FCP Exam Pro Questions

In November seven members of the Del Ray Police Narcotics Squad arrested Steven Matt in his grocery store, Matt's Market. The officers had a valid arrest warrant, but, although they had probable cause to search and were in the process of securing a search warrant, they did not yet have a warrant to search the premises. Because they received credible information that Matt might be armed, the officers entered the store with weapons drawn. The few customers in the store were escorted out, and Matt, who was behind the counter, was seized, handcuffed, and informed of his Miranda rights. With matters in hand, the officers holstered their weapons. The officers then told Matt they would like to search his store and asked for his consent. At first Matt said nothing, and one of the officers said, "Look, you do what you want. We have sufficient information to get a search warrant and will secure one by this afternoon or tomorrow." Matt then said, "I want to talk to my lawyer." He went to a telephone and tried twice, unsuccessfully, to reach his lawyer. After hanging up, Matt said to the officers, "Look I know what you are here for," and led the officers to a stash of marijuana behind the counter. The officers seized the drugs and said, "well, that's nice, but we still want to search the whole store." Matt then agreed to let them search, and they uncovered cocaine in some boxes at the back of the store. Later, while in custody at the police station, Matt was approached for the first time by two officers from the Vice Squad who wanted to question him about a gambling operation they believed he was running out of his store. They administered Miranda warnings, and Matt agreed to talk and made incriminating statements. Matt was charged with gambling offenses and, prior to trial, moved to exclude his statements at the station house. He contends that, because the police initiated questioning after he had invoked his right to counsel, none of his statements may be used in the case against him. The district court should: (a) Deny the motion because Matt's reference to a lawyer while in the grocery store was an anticipatory invocation of counsel which does not trigger Miranda's right to counsel rules. (b) Deny the motion because the officers who questioned Matt about the gambling offenses did not know he had invoked his right to counsel in the grocery store. (c) Deny the motion because the officers who questioned Matt about the gambling offenses reread him his Miranda rights and secured a proper waiver. (d) Grant the motion because Matt had invoked his right to counsel, and, as a result, the police were not permitted to reinitiate questioning unless counsel was present. (e) Grant the motion because police had an affirmative duty to clarify whether Matt was seeking a lawyer in connection with the search of his store or whether he was seeking a lawyer for all of his dealings with the police.

(a) Deny the motion because Matt's reference to a lawyer while in the grocery store was an anticipatory invocation of counsel which does not trigger Miranda's right to counsel rules.

Police Officers responded to a radio broadcast about a forcible theft of a wallet from Rye Allen, the victim, who provided a description of the suspect. They stopped a car driven by Leland Jordan who matched the description of the robber. In the car, the police found the stolen wallet, a knife, and a gun. In the preceding weeks and in the same general vicinity, there had been a series of robberies at gas stations, cash machines, and restaurants. Jordan was formally charged with one count of robbery in connection with the forcible theft of Rye Allen's wallet, arraigned on that charge, and released on bail. Shortly after his release, the prosecutor in the case sought a court order directing Jordan to appear in a line-up. His attorney was also notified, and she appeared with her client on the appointed day. Jordan was placed in a line-up with five other men who resembled him in appearance but were all somewhat shorter. Jordan's attorney objected vigorously and insisted that the police find other participants who were of the same height. The police officers told her "to pipe down," and called in, one at a time, Rye Allen and the nine other persons who had been robbed in other incidents. The witnesses were told to take their time and simply indicate that they had made an identification or they had not. After all nine had separately viewed the lineup, the line-up participants, including Jordan, were excused, and the witnesses were asked to remain so that the police could talk to them at greater length. Jordan's attorney insisted that she be allowed to remain to observe the conversations with the witnesses. The police refused, and she was ordered out of the room. Most of the witnesses, including Rye Allen, made a positive identification of Jordan. Jordan was subsequently charged with six counts of robbery, one involving the wallet and five involving some of the earlier incidents. At his trial, his attorney objected to the introduction of the pretrial identifications, claiming a violation of Jordan's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The trial court denied the request to suppress the pre-trial identification evidence and also denied defense counsel's request to introduce expert testimony from a professor of psychology regarding the reliability of eyewitness identifications. Jordan was convicted of all counts and has appealed. Regarding the trial court's exclusion of defendant's expert who would have testified about the reliability and unreliability of eyewitness identifications: (a) On appeal, the trial judge's ruling will not be overturned unless it was an abuse of the court's discretion. (b) On appeal, the trial judge's ruling is not subject to reversal because only the trial court could evaluate the witness's demeanor and determine whether her testimony would confuse the issues and mislead the jury. (c) On appeal, the trial judge's ruling must be reversed because due process recognizes the right of a defendant to introduce such expert testimony in any case where identification is a critical part of the case against him. (d) On appeal, the trial judge's ruling may be reversed if the appellate court concludes, on a de novo review, that the expert's testimony would have assisted the jury in deciding the identification question. (e) On appeal, the trial judge's ruling on the admissibility of expert identification testimony is always considered harmless.

(a) On appeal, the trial judge's ruling will not be overturned unless it was an abuse of the court's discretion.

In the early morning hours of a December day, officer Kay Vincent spotted Alex Reuben speeding down Highway 22. After pulling him over, the officer approached the car. She smelled alcohol on his breath and observed that his eyes were glazed and bloodshot and that his face was flushed. Officer Vincent asked Reuben where he was coming from, and he answered, "The Flamingo Bar, up the road there." Officer Vincent then asked Reuben to exit the vehicle and to perform several standard sobriety tests, such as lifting one leg and walking heel to toe in a straight line while counting each of the paces. Reuben performed these tests poorly and told the officer it was because he had been drinking. Officer Vincent then handcuffed Reuben and transported him to a county Detention Center where all proceedings were routinely videotaped. Reuben had not been given any Miranda warnings. At the Detention Center, Officer Vincent asked Reuben for his name, address, height, weight, eye color, date of birth, and social security number. Reuben provided the information but stumbled over several answers. Officer Vincent then asked Reuben to perform sobriety tests similar to those he performed at the initial roadside stop and also asked him to count from one to thirty. Reuben performed poorly and, while doing so, commented about his state of inebriation. It was then that Officer Vincent advised Reuben of his Miranda rights. Reuben signed a statement waiving his rights, but then declined to answer any questions. At Reuben's trial for driving under the influence of alcohol, the government sought to admit into evidence the videotape of the proceedings at the Detention Center together with the arresting officer's testimony that Reuben failed the roadside sobriety tests and all of Reuben's incriminating statements. Reuben sought to exclude all of the statements he made prior to receiving Miranda warnings and all videotaping of the proceedings at the Detention Center. The district court should: (a) Exclude all of the statements and the video because Reuben was not free to leave once his automobile was pulled over, and therefore, all of his responses were obtained in violation of Miranda. (b) Admit all of the statements but exclude the video because Reuben was not advised that his actions and statements were being recorded. (c) Admit all of the statements and the video. (d) Exclude only Reuben's response to the request to count from one to thirty because, at that point, Reuben was in custody, had not yet been Mirandized, and the question called for a testimonial response. (e) Exclude only Reuben's response to the roadside question, "Where are you coming from," because, unlike the other questions and information, this interrogatory was neither a booking question nor a non-testimonial display of physical characteristics.

(c) Admit all of the statements and the video.

