and her boyfriend were indicted on charges of murder. Police were worried about the strength of their case because, although there was circumstantial evidence of the death of the victim, his body had not been found. Efforts to arrange a deal with Defendant for her testimony in exchange for a lighter sentence went nowhere. Defendant's father was convinced that Defendant was involved in the crime. Aware of Defendant's father's close relationship with his daughter, Officer approached Defendant's father and asked if he would try to persuade her to take the deal. Although she continued to refuse to rat on her boyfriend, she made statements to her father that incriminated her. On trial for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Encouraging and arranging the meeting between Defendant and her father amounted to a violation of Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court should grant the motion.

Defendant was on trial for armed robbery. During his defense, Defendant took the stand and testified on direct examination. Before the case recessed for the night, the court ordered trial counsel not to discuss the case with Defendant between the close of trial that night and the next day. The court feared that counsel would coach Defendant and prevent an effective cross-examination. Defense counsel followed the court's order. After his conviction, Defendant appealed on the grounds that counsel was ineffective. How should the court rule on the appeal?

Even though counsel was acting pursuant to the trial court's order, counsel was ineffective and the court should order a reversal without more.

DEA Agent observed Defendant deplane her incoming flight from Miami, Florida. She was the last person off the flight and appeared nervous. With their suspicions aroused, Agent and his partner approached Defendant in the concourse, identified themselves, and asked to see her identification. The agents asked her how long she had been in Florida and what the purpose of her trip had been. She explained that she had been there only for a day and had gone to a seminar. When she could not name the location of the seminar, Agent retained her identification and asked her to accompany the agents to an interview room, located only about 50 feet from where they were standing. She went with the agents. Once there, her luggage was brought to the room and Agent asked if Defendant would allow him to search the luggage. She said, "Go ahead." Agent found a packet of heroin in a suitcase. After her indictment for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Given all of the surrounding circumstances, Defendant was under arrest when she was moved from the concourse to the interview room. The court should grant the motion because there was no probable cause to justify the arrest.

Early in the morning, Officer and his partner responded to a call of an unknown disturbance involving someone with a baseball bat in a neighborhood known for gang activity. Officer and his partner were traveling in a marked police car and wearing uniforms. They approached three men walking in the street. Two of the men turned and went into an apartment complex. Defendant also turned and started to move away from the police car. Officer did not see Defendant with a baseball bat but got out of the patrol car and shouted, "Police, stop." Defendant ignored Officer's command. Under state law, a person commits a misdemeanor if that person ignores a lawful order to stop. Now believing that Defendant committed the misdemeanor of ignoring his order to stop, Officer decided to pursue Defendant. Defendant went through the gate of Defendant's home. The gate and fence were six feet tall and blocked Officer's view. Officer kicked open the gate. In the front yard, he saw several marijuana plants. He then arrested Defendant for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Given that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to order Defendant to stop, Defendant had a right to walk away. Officer's warrantless action was unjustified. The court should grant the motion.

Officer received a tip that Juvenile was going to commit a violent assault at his school. A number of officers went to Juvenile's home to investigate the claim. No one responded when the police knocked on the door. Finally, Officer called the phone number listed for the family's residence. Defendant, Juvenile's mother, answered the phone. She agreed that she and Juvenile would come out to discuss the officers' concerns about her son but refused to let the police enter her home. After several minutes of discussions in front of the home, Officer asked if Juvenile had any weapons in the home. Defendant became agitated and ran into the home. Officer, fearing that Defendant was going inside to get a weapon, ran after her. Within the home, Officer saw a sizeable amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Given the fear that Defendant represented a threat to the police, Officer's conduct was justified and the evidence was in plain view. The court should deny the motion.

Inspector for a county safety department was on duty when she approached Defendant's apartment building to conduct a safety inspection. In reliance on a state statute, Inspector told Defendant, who refused to consent to the search, that she was authorized to do the search without a warrant. After Defendant acquiesced, Inspector conducted the search. During the search, Inspector found not only evidence of safety violations but also found evidence of illegal gambling activity on the premises. She reported that information to the local police, who arrested Defendant for gambling violations. Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. In the interim, in another case, the state supreme court struck down the statute because it violated the Fourth Amendment. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Inspector's reliance on the state statute was objectively reasonable. The court should deny the motion.

Officer observed Defendant in a high crime area and suspected Defendant was involved in drug trafficking. Unable to develop probable cause or even articulable suspicion, Officer waited until Defendant got in his vehicle and followed Defendant until he made an illegal turn. Officer pulled him over. During the time Officer was writing the ticket, Officer asked Defendant if he could search the vehicle. Defendant said yes. During the search, Officer found a locked brief case and forced open the locked case. Inside he found a substantial amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion in light of Supreme Court precedent?

It is not reasonable to believe that Defendant's consent to a search of his car included consent to force open his locked briefcase. The court should grant the motion.

Officer stopped Motorist observing that she was not wearing a seatbelt. While Officer could have given Motorist a citation, Officer arrested her instead. Officer also denied Motorist's request to drop her small children off with a neighbor even though Officer stopped her in her neighborhood. Officer handcuffed Motorist and drove her to the local police station where she was forced to remove her shoes, glasses, and jewelry, and placed in a jail cell until she could be taken before a magistrate. After being released on bond, she paid a fine for the seatbelt violation. She has sued the City and Officer for a violation of her constitutional right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure. Did Officer violate Motorist's Fourth Amendment rights?

No. Custodial arrests for minor offenses are not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment even if the state or local law does not authorize an arrest for such an offense.

Out of concern about the employment of illegal immigrants, federal agents developed a strategy. As revealed in pretrial discovery, when they learned that a business hired large numbers of immigrants, a team of federal agents would approach the business and ask the owner whether the owner would consent to agents questioning employees about their immigration status. Once they obtained consent, armed agents stood at building exits while other armed agents moved around the business asking questions about citizenship. The agents displayed badges and were armed. They went row by row in order to be sure to ask questions of every employee relating to citizenship or status as legal aliens. If the agents discovered that the employee was illegally in the United States, the employee was arrested. The sweeps lasted a couple of hours but during the time, employees continued at their work stations. Employees filed a class action suit claiming that the practice violated the workers' Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizures. Did the agents practice violate the Fourth Amendment?

No. The actions of the agents did not amount to a seizure because the employees were free to disregard the agents and go about their business.