Michael Chase was the founder and executive director of The Chase Foundation, a major national charitable organization which collected money for veterans, homeless families, and sick children One day FBI Agent Roemer received an anonymous telephone call from a man identifying himself as "someone within the executive ranks of the Chase Foundation." The caller said that Chase was skimming money from the Foundation and using it for his own purposes, and then hung up. Two weeks later Agent Roemer received another call from the same anonymous person. The caller, sounding indignant, said, "Why haven't you done anything about that thief Chase? He's taking money from really needy folks and you're letting him get away with it." Struck by something in the caller's voice, Agent Roemer decided to do some investigating. She went to the Chase Foundation and talked to various officers, but she was unable to uncover anything. She then went to Chase's house and observed that it was quite grand, with manicured lawns and two luxury automobiles in the driveway. Agent Roemer decided that further investigation was required and, so, prepared an application for a warrant to search Chase's business office and his home for any documents "related to fraud by wire and mail fraud." The application referred to and included two documents, Attachment A and Attachment B. Attachment A described in detail the address, description, and location of Chase's office and his home. Attachment B described the categories of information to be seized as "Records, documents, computer disks, financial records, receipts, and banking and any other financial instruments related to fraud by wire and mail fraud," and it referred to an affidavit by Agent Roemer. The affidavit described the two anonymous calls, the agent's visit to Chase's house, and stated in relevant part, "Affiant does believe that evidence of fraud in the administration and finances of the Chase Foundation will be found at the office of Mr. Chase and at his residence and that such evidence will disclose violations of the federal wire and mail fraud statutes." Without hearing oral testimony, the Magistrate issued a search warrant to search the locations described in Attachment A and to seize the items identified in Attachment B. Through inadvertence, the affidavit was not physically attached to the warrant. Several agents executed the warrant and thoroughly searched Chase's office and home and recovered 17 boxes of written materials which did disclose fraudulent activities and resulted in Chase's indictment on multiple counts of fraud. Before the trial court, Chase unsuccessfully moved to exclude the information seized in the search. He then entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving his right to appeal the adverse ruling on his motion to suppress. On appeal, the appellate court should: (a) Uphold the trial court's ruling because whatever deficiencies existed in the warrant were excusable under the "good faith exception." (b) Uphold the trial court's ruling because the Magistrate's decision to grant the warrant was not without some foundation and, therefore, substantial deference must be given to her judgment. (c) Reverse the trial court's ruling because the affidavit was not actually made a part of the warrant and, without it, the basis for the search did not rise to the level of probable cause. (d) Reverse the trial court's ruling because the trial court lacked a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed and the warrant was hopelessly overbroad. (e) Reverse the trial court's ruling because the Magistrate took no oral testimony on the application for the warrant and was simply a "rubber stamp."

(d) Reverse the trial court's ruling because the trial court lacked a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed and the warrant was hopelessly overbroad.

What are the requirements for a valid warrant?

- a neutral and detached magistrate - oath or affirmation - probable cause - particularity

the two prongs of the Katz test

- a subjective expectation of privacy, that, - society is willing to recognize as reasonable

Prerequisites for the 6th amendment right to counsel

- attachment - critical stage of proceedings

threshold requirements that must be met before Miranda warnings are required

- custody - interrogation

the two requirements to establish ineffective assistance of counsel (Strickland v. Washington)

- deficient performance - prejudice

Exigent Circumstances exceptions:

- hot pursuit of a fleeing felon - public safety - destruction of evidence

The plain view exceptions requirements:

- police are lawfully present - the incriminating nature of the evidence is immediately apparent

Dunn Curtilage factors

- proximity - enclosure - use - steps to protect from observation

Circumstances where questioning can be re-initiated after a suspect invokes the Miranda right to counsel

- re-initiation by the suspect - an attorney is present or - a break in custody of 14 days

test for validity of a search by public school officials

- reasonableness under all the circumstances of the search - whether the action was justified at its inception and reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified it

the 4 Miranda advisements

- right to remain silent - anything you say can be used against you - the right to an attorney - the right to have an attorney appointed free of charge if you cannot afford one

Exclusionary rule attenuation analysis factors

- temporal proximity - intervening circumstances - the purpose of flagrancy of the official misconduct

To justify an arrest warrant, a magistrate must have probable cause to believe:

- that a crime was committed - that the suspect committed it

the 4th amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure in:

- their persons - houses - papers - effects

Officer Knight noticed a van with a broken tail light and legitimately signaled it to stop. After checking the driver's license and registration, Officer Knight gave the drive a warning, told him he was free to leave, and began to walk away. Almost immediately, however, the officer turned back toward the driver and politely asked if he was carrying any guns or drugs. The driver said no, and Officer Knight asked, "Well do you mind if I search the car?" The driver turned to the passengers in the vehicle and whispered something the officer could not hear. The Driver then exited the vehicle. Officer Knight noticed a large bulge in the driver's pocket, which he appeared to want to conceal. Officer Knight then frisked the driver and noted that the bulge felt like a weapon. The officer instructed the driver to empty his pocket. At first the driver emptied the other pocket, but when Officer Knight repeated his order he finally displayed the object--a pipe containing weed residue. Prior to trial on a possession marijuana charge, the driver moved to suppress the evidence of the pipe and the drug contained within it. the trial judge should: A. Deny the emotion because the officer lawfully stopped the driver and developed a reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous. B. Deny the motion because once a vehicle is lawfully stopped, a police officer may, in the interest of safety, conduct a protective frisk of any occupant who exits the vehicle. C. Grant the motion because, once Officer Knight told the driver he was free to leave, the original encounter was over; the subsequent questioning about guns or drugs amounted to an unjustified temporary detention, and the evidence derived from this unlawful stop was inadmissible. D. Grant the motion because there was no evidence that the driver was involved in criminal conduct, and a frisk is improper unless an officer has reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous and is involved in criminal conduct. E. Grant the motion because an officer may not frisk a person when there is no duty, as under these facts, for the officer to be in that person's presence.

A. Deny the emotion because the officer lawfully stopped the driver and developed a reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous.

While on routine patrol along Highway 80, police noticed Barney speeding and driving in a reckless manner. They pulled him over, and despite the fact that he appeared to be a frail and elderly gentleman and despite the fact that it was bitterly cold, the police ordered him out of the car. As Barney exited the car, several pieces of paper fell from his pocket and onto the ground. As Barney was standing near his vehicle and straightening himself up, Magnum, one of the officers, looked down at the papers and, seeing that they were stock certificates, wrote down the stock numbers and other identifying information. Officer Magnum also walked around the vehicle and peered through the windows. She saw more papers on the front seat and wrote down the numbers she saw displayed on these papers as well. The other officer, Kojak, approached Barney and told him he was under arrest for reckless driving. Because Barney seemed shaky on his feet, Officer Kojak asked him whether he had any alcoholic beverages to drink. Barney replied, "Well yes, I have just come from a party and let me tell you, the liquor was flowing pretty good over there." Officer Kojak then said, "Well consider yourself under arrest for drunk driving too." As Barney sat handcuffed in the patrol car, both officers searched the interior of the car and recovered a gun in the glove compartment. They also searched the trunk and opened several tightly rolled up paper bags and found marijuana. Barney has been charged with a weapons violation and, prior to trial, moved to suppress the gun discovered in the glove department. The motion should be: A. Granted because Barney was handcuffed and seated in the police cruiser and the police did not reasonably believe that evidence of the crime of arrest was in the vehicle. B. Granted because the glove compartment is not within the scope of a search incident to arrest. C. Denied because police were entitled to make a protective frisk which would include the glove compartment or any space where a gun could be found. D. Denied because the gun was found as part of a proper search incident to arrest. E. Denied because, once Barney admitted he had been drinking, the officers had probable cause to search anywhere in the car where evidence of alcohol could be found.

A. Granted because Barney was handcuffed and seated in the police cruiser and the police did not reasonably believe that evidence of the crime of arrest was in the vehicle.

Police were called to a local convenience store where they made an on-the-scene arrest of Tommy Henderson for robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. The police had no warrant but witnesses' accounts gave them probable cause to believe that Henderson brandished a gun and forcibly took money from two of the store's customers. Henderson was booked and charged with two counts of robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm. Under applicable state procedure, Henderson was brought before a magistrate within twenty four hours. At this initial appearance, there was no determination of probable cause, but Henderson was informed of the charges against him, advised that he was entitled to a preliminary hearing within thirty days, and bail was set at $5,000. Although Henderson was not asked to enter a plea, or indeed not invited to say anything, he interrupted the judge to say, "I shouldn't be here without a lawyer. My cousin is a layer. I'd like to call him. Otherwise, I need a public defender because I don't have any money." The judge simply said: "There will be time enough for that later, Mr. Henderson; we have other business at the point." Henderson, unable to make bail, was remanded to the custody of the local police. Three days later, Henderson was given Miranda warnings and interrogated about the incident at the convenience store. He waived his rights and, after talking with the police officers for about thirty minutes, made incriminating statements. Prior to trial, Henderson moves to suppress the incriminating statements he gave to the police. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. Henderson's statements are admissible. None of his constitutional rights were violated. B. Henderson's statements are admissible. Although Henderson could have insisted that this lawyer be present at any interrogation, his statements to the Magistrate were not a clear and unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel. C. Henderson's statements are inadmissible. Once the right to counsel is invoked any subsequent waiver is necessarily the result of police coercion. D. Henderson's statements are inadmissible. The Magistrate's failure to determine whether there was probable cause to hold him rendered his continuing custody a Fourth Amendment violation, and any statements secured while he was in illegal custody are inadmissible. E. Henderson's statements are inadmissible. His comments to the Magistrate were a valid invocation of counsel, and thereafter, any attempt to interrogate him require that his lawyer be present.

A. Henderson's statements are admissible. None of his constitutional rights were violated.

Kramer went across the hall to Jerry's apartment looking for Elaine. Jerry, his close friend, was not home, but the door was unlocked. Kramer let himself in as he usually did. He watched TV and fixed himself lunch. No one turned dup, so he took a nap on the couch. About two hours later, the police burst into the apartment, and the commotion awakened Kramer. He yelled: "What are you doing here, do you have a warrant?" The officers answered: "It's none of your business, Bub," and proceeded to search the entire apartment including Kramer's backpack. In fact, the police had no warrant and no probable cause. In their search, the police found an unregistered gun in Kramer's backpack, and he was charged with illegal possession of a weapon. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. In order to exclude the gun as evidence, Kramer must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he has standing to object to the officers' search. B. Since Kramer was a regular guest of Jerry's and was, in fact, napping on his couch, he had standing to object to the search of the apartment. C. Kramer has no standing to object to the search, and the gun will be admissible against him. D. Kramer will have standing to object to the admission of the gun unless the police prove he was a casual or fleeting visitor. E. Kramer has standing to object to the admission of the gun because, as a close friend of Jerry's and a frequent visitor to his apartment, Kramer was legitimately on the premises with Jerry's consent.

A. In order to exclude the gun as evidence, Kramer must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he has standing to object to the officers' search.

Jake asked Maggie if he could leave his green and red Travelpro suitcase in her house for temporary safe keeping. The suitcase was closed but unlocked. The police, meanwhile, were watching Maggie's residence after receiving a reliable eyewitness tip that Maggie was storing drugs in a green and red Travelpro suitcase in her house. The police obtained Maggie's consent to enter her house, and upon seeing Jake's suitcase under a table in the hallway, asked Maggie, "What is in there." Maggie said she did not know because it was her friend Jake's who left it with her for temporary safekeeping. "You can do whatever you want with it," she said. The police then seized the suitcase, took it outside, and searched it while they sat in their patrol car. Inside they found an unregistered gun, and Jake was later prosecuted for illegal gun possession. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. Jake can successfully suppress the gun because the police did not obtain a warrant to search the suitcase. B. Jake can successfully suppress the gun because the police did not have probable cause to believe there were any drugs in Maggie's house. C. Jake can successfully suppress the gun because the police seizure of the suitcase was unlawful. D. Jake cannot suppress the gun because Maggie had common authority over the suitcase which would allow her to consent to its search. E. Jake cannot suppress the gun because the police had probable cause to search the suitcase, and Maggie's consent to enter the house excused the need for a warrant.

A. Jake can successfully suppress the gun because the police did not obtain a warrant to search the suitcase.

Two uniformed police officers encountered Marcella as she alights from a train. The officers walk alongside of her as she travels down the concourse. One of the officers says, "hi," identifies himself, and then asks her some questions including whether she is carrying any guns or illegal drugs. When she answers, "no," they then ask whether they can search her luggage. Which of the following additional facts will best strengthen the conclusion that consent to search, if given, was voluntary? A. Marcella was informed of her right to refuse consent. B. Marcella was a college graduate. C. The encounter took place in a well-lighted, public area with other persons present. D. Only one officer was present when the request to search was made. E. The police and Marcella were all of the same right and ethnic background.

A. Marcella was informed of her right to refuse consent.

Officers arrest Flanders in Marge's home pursuant to a valid arrest warrant. Cocaine is seen on the table in Marge's bedroom, and Marge is arrested. Marge moves to suppress the drugs. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. The cocaine is inadmissible against Marge unless the officers had a search warrant. B. The cocaine is admissible pursuant to the plain view exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment. C. The cocaine is admissible under the wing span search permitted as a search incident to an arrest. D. The cocaine is inadmissible unless probable cause existed and the seizure wasn't inadvertent. E. The cocaine is inadmissible unless the police had probable cause to believe Flanders would be found in Marge's home.

A. The cocaine is inadmissible against Marge unless the officers had a search warrant.

Because of several anonymous calls to police headquarters, the police suspected that Johnny, 21 years old and living at home with his parents, was responsible for the murder of a 13 year old boy named Emory. Two officers went to Johnny's house and, being admitted by Johnny's father, told the father that they had come to talk to Johnny about the murder of Emory. They falsely told the father that they had conclusive evidence, including fingerprints, linking Johnny to the crime. The father then hollered to his son to come down from his room. No sooner had Johnny entered the living room than his father began beating him. As the police looked on, the father punched him and slapped him screaming, "you killer! you no good bum!" The son then screamed--"No, no, no! Dad, wait, it was an accident. I can explain!" At that point, the officers pulled Johnny away from his father and placed him under arrest. Once at the police station, the officers placed Johnny in an interrogation room and read Johnny his Miranda rights. Eventually, the police obtained a full written confession from Johnny. Assume the statements in the house were excluded, which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. The giving of Miranda warnings at the police station was no sufficient in itself to break the chain between the in-house statements and the police station statements. B. The giving of Miranda warnings at the police station was sufficient to break the chain between the in-house statements and the police station statements. C. The giving of Miranda warnings at the police station could cut off the connection between the in-house statements and the police station statements but only if the police warned Johnny that his in-house statements could not be used against him. D. The giving of Miranda warnings was unnecessary both at the house and at the police station because volunteered statements are always admissible. E. The giving of Miranda warnings was sufficient to break the chain between the in-house statements and the police station statements because the in-house statements were subject to interpretation and the "Cat was not really out of the bag."

A. The giving of Miranda warnings at the police station was no sufficient in itself to break the chain between the in-house statements and the police station statements.

While on routine patrol along Highway 80, police noticed Barney speeding and driving in a reckless manner. They pulled him over, and despite the fact that he appeared to be a frail and elderly gentleman and despite the fact that it was bitterly cold, the police ordered him out of the car. As Barney exited the car, several pieces of paper fell from his pocket and onto the ground. As Barney was standing near his vehicle and straightening himself up, Magnum, one of the officers, looked down at the papers and, seeing that they were stock certificates, wrote down the stock numbers and other identifying information. Officer Magnum also walked around the vehicle and peered through the windows. She saw more papers on the front seat and wrote down the numbers she saw displayed on these papers as well. The other officer, Kojak, approached Barney and told him he was under arrest for reckless driving. Because Barney seemed shaky on his feet, Officer Kojak asked him whether he had any alcoholic beverages to drink. Barney replied, "Well yes, I have just come from a party and let me tell you, the liquor was flowing pretty good over there." Officer Kojak then said, "Well consider yourself under arrest for drunk driving too." As Barney sat handcuffed in the patrol car, both officers searched the interior of the car and recovered a gun in the glove compartment. They also searched the trunk and opened several tightly rolled up paper bags and found marijuana. Barney is charged with illegal possession drugs and, prior to trial, moves to exclude the marijuana recovered from the trunk. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. The motion should be granted because the search of the trunk went beyond the scope of a search incident to arrest. B. The motion should be granted because, although the police were permitted to search the trunk In order to protect themselves, they were not permitted to open containers. C. The motion should be denied because police had probable cause to believe that the car itself contained evidence of weapons or alcohol. D. The motion should be denied because, once Barney was placed under arrest, police could search anywhere in the immediate area, whether or not Barney had a realistic possibility of lunging for a weapon. E. The motion should be denied because the police may always conduct an inventory search of a car, either on the spot or at headquarters.