Officer received a tip that Defendant was selling drugs out of his mobile home, which he kept at a park for recreational vehicles. The facility provided a hook up for electricity. Officer observed individuals entering and leaving Defendant's mobile home. Officer stopped a woman who had just exited the mobile home and told her of his suspicions. When Officer said that he was not interested in arresting her for possession, the woman showed the officer a small amount of drugs and told the Officer that Defendant was selling drugs from his mobile home. Officer knocked on the door of Defendant's mobile home. After Defendant refused to consent to a search, Officer told him that Officer was going to conduct a search of his mobile home. Officer detained Defendant during the search. No one else was present. Officer found a substantial amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Officer developed probable cause that drugs were present in the mobile home and did not need a search warrant because the Court has recognized an exception to the warrant requirement in such cases. The court should deny the motion.

Unable to develop probable cause to arrest Defendant for drug trafficking, Officer waited until he saw Defendant's vehicle parked illegally in a tow-away zone. Officer called for a tow truck and had Defendant's vehicle taken to an impoundment lot. There, he searched the vehicle. Feeling along the passenger seat, Officer felt a lump of something under the fabric. He used a knife to cut the material and there, he found a packet of heroin. Charged with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Officer exceeded the scope of an inventory search and lacked probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime was located under the fabric. The court should grant the motion.

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant was engaged in felony drug trafficking but had yet to secure an arrest warrant. While on patrol, she noticed Defendant standing directly in the doorway of his apartment. Officer approached Defendant in order to make an arrest. Seeing the officer approaching, Defendant ran into his apartment. Officer pursued and arrested Defendant in the living room of his apartment where Officer saw and seized a large amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Officer may arrest Defendant without a warrant because he began the arrest in public and, once begun, could pursue Defendant into his house. The court should deny the motion.

Officer filled out an application for a search warrant of Defendant's home. In the probable cause section, Officer stated as follows: "I swear under oath that I have cause to believe and do believe that Defendant has a large quantity of cocaine stored in his home located at 123 Spruce Street." Aware of Officer's credibility from previous contact with the officer, the magistrate signed the warrant. The subsequent search of Defendant's home resulted in the discovery and seizure of a sizeable amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Officer should have known that the barebones statement of probable cause was insufficient and cannot, therefore, rely on the issuance of the warrant. The court should grant the motion

Officer arrested Defendant on a charge of murder. Defendant was arraigned on the charge, Thereafter, without notifying Defendant's attorney, Officer assembled a line-up to see if the eye-witness would identify Defendant as the perpetrator. Officer used men detained in the jail and the other suspects in the line-up did not look much like Defendant. Not surprisingly, the eye-witness identified Defendant. Charged with murder, Defendant has filed a motion in limine to oppose the use of the out-of-court identification and any subsequent in-court identification. Which of the following answers best describes the legal rules governing Defendant's motion?

Officer violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel at the original lineup. Therefore, the out-of-court identification is inadmissible. Less certain is whether the eye-witness can testify at trial. The court must determine whether the eye-witness's in-court identification is based on the illegal lineup or has an independent basis.

Officer had probable cause to believe that Defendant was transporting a large quantity of narcotics in his suitcase and was traveling on a bus from Florida to New York. When Officer met the bus at the bus terminal in New York, he approached Defendant and asked him to consent to a search of his suitcase. Defendant refused to consent. When Defendant asked whether he was free to leave, Officer said yes, but that he was not free to take his suitcase. Defendant left immediately. Officer retrieved Defendant's suitcase and opened it immediately. Officer found a large amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Officer was entitled to detain the suitcase but needed to secure a warrant to open it. The court should grant the motion.

Officer observed Defendant driving a car that seemed out of place in the high crime neighborhood where Officer was working. Suspicious that Defendant was involved in illegal drug activity, Officer stopped Defendant when Defendant rolled through a stop sign in violation of a local traffic law. During the stop, Officer asked if Defendant would allow Officer to search the trunk of his car. Believing he could not refuse, Defendant said yes, that Officer could look in the trunk. There, Officer saw a paper sack. Upon opening it, Officer found a large quantity of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Officer was reasonable in believing that Defendant's consent extended to the paper sack. The court should deny the motion.

Officer was investigating drug trafficking in Defendant's neighborhood. Officer made an illegal stop and search of Informant. When Officer found narcotics on Informant, Officer demanded to know from whom Informant got the drugs. Informant named Defendant as his source. Based on that information, Officer went to Defendant's home and arrested him for selling drugs. Officer then entered Defendant's home without Defendant's consent. During the course of a search of Defendant's home, Officer found an ounce of heroin. After his arrest and arraignment, Defendant was released on bail. Two days later, he returned to the police station and spoke to Officer. After receiving Miranda warnings, Defendant admitted that he was involved in the sale of heroin. On trial for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

Officer's entry into Defendant's home was unlawful and requires suppression of the heroin. But the court should allow the state to use the statement because the statement does not appear to be the fruit of the original poisonous tree. The court should grant the motion as to the physical evidence but deny the motion as to the statement.

A school official called Officer because he was concerned about a motor home parked near the school. He told Officer that he had seen Defendant soliciting underage girls to enter the motor home and the official assumed that Defendant did so for sexual purposes. Officer found the motor home and noticed that it had a flat tire. Unable to see into the motor home because curtains covered the windows, Officer decided to wait to see if he could develop a case against Defendant. After waiting for an hour, he saw a girl exit the motor home and approached her. When Officer told the girl that she had to cooperate with his investigation, she admitted to being under age and to having engaged in an act of intercourse with Defendant. Officer immediately knocked on the door of the motor home and demanded that Defendant exit the motor home. Once Defendant was secured in the patrol car, Officer went back into the motor home to investigate. There, he found a box of condoms and explicit pictures of what appeared to be child pornography. Charged with several felonies arising from these facts, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following answers best describes how the court should rule on that motion?

Officer's observations gave him reason to believe that he would find evidence of the crime in the motor home and the motor home comes within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The court should deny the motion.

Officer was called to the scene of an armed bank robbery and developed probable cause to arrest Defendant. Officer and his partner located Defendant and arrested him shortly after the robbery. Seeing a holster without a gun and concerned about the location of Defendant's weapon, Officer asked Defendant where the weapon was located. Defendant refused to tell them. In response, Officer, with weapon drawn, told Defendant that Defendant had no choice about whether Defendant would cooperate with the police and that he had to tell them where the weapon was located. In response, Defendant told them that he hid the weapon and showed Officer where he had hidden it. Charged with bank robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress his statement and the weapon. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Officer's words and actions render the statement involuntary. Because the statement was involuntary, discovery of the weapon was the illegal fruit of that violation. The court should grant the motion in its entirety.

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant was guilty of a recent bank robbery. As part of the investigation, Officer went to Defendant's home and knocked on the door. A woman responded to the knock. When Defendant appeared at the door to inquire what was going on, Officer asked him to come outside. Officer then put him under arrest. With Defendant in the patrol car, Officer went back to Defendant's house and asked the woman whether she would consent to a search of the apartment. She agreed. Officer found evidence linking Defendant to the robbery. Charged with armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

On similar facts, the Court has held that the police do not need to ask a suspect for consent to search his premises as long as the person consenting has authority or apparent authority to grant the consent.

Defendant's Boyfriend was wanted on charges of murder. Officer secured a warrant for Boyfriend's arrest. Officer learned that Boyfriend spent time during the day at the Defendant's home and set up surveillance to determine if Boyfriend was there. Once Officer learned that Boyfriend was at Defendant's home, Officer went to Defendant's home and demanded entry to arrest Boyfriend. During the search of the home to locate Boyfriend, Officer saw drugs and drug paraphernalia in Defendant's bedroom. Officer seized the drugs. Charged with possession of narcotics, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

On these facts, it does not appear that Boyfriend resided at Defendant's home. As a result, Officer needed a search warrant for Defendant's home. The court should grant the motion.

Defendant was arrested on suspicion of murder. When his wife learned of his detention, she called the Public Defender's Office to secure counsel for him. Before an indictment or his first appearance in court, Defendant waived his Miranda rights and, in response to police questioning, he made a full confession. Prior to his confession, a Public Defender tried to see Defendant to counsel him, but the Duty Officer refused to let the Public Defender see Defendant. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Police need not inform Defendant of counsel's request because Miranda warnings include all of the information necessary for Defendant to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel. The court should deny the motion.

The police arrested Defendant on suspicion of murder. Defendant was placed in a jail cell to await arraignment. Officer arranged to have Snitch, an informant, placed in the cell with Defendant. Snitch asked Defendant a number of questions about why he was in jail. Trying to sound tough, Defendant told Snitch that he committed murder and that the police weren't smart enough to prove that he did the crime. Indicted for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the statement he made to Snitch. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Snitch's conduct did not amount to the kind of questioning that requires Miranda warnings. The court should deny the motion.

Officer arrested Defendant for murdering her husband. Aware that Defendant had not received Miranda warnings, Officer commented briefly, "You know you are facing the death penalty." Defendant responded immediately, "I know I am. I killed that SOB." Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Such a direct statement would appear to be the functional equivalent of interrogation and, therefore, should have been preceded by proper Miranda warnings. The court should grant the motion.

Defendant, a white man, was charged with murder. During voir dire, the prosecution used five peremptory challenges to eliminate African-Americans from the jury. Defendant challenged the prosecution's use of its peremptory challenges as violating equal protection. The prosecution then explained to the trial court why the prosecution had excluded the prospective jurors, including concerns about the prospective jurors' demeanor during voir dire. The trial court accepted the prosecution's explanations and excluded those prospective jurors from the final panel. Defendant wants to challenge the exclusion of those prospective jurors from the jury. Which of the following best describes the law governing Defendant's claim

That is, in effect, the holding of Snyder v. Louisiana (2008), where the Court recognized that the trial court's assessment of witnesses' demeanor was relevant but found that the trial court's findings of non-discriminatory use of the prosecution's peremptory challenges was clearly erroneous. See also Foster v. Chapman (2016).

Officer arrested Defendant for murder. Defendant was taken before a magistrate within 72 hours of arrest for a preliminary hearing. At the hearing, Defendant was advised of the right to counsel, but he did not say anything at the point. Later, Officer came to Defendant's jail cell and read Defendant his Miranda rights. Defendant agreed to talk to Officer and to take him back to the murder scene to locate the murder weapon. Defendant admitted his involvement in the murder and helped Officer locate the weapon at the scene. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The Court has held that Miranda warnings and waiver are sufficient to knowingly and intelligently waive the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant owned a construction business. Inspector, an employee of the state's Occupational Safety and Health Agency, arrived at Defendant's business and demanded access to inspect for safety violations. Defendant attempted to deny Inspector access but acquiesced when Inspector showed him a copy of the state statute, requiring access for all businesses. During the course of Inspector's examination of the premises, he saw a sizeable amount of cocaine. Inspector called Officer and Officer, in reliance on that information, secured a search warrant for the premises. Officer executed the warrant immediately and seized the cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The Court has held that a warrantless search of a business premise pursuant to a health and safety regime is unreasonable. Instead, Inspector needs a warrant even if the warrant is based only a general administrative plan not individualized probable cause. The evidence found was the product of that illegality. The court should grant the motion.

While Defendant was driving his car, he was broadsided by another motorist. Defendant's vehicle was totaled and Defendant was taken to the hospital. As Defendant was placed in an ambulance, Officer noticed that a pipe for smoking crack cocaine on the floor of the car and smelled the odor of crack on Defendant's clothing. After Defendant was removed from the scene and his car towed to Defendant's home, Officer conducted a search of the vehicle. In it, he found several packets of crack cocaine. Charged with possession of crack cocaine, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to dismiss?

The Court has held that police do not need a search warrant to search a vehicle when they have probable cause. The court should deny the motion.

Officer arrested Defendant for burglary. During the booking process, consistent with state law, a member of the police department took a sample of Defendant's DNA over Defendant's objection. Officer took the sample by having Defendant swab the inside of his cheek. The entry of Defendant's DNA into the police data base produced a match that indicated that he was the perpetrator of an unsolved rape. On trial for rape, Defendant has filed a motion to suppress the evidence that the police secured by taking his DNA. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The Court has held that the collection of DNA as part of the arrest process for a serious felony is akin to other booking activity, like taking fingerprints. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant's arrest. Checking the data base, a police department employee saw a warrant from a neighboring county's police data base. That warrant indicated that Defendant was wanted for failing to appear at a hearing on a traffic offense. Unbeknownst to Officer, the police department negligently failed to delete the warrant from the computer after Defendant had paid a fine. In reliance on the employee's report of an outstanding warrant, Officer arrested Defendant. During the subsequent search, Officer found methamphetamines on Defendant's person and found a book, indicating names of purchasers of methamphetamines. Charged with the sale of methamphetamines, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The Court has held that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the error in reporting the warrant was merely negligent whether the mistake was made by a judicial or police employee. The court should deny the motion.