A. The motion should be granted because the search of the trunk went beyond the scope of a search incident to arrest.

Police developed probable cause to believe that Dan Couche was carrying drugs in his large green briefcase. With the briefcase in his possession, Couche flew from Miami to New York, and police watched him as he exited the airport. Couche waited in a line to get a taxi, and, eventually, the dispatcher directed him to go to the next available cab. The taxi driver opened the trunk and invited Couche to place his briefcase inside. At first Couche hesitated but then put the bag in the trunk and settled into the backseat. It was customary at the airport to double up riders going to the same part of town and, right before the taxi was about to pull away from the curb, an undercover police officer got into the backseat with Couche. As the taxi left the airport, other undercover officers followed in an unmarked vehicle. Shortly into the trip, Couche began to think he was being followed, and he became highly suspicious of the passenger sitting in the back seat with him. At a traffic light, he jumped out of the cab and ran away leaving the briefcase behind. The police, startled by this development, were slow to react, and Couche got away. Meanwhile the police signaled the cab to pull over. The police removed the green briefcase from the trunk, opened it, and found cocaine. They then searched the interior of the taxi and found obscene pictures under the taxi driver's front seat. They had no warrant. The taxi driver is prosecuted for possession of obscene materials and moves to suppress the introduction of the pictures found under his seat in the cab. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. The pictures are inadmissible because the police lacked probable cause to search under the taxi driver's front seat. B. The pictures are inadmissible because the police lacked a warrant to search the taxi, and there was no emergency since the taxi driver was cooperative and the suspect had already fled. C. The pictures are admissible because the taxi driver was not the target of the police investigation and had no standing to object to the seizure of the briefcase or the search of the cab. D. The pictures are admissible because the police had probable cause to believe that Couche was transporting drugs, and the automobile exception excused the need to obtain a warrant. E. The pictures are admissible because a taxi driver, by operating a taxi, implicitly consents to the inspection of the interior of his vehicle.

A. The pictures are inadmissible because the police lacked probable cause to search under the taxi driver's front seat.

Bart was evicted from his apartment and had no place to go. He packed his meager personal belongings into several cardboard boxes and asked his friend Millhous if he could store them in his garage until he found a new home. Milhous agreed, but later, when police said that they were investigating Bart for robbery, Milhouse directed the police officers to the particular area of the garage where Bart's stuff was stored, saying "Here's his stuff, in that corner next to my car. Seem he stored it here until he finds some place to live." Milhouse then consented to a search of the garbage. The officers conducted the search and found gun parts in one of the cardboard boxes linking Bart to the robbery. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. the gun parts may not be used as evidence against Bart because he retained an expectation of privacy in the boxes. B. The gun parts may be used as evidence against Bart because he was not an overnight guest in the house; indeed he was homeless at the time. C. The gun parts may be used as evidence against Bart because Milhous's full access to the garage negated any expectation of privacy Bart may have had in the boxes. D. The gun parts may be used as evidence against Bart because Milhouse had mutual and joint access to the garage and was free to give consent to the search. E. The gun parts may not be used as evidence against Bart because the police lacked probable cause to think that evidence of the burglary would be found in the boxes.

A. the gun parts may not be used as evidence against Bart because he retained an expectation of privacy in the boxes.

Police have painstakingly put together enough information to arrest Dart Vander for murder. The police first developed basic information about the crime and, with the help of eyewitnesses, put together a description of the suspect. One witness said he knew the person was "Dodie or Dart Vander." Armed with this information, the police then went to the department of motor vehicles and learned that a person name Dart Vander and meeting the suspect's precise description lived at 2099 Mission Avenue. The police took all of their information to a magistrate and secured an arrest warrant for Mr. Vander. Warrant in hand, they immediately traveled to 2099 Mission Ave. Once at the address, the police saw windows boarded up and high weeds growing on the front lawn. Although it was eagerly evening, the house appeared dark. The police went to a neighbor's house to ask whether 2099 Mission was the address of one Dart Vander. The neighbor said, "Yes, that's his house. No one has seen him since about two months ago when he piled some stuff in his car and drove off. Are you officers here about the weeds, it's a terrible eyesore--we called a couple of times to complain." The officers said no and walked back to the house at 2099 Mission. They tried the door, but it was locked. They knocked loudly several times and called out, "Police, open up!" After a few minutes, they used a crowbar to break down the door. they entered the house, searched for Mr. Vander but found nothing but drug paraphernalia and a small amount of cocaine on the kitchen table. Later Mr. Vander was arrested and charged with drug offense related to the items found at 2099 Mission. He moves to suppress all of it. The trial court should: A. Exclude the evidence because the police used too much force in gaining entry into the house. B. Exclude the evidence because the police lacked a reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Vander was in the house. C. Exclude the evidence because the police violated Mr. Vander's reasonable expectation of privacy in gaining access to his driver's license information without a warrant. D. Admit the evidence because the police knocked, announced their presence, and waited for the suspect to appear before forcing open the door. E. Admit the evidence because the police were acting in good faith under the authority of a warrant issued by a magistrate.

B. Exclude the evidence because the police lacked a reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Vander was in the house.

Dennis Mobley lived alone in a one bedroom apartment, leased in his name. Armed with an arrest warrant, three FBI agents arrived at Dennis Mobley's apartment one morning at 8:30. The warrant was based on information from wiretaps and police informants and recited that there was probable cause to believe Mobley was engaged in a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. The agents knocked at the door, and when Mobley, who was naked, opened the door, the agents stepped across the threshold and secured Mobley against the wall. As two of the agents were effecting the arrest of Mobley, the third, Agent Lin, did a security sweep of the premises. While in the bedroom, Agent Lin noticed a nightstand drawer standing slightly open with some papers protruding out. He walked to the table and, pulling the drawer slightly open, was able to see betting slips and other betting paraphernalia inside. He removed the items and returned to the living room where the other agents and Mobley were now standing. Once all of the agents determined that there was no one else in the apartment, they seemed to relax. The lead Agent, Borah Martin, officially informed Mobley that he was under arrest, and she told him that several other agents were about to arrive with a search warrant to look for narcotics on the premises. Mobley was allowed, under surveillance, to go to his bedroom and dress. He returned to the living room where Agent Martin informed him of his Miranda rights. Mobley said he wanted a lawyer. As Mobley and all three agents were leaving the apartment, Agent Martin turned to Mobley and said, "Since the other agents will be coming to conduct a search, is there anything in the apartment that would pose a threat to them, like a weapon?" Mobley replied that there was a gun in the bedroom closet, and he then led the agents to it. The gun was located amidst Mobley's sweaters in a clothes closet in his bedroom. Ultimately Mobley was indicted for illegal possession of gambling paraphernalia and illegal possession of a firearm. Prior to trial, Mobly filed a motion to suppress the betting slips and other evidence found in the nightstand, arguing that the search of the nightstand was unreasonable under the 4th Amendment. The district court should: A. Grant the motion because the agents lacked probable cause to believe that anyone else was lurking in the house and, therefore, no protective sweep, and hence no discovery of evidence in the nightstand was justified. B. Grant the motion because the agent went beyond the scope of a cursory visual inspection of those places where a person might be hiding. C. Deny the motion because the agent was properly conducting a protective sweep

B. Grant the motion because the agent went beyond the scope of a cursory visual inspection of those places where a person might be hiding.