Officer suspected that Defendant was involved in drug trafficking. Unable to establish probable cause, Officer nonetheless arrested Defendant. In the interim, other officers located compelling proof of Defendant's guilt. While in jail awaiting trial, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him because of his illegal arrest. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The Court has held that the mere fact of an illegal arrest does not deprive the state of the ability to try a criminal defendant. The court should deny the motion.

Officer, a member of the local police department, was investigating a series of serious acts of vandalism targeting the local electric utility company. Officer developed articulable suspicion, but not probable cause, that Defendant was involved in those activities. Officer knew that Defendant was on probation and that probationers in that state sign an agreement making them subject to searches of their homes by probation or other law enforcement agents when the official has articulable suspicion. Officer went to Defendant's home and demanded entry. There, he found several items of evidence linking Defendant to the acts of vandalism. Charged with a number of felonies relating to the acts of vandalism, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion consistent to suppress?

The Court has held that, especially in light of probation conditions like those in the fact pattern, a warrantless search of a probationer's home based on articulable suspicion is reasonable. The court should deny the motion.

Officer lacked probable cause to arrest Defendant for dealing in narcotics. When ordinary surveillance techniques failed to yield sufficient evidence of Defendant's drug activities, Officer learned that Defendant's late model vehicle was equipped with GPS technology. After Officer learned the monitoring code for Defendant's vehicle, Officer tracked Defendant over several weeks, eventually yielding enough information for Officer to secure a search warrant for Defendant's home. Officer seized large amounts of narcotics during the search. Charged with possession of narcotics with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The Court has left the particular question open, but at least five justices on the current Court suggested that such conduct may be a search. The court should grant the motion.

Defendant was arrested for robbery. Unable to afford bail, he remained in jail after his arraignment. Because Officer did not believe that the case against Defendant was sufficient, Officer put Snitch in the cell with Defendant and instructed Snitch to report anything that Defendant might say. Shortly thereafter, Defendant began talking to Snitch. Snitch kept the conversation going by asking Defendant why he was in jail. Defendant eventually told him about his role in the murder. On trial for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following is the best answer?

The Court has not addressed the precise question, but the best argument for the state is that Snitch's conduct merely kept the conversation going and did not amount to a deliberate elicitation. The court should deny the motion.

Officer was investigating Defendant on a charge of murder. Shortly after the crime and prior to Defendant's arrest, Officer asked Defendant if he would submit to a test to determine whether he had recently fired a handgun. Defendant refused to do so. During his trial on murder, Defendant did not take the stand. During closing argument, the Prosecutor argued that Defendant's refusal to submit to the test demonstrated consciousness of guilt. In her closing argument, Defendant's attorney argued that Defendant had never been allowed to give his side of the story of the crime. In rebuttal, the Prosecutor commented on Defendant's failure to take the stand at trial. Defendant's attorney objected. Defendant appealed his conviction of murder and raised the Prosecutor's comments about Defendant's refusal to submit to the gunpowder test and failure to take the stand as error. How should the court rule on appeal?

The Court has rejected the claim that comment on the failure to take the stand violates a Defendant's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when he has put the question in issue by claiming he lacked an opportunity to tell his side of the story. The Court has also held that commenting on a defendant's refusal to cooperate in providing physical evidence is not a violation of the Fifth Amendment because the amendment does not protect a defendant from providing non-testimonial evidence. The court should affirm Defendant's conviction.

After a visit to Mexico, Defendant returned home to the United States by way of a checkpoint between Tijuana, Mexico and San Diego, California. At the border, Agent signaled Defendant to leave the line and to go to a special screening area. There, Agent ordered Defendant to a private area where another agent performed a strip search of Defendant. Agent also supervised a full examination of Defendant's vehicle, which included the removal of the gas tank. The strip search resulted in discovery of a large packet of cocaine within Defendant's underwear; the search of the vehicle netted a sizeable amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The Court has upheld similar searches of vehicles at the border without any level of suspicion, but has suggested that intrusive body searches must be based on some level of suspicion. The court should grant the motion with regard to evidence found on Defendant's body, but deny the motion as to evidence found in the vehicle.

Officer presented Magistrate with an affidavit in which Officer stated the following: "Upon information and belief provided by a reliable informant, Defendant is operating an illegal marijuana business out of his home" and specified the address. After reading this, Magistrate signed a warrant for a search of the home. Several officers executed the search warrant and found a large amount of marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The affidavit was so lacking in creating probable cause that no reasonable officer could rely on its issuance by a magistrate. The court should grant the motion.

Officer received a phone call from an anonymous caller who indicated that Defendant was standing at a bus stop and was wearing a plaid flannel shirt and blue jeans. The caller also said that Defendant was carrying an unregistered firearm on his person. Following up on the tip, Officer observed Defendant at the bus stop and approached him. The officer saw nothing that suggested possession of a weapon, but out of concern for his and others' safety, Officer patted down Defendant and located a loaded weapon in his waistband. Charged with the unlawful possession of a firearm, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The amount of detail in the tip is far too little to justify stopping Defendant in the first instance. The court should grant the motion.

State police arrested Defendant for domestic assault. At his arraignment, the magistrate appointed Defendant counsel. After hearing evidence from the prosecutor on the issue of bail, the magistrate set bail at several thousand dollars, despite defense counsel's argument that Defendant could not afford the amount set by the magistrate. The magistrate refused to reduce the amount of bail to a figure that Defendant could afford. Defendant hopes to appeal the issue immediately. Which of the following answer best describes how the appellate court is likely to resolve Defendant's appeal?

The appellate court is likely to deny the appeal because, although a Defendant probably has an Eighth Amendment right to be free from excessive bail, that does not mean that the court must set bail at an amount that a defendant can afford.