Sally Johnson was arrested and indicted for the murder of her husband. Counsel was appointed, and she was held in the county jail. Norma Holloway, also awaiting trial for murder was housed in the same cell block as Johnson. Holloway asked the jail guards if she could talk to Detective Jenner of the homicide squad, whom she knew from some prior brush with the law. Holloway told Detective Jenner that she was on the same cell block as Johnson and offered to report any incriminating statements she might make, "if it could help me with a lighter sentence." Detective Jenner said, "Well, if you bring us something, I'll see what I can do. See what you can find out, but don't get into any interrogation type thing with her. Just listen and pay attention." Over the next two days, Holloway engaged Johnson in conversation. She asked her, "What are you in for?" and "What's your story?" Johnson said she was going to use an alibi, but Holloway suggested that she come up with something better because "if they find the body, they can always get some evidence, like hair or something, linking you to the crime." At that, Johnson laughed and said, "Don't worry about that. I put the body where the Lord himself couldn't find it." At Johnson's trial for murder, the prosecutor plans to introduce Johnson's incriminating statements. Johnson argues that introduction of the statements will violate her 6th amendment right to counsel. The evidence is: A. Inadmissible because Johnson did not know she was speaking to an informant and was, therefore, unaware of her right to keep silent. B. Inadmissible because Holloway was acting as an agent of the state and affirmatively induced Johnson to make incriminating statements. C. Admissible because Holloway initiated contact with the police, was acting for her own benefit, and was not an agent of the state. D. Admissible because Johnson did not know she was speaking to an informant and, therefore, was not under any pressure to make the statements. E. Admissible because Holloway told not to interrogate Johnson, and her failure to follow instructions means the state was not responsible for her behavior, and there was no state action.

B. Inadmissible because Holloway was acting as an agent of the state and affirmatively induced Johnson to make incriminating statements.

Jackie is arrested on a valid arrest warrant, brought to the police station, placed in an interrogation room, and advised of her Miranda rights. She responded, "Well, okay, I guess I'm in trouble. I understand my rights; I just hope n y Dad gets me a good lawyer." The police then told Jackie, falsely, that they had her fingerprints on the murder weapon and an eyewitness who would identify her as the killer. Jackie sat for almost an hour responding only to three questions and even then, only with a nod or a one word response. The officers, growing impatient, went over their "evidence" again and told Jackie that her only hope of leniency, if any, was to make a full confession then and there. This sequence was repeated two more times until Jackie asked for a pen and paper and began scribbling a full confession. Before trial, Jackie moves to suppress her confession. How should the trial court decide? A. The confession is inadmissible because the police continued to question Jackie after she invoked her right to an attorney. B. The confession is admissible because none of Jackie's constitutional rights were violated. C. The confession is inadmissible because Jackie, through her actions, evinced a desire to remain silent and the police did not scrupulously honor Jackie's desire to remain silent. D. The confession is admissible because there was no police interrogation; the police merely advised Jackie of the situation she faced. E. The confession is inadmissible because, given the totality of the circumstances, the police signaled to Jackie that they were going to continue their questioning until she responded.

B. The confession is admissible because none of Jackie's constitutional rights were violated.

Police officers received an uncorroborated and anonymous tip that a farmer was growing marijuana on his secluded property at the edge of the county line. The police went out to the farm, and finding no one home, looked into the windows of the house, went around the back, and followed a path that led out to the adjacent fields where cattle and horses were grazing. At the farthermost point on the property, about a quarter mile from the house, there were about two dozen marijuana plants. The plants were obscured by a high hedge fence, but the officers walked through the hedges and found the plants. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. The farmer has no 4th amendment expectation of privacy in the plants because they were contraband. B. The farmer has no 4th Amendment expectation of privacy in the plants because they were located in open fields. C. the farmer has no 4th amendment expectation of privacy in the plants because they could readily be observed by aircraft or a helicopter flying at very low altitudes. D. Whatever 4th amendment expectation the farmer has in the plants, the police had adequate reasonable suspicion to look around the property. E. The farmer has a 4th amendment expectation of privacy in the plants because they fill within an area known as the curtilage.

B. The farmer has no 4th Amendment expectation of privacy in the plants because they were located in open fields.

Police developed probable cause to arrest Simone for theft. They also had probable cause to search her home for the stolen item, namely a valuable pendant inscribed, "To Fifi, with love." Police secured a search warrant but elected not to get an arrest warrant. Police went to Simone's house, and upon knocking and announcing themselves, let themselves in after no one answered the door after several minutes. Inside, the police saw an individual seated on the living room sofa listening to music through headphones. Police approached, explained their presence, and immediately arrested Simone when she identified herself. One officer then searched her and found the pendant inside her pants pocket. Another officer searched the area around the living room sofa and recovered an unregistered gun in a closed drawer of the coffee table. Simone is charged with theft of the pendant and illegal possession of a gun. Prior to her trial, she moves to exclude both items as evidence. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate/ A. The motion should be denied because a search warrant permits a search of every place, including persons and closed drawers, where evidence identified in the warrant might be found. B. The motion should be denied because the pendant and the gun were seized pursuant to a valid search incident to arrest. C. The motion should be granted because the policy should have had an arrest warrant to arrest Simone in her won home, and all of the seized evidence was derivative of that illegality. D. The pendant was properly seized pursuant to the search warrant but, once the police found it on Simone, they were not permitted to search any further. E. The motion should be granted because police behaved unreasonably by entering the home without consent or before waiting a longer period for someone to answer the door.

B. The motion should be denied because the pendant and the gun were seized pursuant to a valid search incident to arrest.

Police developed probable cause to arrest Simone for theft. They also had probable cause to search her home for the stolen item, namely a valuable pendant inscribed, "To Fifi, with love." Police secured a search warrant but elected not to get an arrest warrant. Police went to Simone's house, and upon knocking and announcing themselves, let themselves in after no one answered the door after several minutes. Inside, the police saw an individual seated on the living room sofa listening to music through headphones. Police approached, explained their presence, and immediately arrested Simone when she identified herself. One officer then searched her and found the pendant inside her pants pocket. Another officer searched the area around the living room sofa and recovered an unregistered gun in a closed drawer of the coffee table. Simone is charged with theft of the pendant and illegal possession of a gun. Prior to her trial, she moves to exclude both items as evidence, Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. The motion should be denied because a search warrant permits a search of every place, including persons and closed drawers, where evidence identified in the warrant might be found. B. The motion should denied because the pendant and the gun were seized pursuant to a valid search incident to arrest. C. The motion should be granted because the police should have had an arrest warrant to arrest Simone in her own home, and all of the seized evidence was derivative of that illegality. D. The pendent was properly seized pursuant to the search warrant but, once the police found it on Simone, they were not permitted to search any further. E. The motion should be granted because police behaved unreasonably by entering the home without consent or before waiting a longer period for someone to answer the door.

B. The motion should denied because the pendant and the gun were seized pursuant to a valid search incident to arrest.

Police in Punta Gorda, Florida were investigating a series of robberies and had little to go on except a set of the assailant's fingerprints. The police interviewed approximately thirty to forty possible suspects and, although they developed no specific information amounting to probable cause, began to focus on 8 of the interviewees. The police then obtained home addresses, visited each of the 8, and asked if they would provide fingerprints. All agreed except Woody who refused. The police then told Woody he had no choice, and then hustled him to a waiting squad car and drove him to police headquarters, about two miles away. At headquarters they instructed him to submit to fingerprinting. He did not physically resist, but he never consented to the procedure. The entire episode, from the house to fingerprinting, lasted about one hour. Woody was then taken back home. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. The police action in taking Woody to police headquarters was justified by reasonable suspicion but the actual taking of his fingerprints violated his 5th amendment right because he was compelled to submit to the procedure. B. The police action violated Woody's 4th amendment rights because they did not have probable cause to take him to police headquarters. C. The police action in taking Woody to police headquarters was justified by reasonable suspicion, but the police absent any emergency, needed probable cause and a warrant for obtaining the fingerprints D. In the absence of consent, fingerprints can only be obtained by a grand jury pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. E. The police action in taking Woody to the police headquarters and in obtaining his fingerprints was justified by reasonable suspicion.

B. The police action violated Woody's 4th amendment rights because they did not have probable cause to take him to police headquarters.

Skip was a participant in a heroin ring. On various occasions, he would receive shipments of heroin and then be instructed to deliver portions of it to designated addresses. A police informant of proven reliability told police that she was with Skip that morning, observed the heroin in his house, and overhead Skip's plan to take the heroin that afternoon at 3pm in a red, white and blue duffel bag and deliver it to a house at 15 Damascus Rd. Officer Chang was sent to Skip's house to investigate. At approximately 3pm, he observed Skip leaving the house and carrying the red, white, and blue duffel bag. He watched Skip place bag in the trunk of his car. He then followed Skip as he drove to 15 Damascus Rd, and there he observed Skip remove the bag from the trunk and carry it onto the porch at that address. Officer Change raced up the stairs and placed Skip under arrest. A backup police cruiser transported Skip to the police station, and Officer Chang then took the duffel bag and returned to police headquarters. After filing out some initial paperwork, Officer Chang then opened the duffel bag and placed the heroin in an evidence container. He had no warrant. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? Consistent with the 4th Amendment, when the police enter a house and arrest someone they have probable cause to believe has committed a violent crime, they may in order to protect themselves... A. Conduct a protective sweep of the immediate area including closets as well as the other rooms in the house without any further suspicion. B. Conduct a protective sweep of the immediate area including closets as well as the other rooms in the house only if they have reasonable suspicion that someone who could pose a harm to them could be in any of these areas. C. Conduct a protective sweep of the immediate area including closets without any further suspicion, but a protective sweep of the other rooms in the house only if they have reasonable suspicion that someone who could pose a harm to them could be in any of these areas. D. Conduct a protective sweep of the immediate area including closets without any further suspicion, but a protective sweep of the other rooms in the house only if they have probable cause to believe that someone who could pose a harm to them could be in any of these areas. E. Conduct a protective sweep of the immediate area including closets, only if they have reasonable suspicion that someone who could pose a harm to them could not in that area, and a protective sweep of other rooms in the house only if they have probable cause that someone who could pose a harm to them could be in those areas.

C. Conduct a protective sweep of the immediate area including closets without any further suspicion, but a protective sweep of the other rooms in the house only if they have reasonable suspicion that someone who could pose a harm to them could be in any of these areas.

Raphael Trice was charged with assault with intent to commit robbery and illegal possession of a firearm. The government's evidence at trial showed that, just before 2pm on a Sunday afternoon, Earl Green was shot while walking near his residence. Green testified that Trice approached him and demanded that Green "give it up." Trice then shot green with a shotgun and ran away. Green, who was only grazed by the shot, immediately called 911 and, within minutes after the incident, identified Trice as the shooter. Green explained that he knew Trice from the neighborhood. He even gave the police the address where he was "pretty sure" Trice lived. Green accompanied the police down to the station to provide further information and, while there, an officer showed him a photo of Trice and said, "Is this the guy who robbed you?" Green said yes. A short time later, Detective Truman obtained an arrest warrant for Trice and arrested him in his home. While in the home, Detective Truman saw Trice's mother and several small children who apparently also lived in the home. Detective Truman escorted Trice to his police car where he read Trice the Miranda warnings and ask, "Do you want to answer any questions at this time?" and Trice replied emphatically, "No." Detective Truman then asked Trice for his full name, social security number, and whether he had any serious medical conditions. Truman then asked Trice, "I'd like to know where the shotgun is. There are little kids in your house. I don't want anyone to get hurt." Trice responded, "It's okay, I gave it back to the person I borrowed it from." Truman did not ask any more questions. At a suppression hearing prior to trial, Trice moved to exclude his answer to the question about the gun, arguing that Detective Truman did not honor his right to remain silent; the trial court should: A. Deny the motion because the question was part of the routine inquiries that are made of suspects, and Miranda was never meant to apply to such an inquiry. B. Deny the motion because Detective Truman scrupulously honored Trice's invocation of his right to silence and immediately turned from investigative matters to administrative ones. C. Deny the motion because Truman's question was reasonable prompted by concern for public safety and was, therefore, within the "public safety exception" to the Miranda rules. D. Grant the motion because, by asking about the gun, Truman failed to honor Trice's right to remain silent, and the public safety exception cannot apply once a suspect is removed from his home. E. Grant the motion because no questions may asked of a suspect if he insists, as Trice did, on his right to keep silent.

C. Deny the motion because Truman's question was reasonable prompted by concern for public safety and was, therefore, within the "public safety exception" to the Miranda rules.

A man placed a 911 call to police headquarters and reported that a 19 year old African American male named Lucky had raped and murdered a female. The caller said that the victim's body could be found in the basement at 1704 N. 37th Street, a residence the caller described as a drug house. The caller identified himself as Anthony Carter and stated that he lived in the neighborhood. Two police officers immediately traveled to 1704 N. 37th St. The building was a duplex with upper and lower units. The lower unit was 1704. Standing in front of the building was a young African American male calmly holding a dog on a chain. The street was quiet. The young man identified himself as Clarence Richardson and said he lived in unit 1704. The police officers explained to Richardson that they had received a 911 call reporting a murder. Richardson told the officers that nothing was going on and that "its just another prank call from my nutty neighbors." Richardson then turned take his dog inside the residence. The police officers instructed him to secure the dog on the porch because they needed to search the residence. As one officer put it, "Well, Mr. Richardson, we have to go on what we know. All we know is that we got a report of a murder and a body at this address, and we have to check it out to see if someone is dead or needs assistance. Sometimes victims are still alive so we have to check." The police entered the front door, looked in the bedroom and other areas of the 1st floor and then proceeded to the basement. Eventually they searched the entire house. They did not have a warrant. Throughout the house, the police saw illegal drugs and weapons. They did not find a female murder victim. Based on the discoveries in the house, Richardson was charged with various narcotics and firearms offenses. Prior to trial, Richardson filed a motion to suppress all evidence gather during the warrantless search of his home. The trial court should: A. Grant the motion because the report described the person as already dead, and there was no emergency need to enter the home without a warrant. B. Grant the motion because the officers had an alternative to a warrantless entry, namely, they could have ordered Richardson and anyone in the house to come out and then secured the premises until a warrant was obtained. C. Deny the motion because, in the circumstances, it was reasonable to believe that a person was dead or near death and to search for the victim on the premises. D. Deny the motion because, although anonymous calls may not furnish a reasonable basis to justify an emergency warrantless entry, once an individual gives his name, police and other emergency personnel are duty-bound to act immediately. E. Deny the motion because the police officer's comment to Mr. Richardson showed that they viewed the situation as an emergency requiring an immediate response.

C. Deny the motion because, in the circumstances, it was reasonable to believe that a person was dead or near death and to search for the victim on the premises.

Police Officers responded to a radio broadcast about a forcible theft of a wallet from Rye Allen, the victim, who provided a description of the suspect. They stopped a car driven by Leland Jordan who matched the description of the robber. In the car, the police found the stolen wallet, a knife, and a gun. In the preceding weeks and in the same general vicinity, there had been a series of robberies at gas stations, cash machines, and restaurants. Jordan was formally charged with one count of robbery in connection with the forcible theft of Rye Allen's wallet, arraigned on that charge, and released on bail. Shortly after his release, the prosecutor in the case sought a court order directing Jordan to appear in a line-up. His attorney was also notified, and she appeared with her client on the appointed day. Jordan was placed in a line-up with five other men who resembled him in appearance but were all somewhat shorter. Jordan's attorney objected vigorously and insisted that the police find other participants who were of the same height. The police officers told her "to pipe down," and called in, one at a time, Rye Allen and the nine other persons who had been robbed in other incidents. The witnesses were told to take their time and simply indicate that they had made an identification or they had not. After all nine had separately viewed the lineup, the line-up participants, including Jordan, were excused, and the witnesses were asked to remain so that the police could talk to them at greater length. Jordan's attorney insisted that she be allowed to remain to observe the conversations with the witnesses. The police refused, and she was ordered out of the room. Most of the witnesses, including Rye Allen, made a positive identification of Jordan. Jordan was subsequently charged with six counts of robbery, one involving the wallet and five involving some of the earlier incidents. At his trial, his attorney objected to the introduction of the pretrial identifications, claiming a violation of Jordan's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The trial court denied the request to suppress the pre-trial identification evidence and also denied defense counsel's request to introduce expert testimony from a professor of psychology regarding the reliability of eyewitness identifications. Jordan was convicted of all counts and has appealed. Regarding 6th amendment challenge to the admission of post-charge line-up identification evidence generally: A. If the police do not permit the defendant's attorney to attend the line-up procedure, the admission of the line-up identification and any in-court identification are per se inadmissible. B. If the police do not permit the defendant's attorney to attend the line-up procedure, the admission of the line-up identification and any in-court identification will nevertheless be admissible if the government proves them to be reliable. C. If the police do not permit the defendant's attorney to attend the line-up procedure, the admission of the line-up identification is per se impermissible, but an in-court identification may be allowed if the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that there was a reliable basis, apart from the line-up, to make the in-court identification. D. If the police do not permit the defendant's attorney to attend the line-up procedure, the admission of the line-up identification and the in-court identification will nevertheless be allowed unless the defendant proves that both are substantially likely to lead to mistaken eyewitness identification. E. If the police do not permit the defendant's attorney to attend the line-up procedure, the line-up identification will be automatically excluded, and an in-court identification will be permissible only if a new line-up is conducted in front of the jury under the trial court's supervision.