Defendant attended a private college. Concerned about drug use on campus, the Dean announced rules requiring students to allow random inspections of their dorm rooms. The Dean did so after the local police chief went to the Dean and told the Dean that the College had to do the inspections if it wanted the support of the police department. During a random search, campus officials found a large amount of marijuana in Defendant's room. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The collaboration between the police and the Dean makes the college's activities state action. The court should grant the motion.

While investigating a tip that Defendant was involved in trafficking narcotics, Officer and his partner went to Defendant's home. A brief surveillance of Defendant's home gave the police probable cause to believe that he was selling narcotics from his home. Officer knocked on Defendant's door. When he opened the door, Officer told him of his suspicions and asked if Defendant would consent to a search of his home. Defendant refused. Officer told his partner to secure a search warrant. In the meantime, Officer told Defendant that Defendant could not enter his home. Over the next two hours, when Defendant needed to go into his home, Officer allowed him to do so as long as Officer could watch him as he moved about his home. Two hours later, when Officer and his partner searched Defendant's home pursuant to the warrant, they discovered a large quantity of heroin. Charged with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The conduct of the police in securing the premises and detaining the defendant while they went to get a search warrant was lawful. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant was charged with three counts of disorderly conduct during a recent protest rally. Because the maximum penalty for each count was only six months, the trial judge denied Defendant's motion to impanel a jury. Although the trial judge initially was not going to sentence Defendant to more than six months in jail, she ended up imposing two six month terms to be served consecutively. On appeal, Defendant contended that the trial judge erred in denying him a right to trial by jury. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, which of the following describes how the court should rule on Defendant's appeal?

The court should affirm the lower court judgment because Defendant did not have a right to a jury trial on the facts of this case, absent some additional statutory penalties making this offense a serious one

Officer developed probable cause to arrest Defendant for the sale of cocaine. When Officer arrested Defendant, Officer searched Defendant and removed an envelope and a flip-phone. After handcuffing Defendant, Officer looked at the paper and flipped open the phone. The paper revealed the names of individuals to whom Defendant had sold drugs; the flip-phone showed phone numbers of individuals who called Defendant about purchasing drugs. Charged with the sale of cocaine, Defendant has moved to suppress the use of the evidence taken from Defendant. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The court should deny the motion as to the paper in light of cases upholding similar searches; but the court should grant the motion as to the flip phone because, in light of the extensive invasion of privacy, Officer needed to get a warrant to search the phone on these facts.

The United States charged Defendant with possession of heroin with intent to distribute based on his efforts to bring a large quantity of heroin into the United States. He was acquitted at trial. Subsequently, the United States charged Defendant and a co-defendant with conspiracy to distribute heroin based on the same shipment of heroin as involved in the earlier transaction. Defendant has moved to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the second prosecution was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Consistent with the prevailing Supreme Court precedent, which answer best describes how the court should resolve Defendant's motion?

The court should deny the motion because under the Supreme Court's test for double jeopardy, the original charge and the conspiracy charge are considered separate offenses.

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant was guilty of a home invasion armed robbery. When he arrived at Defendant's home, Officer did not tell him the purpose of his visit and merely told him that he was investigating the home invasion. Defendant invited him into his home. While there, Officer, without giving Defendant Miranda warnings, asked him numerous questions about Defendant's possible involvement in the crime. Not sure whether he had to cooperate with the police, Defendant asked Officer whether Defendant had a right to speak with counsel at this point. Officer said "that's up to you.". As a result, Defendant continued the interview and admitted his involvement in the crime. On trial for armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The court should deny the motion. Defendant had no right to Miranda warnings and no right to counsel in this situation.

Defendant was charged with burglary and appointed counsel. During part of the trial, especially after lunch, counsel smelled of alcohol and on occasion seemed to be asleep. When Defendant brought that to the attention of the judge, the judge admonished counsel and promised to watch closely to see if counsel performed erratically. Despite at least two more instances of counsel appearing to be asleep, the judge allowed the case to proceed to verdict. Defendant was convicted. Post-conviction, Defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds that trial counsel was ineffective. Which of the following answers best describes the controlling legal standard governing Defendant's motion?

The court should find for Defendant only if Defendant can show actual prejudice or that his counsel was so inattentive to amount to Defendant having no counsel at all.

Victor, the victim of a robbery, reported to the police that the robber wrestled him to the ground and took only Victor's tuba, measuring about 4 feet in height. The robber did not display a weapon. Victor described the robber's vehicle in great detail, including the make, model and an almost complete license number. Later that day, Officer spotted Defendant's vehicle parked not far from the scene of the crime. The vehicle matched Victor's description. Officer conducted an immediate search, beginning with the interior of the vehicle. She located a handgun in the glove compartment. She then popped open the trunk but did not find the tuba. Subsequent investigation revealed that the weapon was one used in a recent homicide. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the handgun from evidence. Which of the following answers best describes how the court should rule on Defendant's motion to dismiss?

The court should grant the motion because Officer lacked probable cause to look in the glove compartment.

A jury convicted Defendant of murder; the court sentenced him to a term of 15 years in prison. Thereafter, he successfully appealed his conviction. Upon retrial and reconviction, the prosecutor sought a sentence of life in prison. Defendant filed a motion in which he claimed that such a sentence would violate his right to be free from double jeopardy. Consistent with the prevailing Supreme Court precedent, which answer best describes how the court should resolve Defendant's motion?

The court should grant the motion only if it finds that the greater sentence was sought vindictively to punish Defendant for having appealed the original conviction.

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant was guilty of a home invasion armed robbery. The prosecutor presented that evidence to a grand jury, which indicted Defendant for armed robbery. Armed with an arrest warrant, when he arrived at Defendant's home, Officer did not tell him the purpose of his visit and merely told him that he was investigating the home invasion. Defendant invited him into his home. While there, Officer, without giving Defendant Miranda warnings, asked him numerous questions about Defendant's possible involvement in the crime. Not sure whether he had to cooperate with the police, Defendant said he would like to speak with counsel at this point. Believing that Miranda was not applicable, Officer said that he had no right to do so. As a result, Defendant continued the interview and admitted his involvement in the crime. On trial for armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The court should grant the motion. Defendant had no Miranda right to counsel but Officer still violated Defendant's right to counsel.

After Defendant's husband was found shot in their home, the state charged Defendant with the murder of her husband. As part of her pretrial motion, Defendant asked the prosecution to hand over any exculpatory evidence in its possession. The prosecution handed over a few documents in its possession at the time; none was particularly helpful to Defendant's case. After Defendant's conviction for murder, a defense investigator interviewed one of the state's eyewitnesses, who mentioned that he initially told the police he could not recognize the person whom he saw running from Defendant's home and that he identified Defendant at trial only after he had seen a photo array at the police station. Based on that witness's statements, Defendant has moved for a new trial on the grounds that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence from Defendant. The prosecution responded, claiming (1) the prosecution was not aware of the exculpatory evidence, and, therefore, did not act in bad faith; (2) the prosecution had other incriminatory evidence and, therefore, Defendant could not prove that the result at trial would have been different, had the evidence been presented; and (3) the evidence was not in the possession of the prosecutor until after Defendant filed her motion and she did not include a continuing request for exculpatory evidence that would have put the prosecution on notice of its obligation to search its records after the original request for exculpatory evidence. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, which of the following best describes how the court should resolve Defendant's motion for a new trial?

The court should probably grant the motion for a new trial.

Defendant was under investigation for the sexual assault and murder of his step-daughter. In jail on other charges, Defendant was befriended by Snitch, who was posing as a convicted mob boss but working undercover for the police. The police asked Snitch to find out what he could about the sexual assault and murder. During their daily routine, Snitch warned Defendant that other detainees were going to harm Defendant because he was suspected of being a child molester. Snitch offered to protect Defendant but only if he came clean about his crime. Defendant did so. At trial for murder, the state secured a conviction, in part, in reliance on Snitch's testimony about Defendant's admissions made to Snitch. On appeal, Defendant challenged the use of his statement to Snitch and has demanded a new trial. How should the court rule on Defendant's appeal?

The court should rule that the statement was made involuntarily. It must also determine whether the state has carried its burden beyond a reasonable doubt that the erroneous admission did not affect the outcome at trial.

Defendant entered the United States by way of a checkpoint between Tijuana, Mexico and San Diego, California. He was driving a pickup truck with a camper shell covering the truck bed. At the border, Agent signaled Defendant to leave the line and to go to a special screening area. Agent ordered another agent to drill into what appeared to be a solid plastic camper shell to determine whether Defendant was transporting drugs. Agent found a large amount of cocaine within the shell. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The destruction of Defendant's property probably made the search unreasonable, despite the fact that this was a border search. The court should grant the motion.

While arriving to execute a search warrant for narcotics at a specified address, Officer encountered Defendant as he was leaving the house. At that point, Officer did not know Defendant's connection to the house or to any narcotics. Officer requested that Defendant come back into the house. Officer sat Defendant on a couch and handcuffed Defendant during the course of the search, which took over an hour to complete. Officer found a small amount of marijuana in the home. When Officer learned that Defendant owned the home, Officer arrested Defendant for possession of the marijuana. During the course of a search of Defendant, Officer found a sizeable packet of heroin. Charged with possession of marijuana and heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The detention of Defendant as an occupant of the premises during the course of executing a search warrant is reasonable. Further, Defendant's ownership of the home gave Officer probable cause to arrest him for ownership of the home's contents - the marijuana. The court should deny the motion.

Bob was a member of a private crime watch group. Community members were concerned because there had been a number of recent break-ins and had asked members of the watch group to be vigilant. Witness had given a rough description of the person suspected of having committed the break-ins. While on watch, Bob saw Defendant, who vaguely fit that description. Bob detained Defendant and forced him to accompany him to Witness's home. Bob knocked on Witness's door and told her that he had the perpetrator with him and wanted her to identify Defendant. She did so. Based on that information, the state has charged Defendant with burglary. The state intends to call Witness at trial both to testify as to her out-of-court identification and to make an in-court identification. Defendant has filed a motion in limine, objecting to the use of Witness at trial. How should the court rule on the motion in limine?

The evidence was secured without state action. As a result, Defendant's constitutional rights were not violated. Unless state evidence rules prevent the use of the evidence, he is out of luck. The court should deny the motion.

Officer suspected Defendant of being involved in drug trafficking. Unable to develop probable cause against Defendant, Officer set up surveillance of Defendant's premises. Suddenly realizing that Defendant was receiving a shipment of marijuana, Officer knocked on Defendant's door and demanded entry. Once inside, he located a large quantity of marijuana. Working in cooperation with state law enforcement officials, federal authorities decided to prosecute Defendant for violating federal drug laws. When Defendant learned that the US Attorney was presenting the case to the Grand Jury, Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence to prevent its use against him. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The exclusionary rule does not apply at the grand jury stage of a proceeding. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant arrived at the Newark Airport on a flight from Miami. While she awaited her luggage, Officer approached her and asked for identification and asked her a few questions about her trip. She appeared to get more nervous and Officer was suspicious that her increased nervousness and her coming from a source city for drugs meant she was a drug courier. Officer's suspicions were confirmed when her luggage arrived and she refused to allow him to search her bag. Officer explained that she was free to go but that he was detaining her luggage and that it would be 90 minutes before the police could bring a drug sniffing dog from another place to the airport. An hour and a half later the dog arrived and Officer exposed Defendant's luggage to the drug-sniffing dog, which indicated the presence of narcotics. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The officer did not have the reasonable articulable suspicion required to detain Defendant's luggage. The court should grant the motion.

Defendant and Snitch, Defendant's co-felon, were arrested and arraigned for burglary. Because Defendant did not qualify for a Public Defender, Defendant remained in jail while his family located counsel to represent him. Unbeknownst to Defendant, Snitch approached Officer, who was in charge of the investigation, about whether the state would cut Snitch a deal if he could get Defendant to incriminate himself in the burglary. Officer agreed to recommend that Snitch be put on probation if he succeeded. After Snitch was placed in the cell with Defendant, Snitch raised the topic of the burglary and tricked Defendant into discussing the crime, a statement that was overheard by the police. On trial for burglary, Defendant has moved to suppress the statements he made to Snitch. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The police conduct violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court should grant the motion.

he police developed probable cause to believe that Defendant was involved in a recent murder. Unable to locate Defendant for over two weeks and suspecting that he was eluding the police, two officers set up a stakeout to locate Defendant and eventually saw him enter his apartment building. Without waiting to get a warrant, they located the apartment and entered forcibly after they knocked and received no answer from within. They realized that Defendant was not within the apartment but did see a handgun similar to one involved the in homicide. They seized it. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The police must get an arrest warrant to justify an arrest in the suspect's home. The court should grant the motion.