C. If the police do not permit the defendant's attorney to attend the line-up procedure, the admission of the line-up identification is per se impermissible, but an in-court identification may be allowed if the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that there was a reliable basis, apart from the line-up, to make the in-court identification.

A young woman informed the police that a husband and wife had kidnapped and sexually abused her in an apparent attempt to force her into prostitution. During her stay at the couples' apartment, the woman observed a diary in which the couple wrote details of their plans to obtain, condition, and coerce young women and even boys and girls to serve in their prostitution ring. On the basis of the woman's complaint, the woman's complaint, the police obtained a search warrant for the apartment. The warrant described the diary and other evidentiary items. At the same time, a federal grand jury investigating violations of interstate prostitution laws issued a subpoena duces tecum to the husband and wife to produce the diary. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. The only legal way to obtain the diary is for a grand jury to issue a subpoena duces tecum. B. If the police seize the diary pursuant to a warrant, any constitutional objection will give way to the good faith exception. C. The diary can be obtained pursuant to the warrant or a grand jury subpoena duces tecum. D. The diary cannot be seized pursuant to the warrant or a grand jury subpoena duces tecum because such seizure would violate the 5th amendment. E. Although the police pursuant to a warrant or the grand jury pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum can obtain the diary, either way, the husband and wife may have a 4th amendment act of production immunity

C. The diary can be obtained pursuant to the warrant or a grand jury subpoena duces tecum.

Police developed probable cause to arrest Simone for theft. They also had probable cause to search her home for the stolen item, namely a valuable pendant inscribed, "To Fifi, with love." Police secured a search warrant but elected not to get an arrest warrant. Police went to Simone's house, and upon knocking and announcing themselves, let themselves in after no one answered the door after several minutes. Inside, the police saw an individual seated on the living room sofa listening to music through headphones. Police approached, explained their presence, and immediately arrested Simone when she identified herself. One officer then searched her and found the pendant inside her pants pocket. Another officer searched the area around the living room sofa and recovered an unregistered gun in a closed drawer of the coffee table. Assume that, in the question above, when the police entered Simone's house, Simone was seated next to her friend, Raul. Raul was a very good friend and planned to stay the night. After police found the unregistered gun in the coffee table drawer, they also arrested Raul. The police then searched the adjacent rooms. They found Raul's shaving kit in an upstairs dresser bureau and, inside the shaving kit, was a plastic bag containing marijuana. Raul is charged with possession of an unregistered gun and marijuana. Prior to trial, he moves to exclude the gun and the marijuana. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. Both the gun and the marijuana will be excluded because the police had no probable cause to connect Raul to the gun and no basis to conduct a search of the adjacent rooms. B. Both the marijuana and the gun will be excluded because the warrantless arrest of Simone in her own home was unlawful and all other actions were derivative of that illegality. C. The gun will be admissible as a lawful search incident to the arrest of Simone, and its close proximity to Raul and Simone gave probable cause to arrest both; the marijuana will be excluded because the police had no basis to conduct a search of the adjacent rooms. D. Neither the gun nor the marijuana will be excluded because, although Raul may have planned to stay the night, he had not yet done so and, thus, had no standing to complain of any search inside Simone's house. E. The gun will be excluded because Raul had no connection to it, but the marijuana will be admissible because, pursuant to the search warrant, the police could search every room in the house and open any closed containers where the stolen pendant could have been located.

C. The gun will be admissible as a lawful search incident to the arrest of Simone, and its close proximity to Raul and Simone gave probable cause to arrest both; the marijuana will be excluded because the police had no basis to conduct a search of the adjacent rooms.

Police developed probable cause to arrest Simone for theft. They also had probable cause to search her home for the stolen item, namely a valuable pendant inscribed, "To Fifi, with love." Police secured a search warrant but elected not to get an arrest warrant. Police went to Simone's house, and upon knocking and announcing themselves, let themselves in after no one answered the door after several minutes. Inside, the police saw an individual seated on the living room sofa listening to music through headphones. Police approached, explained their presence, and immediately arrested Simone when she identified herself. One officer then searched her and found the pendant inside her pants pocket. Another officer searched the area around the living room sofa and recovered an unregistered gun in a closed drawer of the coffee table. Assume that when the police entered Simone's house, Simone was seated next to her friend, Raul. Raul was a very good friend and planned to stay the night. After police found the unregistered gun in the coffee table drawer, they also arrested Raul. The police then searched the adjacent rooms. They found Raul's shaving kit in an upstairs dresser bureau and, inside the shaving kit, was a plastic bag containing marijuana. Raul is charged with possession of an unregistered gun and marijuana. Prior to trial, he moves to exclude the gun and the marijuana. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. Both the gun and the marijuana will be excluded because the police had no probable cause to connect Raul to the gun and no basis to conduct a search of the adjacent rooms. B. Both the marijuana and the gun will be excluded because the warrantless arrest of Simone in her own home was unlawful and all other actions were derivative of that illegality. C. The gun will be admissible as a lawful search incident to the arrest of Simone, and its close proximity to Raul and Simone gave probable cause to arrest both; the marijuana will be excluded because the police had no basis to conduct a search of the adjacent rooms. D. Neither the gun nor the marijuana will be excluded because, although Raul may have planned to stay in the night, he had not yet done so and, thus, had no standing to complain of any search inside Simone's house. E. The gun will be excluded because Raul had no connection to it, but the marijuana will be admissible because, pursuant to the search warrant, the police could search every room in the house and open any closed containers where the stolen pendant could have been located.

C. The gun will be admissible as a lawful search incident to the arrest of Simone, and its close proximity to Raul and Simone gave probable cause to arrest both; the marijuana will be excluded because the police had no basis to conduct a search of the adjacent rooms.

Police received an anonymous tip that Nina had a large marijuana growing operation in the basement of her home. Since large amounts of heat are associated with significant, in-house marijuana growing operations, police acquired a thermal imaging device that would measure the amount of heat coming from Nina's house. The trouble was that Nina lived in a rural part of town, and her house was surrounded by acres of thick woods. In addition she had eight-foot high fences, marked "No Trespassing," surrounding the entire property. The police decided to climb over the fence at the rear of the property. After they climbed over the fence, the officers walked through woods for about five minutes. Eventually they emerged from the thicket and were able to walk onto the deck attached to the back of the house. They began to use the imaging device and were getting remarkably high readings. Just then they realized that, from that vantage point, they could see directly into the kitchen at the back of the house. They saw Nina and a friend having coffee and, immediately next to them, were several pots with marijuana growing in them. The police decided to confront Nina and went to the door and rang the bell. Nina hollered, "Who is it" and, at that, the officers raced in and seized the marijuana plants in the pots. In a subsequent prosecution for possession of marijuana, Nina moves to exclude the marijuana found in the pots seized from the kitchen. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. The marijuana will be admissible because the heat readings gave the police probable cause to believe a major marijuana operation was underway in Nina's house. B. The marijuana will be admissible because the police made plain view observations of the marijuana from outside the house, and they were justified in seizing it immediately because Nina and her friend would destroy the evidence before a warrant could be secured. C. The marijuana will be excluded because police went beyond the open fields of the house, and Nina's reasonable expectation of privacy was intruded upon. D. The marijuana will be excluded because the police entered the house without consent. E. The marijuana will be excluded because the police unreasonably interpreted Nina's remark of "Who's there" to be consent to enter.