Suspecting but needing proof that Defendant was involved in the drug trade, Officer attached a tracking device to the underside of Defendant's vehicle. Over the next two days, Officer learned where Defendant went throughout the day and was able to set up surveillance at those locations. Based on those observations, Officer developed probable cause that Defendant had a large amount of heroin in his car. Officer called for a backup team and arrested Defendant. Thereafter, Officer conducted a search of Defendant's vehicle, resulting in the seizure of a large quantity of heroin. Prior to his trial for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following answers best describes how the court should rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The police trespassed in placing the tracking device on the car and then using it to learn Defendant's movements. A warrant was required to justify the placement, so the court should grant the motion.

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Slick was engaged in bank fraud. To make a case against Slick, Officer was able to secure a search warrant for Defendant's office. At the time, Officer did not believe that Defendant was involved in the crime but merely that Defendant was storing Slick's business records. During the execution of the warrant, Officer located files demonstrating that Defendant and Slick were co-conspirators in the bank fraud. Charged with bank fraud, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The question is whether the police have probable cause to search the location identified in the warrant. Whether the place is occupied by a suspect or non-suspect is irrelevant. Further, the Fifth Amendment is inapplicable to papers prepared voluntarily by a person. The court should deny the motion

Officer stopped Defendant on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. After determining that Defendant was intoxicated and smelling alcohol in the car, Officer placed Defendant in the back of his patrol car and returned to Defendant's vehicle. He searched in the closed glove compartment and in the trunk. In the glove compartment, he found a small wallet and in the trunk, he found a backpack., He opened the wallet and found that it contained a small amount of cocaine. He also opened the backpack and found a large amount of marijuana. Charged with possession of narcotics with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The search exceeded the scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest and was not justified under the automobile exception.

Officer suspected that Defendant was the perpetrator of an armed robbery, but she could not develop probable cause to get an arrest warrant or search warrant. For two years, the case went cold. Finally, relying on an informant who had provided reliable information about drug activity in the past, Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant was the robber. She secured a search warrant for Defendant's home. In the warrant, she stated that the object of the search warrant was the weapon used in the robbery and the unmarked cash taken in the robbery (several thousand dollars). During the execution of the warrant, the police located the weapon in a dresser drawer and finally found a sizeable amount of cash when one officer pulled off some wall paneling behind which Defendant had hidden the cash. Charged with armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion?

The search for the weapon was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but, given the lapse of time, the police lacked probable cause to search for the cash. The court should grant the motion as to the cash and deny it as to the weapon.

Defendant frequented the Dirty Bar. On the occasion that gave rise to his arrest, Defendant was at the bar when the police entered the bar to execute a search warrant because Officer had developed probable cause to believe that narcotics would be found on the premises. Officer and other police lined up patrons along one side of the bar. While some police searched the area around the bar, Officer frisked all of the patrons. When Officer patted down Defendant, he touched objects that he had probable cause to believe were packets of heroin. He reached in and removed the heroin. Charged with possession of heroin, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The search warrant did not give Officer a justification for a frisk of Defendant. The court should grant the motion.

The vice principal of a public school implemented a no-tolerance policy for cigarette smoking on campus. Students suspected of smoking on campus were sent to the vice principal's office for investigation and possible suspension. While Defendant and two friends were in the boys' bathroom, a teacher smelled smoke. By the time the teacher entered the bathroom, none of the boys had a cigarette in hand. Nevertheless, the teacher took the students to the vice principal's office. The vice principal interviewed Defendant, who denied that he had been smoking. The vice principal demanded that Defendant hand over his backpack and proceeded to search it. In the backpack, the vice principal found a pack of cigarettes and what appeared to be a marijuana pipe. A further search revealed a pouch of marijuana. The vice principal called the local police and handed over the marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The search was justified by the administrative needs of the school. The court should deny the motion.

Two officers arrested Defendant for murder of a cab driver shortly after he committed the crime. Officers were still searching for his weapon. Officer Abel gave Defendant Miranda warnings while the three officers were driving Defendant back to the police station. He invoked his right to counsel. Passing near a grade school, Officer Bernard looked directly at Defendant and stated, "Listen to me. I know you have asked for a lawyer, but I sure would hate it if a child found that sawed-off shotgun and hurt herself." A few moments later, Defendant said, "I left the weapon back by that shopping center, back in the dumpster." The officers located the weapon. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the statement. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The statement by Officer Bernard amounted to improper interrogation after an invocation of the right to counsel. The court should grant the motion.

Police received a tip that Defendant, a suspect wanted in connection with a robbery that occurred the day before, was in a coffee shop. Several officers surrounded Defendant with their guns drawn. One officer placed Defendant in handcuffs and another, still with his weapon drawn and held three inches from Defendant's face, told him that he wanted to know where the weapon was that Defendant used in the robbery. Defendant indicated that it was in his attaché case, which was on a chair next to where Defendant was sitting. On trial for armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress his statement. Which of the following is the best answer?

The statement was involuntary. The court should grant the motion.

Officer was on the lookout for a late model Ford Escort believed to be the getaway car from a robbery that had taken place twenty minutes earlier. Upon spotting a late model Ford Escort in a place on the highway consistent with where the robber might have driven in twenty minutes, Officer stopped Defendant. Officer's suspicions were confirmed when he saw that Defendant fit a detailed description of the robber, He placed Defendant under arrest. Officer called a tow truck, which took the vehicle to an impoundment lot. Two days after the arrest, Officer searched the vehicle without securing a warrant. The search revealed evidence linking Defendant to the robbery. Charged with armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The stop, arrest and search were all lawful because Officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle, probable cause to arrest Defendant and probable cause to search the vehicle for evidence of the crime. The court should deny the motion.

Officer arrested Defendant on suspicion of murder. After reading Defendant his Miranda rights, Defendant indicated a willingness to talk. Over the next few hours, Defendant insisted up on his innocence. Officer left the room briefly and conversed with a fellow officer. Officer stated in a voice intended for Defendant to be able to hear that fellow officer should arrest Defendant's ailing wife as an accessory to murder. Officer had no reason to believe Defendant's wife was involved in the murder in any capacity. After Officer returned to the interrogation room, Defendant confessed to the murder. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

The unwarranted threat of an arrest of Defendant's ailing wife could have rendered Defendant's statement involuntary. If the court so finds, it should suppress the statement.

Officer arrested Defendant on charges of armed robbery. He remained in jail after his arraignment. Officer also suspected that Defendant was involved in a recent murder. Hoping to get Defendant talking about his involvement in the robbery and the murder, Officer arranged for Snitch to be placed in Defendant's jail cell. Snitch, a large man with a history of violent crime, asked the much smaller Defendant about Defendant's crimes. Snitch peppered Defendant with questions over a few hours while they were together in the cell. Defendant told him details about the armed robbery and, out of fear that Snitch might harm him, Defendant bragged about his role in the murder to make himself sound tough. On trial for armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress his statement to Snitch concerning his involvement in that crime. On trial for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress his statement to Snitch concerning his involvement in that crime. How should the court rule on the motions to suppress?

The use of Snitch violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel as to the armed robbery charge. The court should grant the motion as to the statement involving Defendant's role in the armed robbery. If the court finds that Snitch's conduct was sufficiently intimidating to cause Defendant's confession, the court should suppress the statement about Defendant's involvement in the murder because the statement would then be involuntary.

Officer arrested Defendant on suspicion of armed robbery. Prior to interrogating Defendant about his role in the crime, Officer gave the following version of Miranda warnings: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions and to have him with you during interrogation. We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court." Defendant waived his Miranda rights and shortly thereafter confessed his role in the robbery. On trial for armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the statement. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

The warnings are sufficient to comply with Miranda. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant was arrested for the murder of her seriously impaired child. The officers brought her to the stationhouse where two officers interrogated her for two hours. The officers chose not to provide her with Miranda warnings. After she confessed, the officers gave her coffee and donuts and a short bathroom break. At that point, Officer read her Miranda warnings and asked her again whether she killed her child. She again confessed and signed a written confession. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress both confessions. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Under the circumstances in this case, the Miranda warnings were not effective, and the court should grant the motion.

Two days after the disappearance of a young girl, Officer developed probable cause that Defendant was involved in her disappearance. Officer arrested Defendant on charges of kidnapping. He was also sure that the girl was dead but felt that he needed to find the body to support a murder charge. When Officer read Defendant his Miranda warnings, Defendant said that he would like to speak to counsel before discussing the case further. Facing bad weather and an hour's drive to the police station where Defendant would be arraigned before the magistrate, Officer turned to Defendant and said, "I imagine that little girl's body is out in this area. Don't respond to me but think about whether she deserves a Christian burial." Shortly afterwards, Defendant said, "I killed her and her body is in the woods, over there." Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the statement. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Unless the case comes within the public safety exception, Officer violated Defendant's Miranda rights when he directed his comments to Defendant. The court should grant the motion.

Officer observed Defendant on a street corner in a high crime area. Officer observed Defendant hand a small object to another individual as both looked around nervously. Officer approached Defendant and asked him who he was just talking to. Defendant mumbled something and put his hand by his waistband. Noticing a bulge around Defendant's waistband, Officer told Defendant to face the wall of the building behind him and to spread eagle. During the patdown, Officer felt a soft object. He reached into Defendant's waistband and removed what turned out to be heroin. Charged with the sale of heroin, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

Until Officer reached into Defendant's waistband, Officer's conduct was lawful. He had articulable suspicion for both the stop and the frisk, but the patdown did not confirm Officer's suspicion that Defendant was armed. The court should grant the motion

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant committed a recent robbery of a bank; that Defendant still had proceeds of the robbery; and that Officer would find at Defendant's home a distinctive mask that the robber wore during the robbery. Officer applied for and received a search warrant for Defendant's home. While executing the warrant, Officer saw Defendant's vehicle, parked under a carport next to Defendant's home. Officer searched the vehicle and located the mask hidden under the front seat of the car along with bundles of cash from the robbery. Charged with armed robbery of the bank, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?

While the Court has not resolved the particular question, as long as the car was within the curtilage and could contain evidence of the crime, it follows that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court should deny the motion.

Magistrate was appointed despite his lack of a law degree. For a time, he did his job diligently but after a while, he lost interest in the position and routinely signed warrants without carefully reading them. On the particular occasion of the issuance of a warrant to search Defendant's home, a credible person in the courtroom noticed that Magistrate did not read the application for the warrant and mentioned that to the officer seeking the warrant, who agreed. The police executed the warrant and found a large stash of child pornography in Defendant's home. Charged with possession of child pornography, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion consistent to suppress?

While the Court has not ruled on this issue, it has held that a magistrate must be neutral and detached. A magistrate who does not read the warrant is not neutral and detached; he is a rubber stamp for the police. The court should grant the motion.

FBI agents suspected Defendant of conducting an interstate gambling operation and learned that he used a particular cell phone to make his calls. After arresting one of Defendant's regular gambling customers, Customer agreed to allow agents to listen in on conversations between him and Defendant by using the speaker device on the phone so that Customer and agents could hear Defendant's voice. Based on those phone conversations, the government secured Defendant's indictment for interstate gambling. Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

While the Court has used different theories over time to justify participant monitoring, it has upheld the practice consistently. Because Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy on these facts, the court should deny the motion.

A state prosecutor charged Defendant with misdemeanor assault. During pretrial plea negotiations, the prosecutor offered Defendant a short sentence if he pled guilty. When Defendant hesitated to accept the deal, the prosecutor told him to save the court the inconvenience of a trial by accepting the deal. The prosecutor stated further that she would go to a grand jury and have Defendant charged with felony assault if Defendant did not accept the deal. Defendant turned down the deal. The prosecutor secured the indictment, resulting in Defendant's conviction of felony assault. The judge sentenced Defendant to a long term of imprisonment over Defendant's objection that the prosecutor acted vindictively in bringing the more serious charge against him. On appeal, Defendant has challenged the legality of that sentence on grounds that the prosecutor acted vindictively because Defendant refused to accept the plea offer. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, which of the following best describes relevant legal rules governing this case?

Without more, Defendant has not established a violation of due process.