C. The marijuana will be excluded because police went beyond the open fields of the house, and Nina's reasonable expectation of privacy was intruded upon.

Police Officers responded to a radio broadcast about a forcible theft of a wallet from Rye Allen, the victim, who provided a description of the suspect. They stopped a car driven by Leland Jordan who matched the description of the robber. In the car, the police found the stolen wallet, a knife, and a gun. In the preceding weeks and in the same general vicinity, there had been a series of robberies at gas stations, cash machines, and restaurants. Jordan was formally charged with one count of robbery in connection with the forcible theft of Rye Allen's wallet, arraigned on that charge, and released on bail. Shortly after his release, the prosecutor in the case sought a court order directing Jordan to appear in a line-up. His attorney was also notified, and she appeared with her client on the appointed day. Jordan was placed in a line-up with five other men who resembled him in appearance but were all somewhat shorter. Jordan's attorney objected vigorously and insisted that the police find other participants who were of the same height. The police officers told her "to pipe down," and called in, one at a time, Rye Allen and the nine other persons who had been robbed in other incidents. The witnesses were told to take their time and simply indicate that they had made an identification or they had not. After all nine had separately viewed the lineup, the line-up participants, including Jordan, were excused, and the witnesses were asked to remain so that the police could talk to them at greater length. Jordan's attorney insisted that she be allowed to remain to observe the conversations with the witnesses. The police refused, and she was ordered out of the room. Most of the witnesses, including Rye Allen, made a positive identification of Jordan. Jordan was subsequently charged with six counts of robbery, one involving the wallet and five involving some of the earlier incidents. At his trial, his attorney objected to the introduction of the pretrial identifications, claiming a violation of Jordan's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The trial court denied the request to suppress the pre-trial identification evidence and also denied defense counsel's request to introduce expert testimony from a professor of psychology regarding the reliability of eyewitness identifications. Jordan was convicted of all counts and has appealed. Regarding Jordan's motion to exclude the line-up identification evidence as a violation of his 6th amendment right to counsel: A. The motion should have been granted because Jordan's attorney was not permitted to remain for the discussion between the police and the witnesses. B. The motion should have been granted because Jordan's attorney identified flaws in the line-up procedures (the relative height of the defendant compared to the other participants), but her objections were ignored. C. The motion should have been denied because Jordan's attorney was present to observe the confrontation of the defendant with the witnesses, and the right to counsel does not apply to witnesses' interviews after the line-up. D. The motion should have been denied because no right to counsel had attached to any of the charges Jordan faced. E. Even if Jordan's right to counsel had been violated in part, the motion should have been denied because, at trial, a full opportunity to conduct cross-examination would disclose any improprieties that occurred.

C. The motion should have been denied because Jordan's attorney was present to observe the confrontation of the defendant with the witnesses, and the right to counsel does not apply to witnesses' interviews after the line-up.

In November seven members of the Del Ray Police Narcotics Squad arrested Steven Matt in his grocery store, Matt's Market. The officers had a valid arrest warrant, but, although they had probable cause to search and were in the process of securing a search warrant, they did not yet have a warrant to search the premises. Because they received credible information that Matt might be armed, the officers entered the store with weapons drawn. The few customers in the store were escorted out, and Matt, who was behind the counter, was seized, handcuffed, and informed of his Miranda rights. With matters in hand, the officers holstered their weapons. The officers then told Matt they would like to search his store and asked for his consent. At first Matt said nothing, and one of the officers said, "Look, you do what you want. We have sufficient information to get a search warrant and will secure one by this afternoon or tomorrow." Matt then said, "I want to talk to my lawyer." He went to a telephone and tried twice, unsuccessfully, to reach his lawyer. After hanging up, Matt said to the officers, "Look I know what you are here for," and led the officers to a stash of marijuana behind the counter. The officers seized the drugs and said, "well, that's nice, but we still want to search the whole store." Matt then agreed to let them search, and they uncovered cocaine in some boxes at the back of the store. Later, while in custody at the police station, Matt was approached for the first time by two officers from the Vice Squad who wanted to question him about a gambling operation they believed he was running out of his store. They administered Miranda warnings, and Matt agreed to talk and made incriminating statements. Matt also faces drug charges in connection with the cocaine found in his store. He has moved to exclude the admission of the drugs, arguing that he never voluntarily gave consent for a search. The district court should: A. Grant the motion because the officer's statements about getting a warrant rendered my consent invalid. B. Grant the motion because, once Matt said he wanted a lawyer, consent could not be valid until a lawyer was present, or at least until Matt had an actual opportunity to consult with a lawyer. C. Grant the motion because, once a person is in custody, he is rendered unable to give voluntary consent. D. Deny the motion because the officers did not threaten or deceive Matt; they had probable cause to obtain a search warrant, and were in fact, in the process of obtaining the warrant. E. Deny the motion because Matt had been Mirandized and, therefore, knew that he did not have to say anything to the police, give consent, or say anything at all.

D. Deny the motion because the officers did not threaten or deceive Matt; they had probable cause to obtain a search warrant, and were in fact, in the process of obtaining the warrant.

Yasmin and Betty were driving down Route 66 in Yasmin's red pick-up truck. They were headed to the beach and had thrown their bags in the open flatbed back of the truck. Each had a large canvas duffel bag with her name flamboyantly embroidered on each side. Officer Brig stopped the truck after seeing it sway across the center line of the highway. Upon approaching the vehicle, Officer Brig smelled the odor of marijuana coming from the cab of the truck. He asked Yasmin and Betty to step out of the vehicle, took down their names, and directed them to stand apart, each one positioned at one of the truck's front headlights. Officer Brig then visually inspected the interior of the cab and opened and examined containers, such as a toolbox and a can of tennis balls. He found nothing to account for the marijuana smell. He then approached Yasmin and asked for her driver's license and registration. Yasmin appeared nervous and said, "Well I suppose you have your suspicions. Let me just admit that, yes, I had been smoking a marijuana joint, but I tossed it out the window just before you pulled us over. I don't want any trouble and Betty here is a good kid—she's never even tried a joint." Hearing this, Officer Brig looked again inside the cab and then went to the back of the truck. He began feeling the outside of the canvas bags, pressing and manipulating the contents. With Betty's bag, he pressed and pushed the outside of the bag so thoroughly that he was sure he felt a brick of marijuana. He then opened Betty's bag, retrieved a brick of marijuana, and arrested both women for possession of marijuana. Prior to her trial on possession of marijuana Betty moves to suppress the brick of marijuana. The trial court should: A. Grant the motion because Officer Brig's manipulation of the bags amounted to a search, and although he had probable cause to search the cab and the containers within, he lacked probable cause to believe that he would find evidence of a crime in the bags in the open flatbed back of the truck. B. Grant the motion because, although Officer Brig may have had probable cause to search Yasmin's belongings, either in the cab or the flatbed back, he had no probable cause to search Betty's possessions which were plainly marked with her name. C. Deny the motion because Officer Brig had reasonable suspicion to believe there were drugs in the vehicle, and his manipulation of the canvas bags was in reasonable proportion to the level of suspicion and the minor intrusion it involved. D. Deny the motion because the smell of marijuana and Yasmin's admission gave the officer probable cause to believe there was marijuana in the truck, and he was entitled to search all containers that could contain it. E. Deny the motion because, once Yasmin and Betty put their bags in the open flatbed area of the truck, any one could have handled them and so, neither of them had any expectation of privacy related to Officer Brig's touching or feeling of the outside.

D. Deny the motion because the smell of marijuana and Yasmin's admission gave the officer probable cause to believe there was marijuana in the truck, and he was entitled to search all containers that could contain it.

"Robin Tiefer suffered bouts of mental illness. At particularly acute periods, she experienced hallucinations, heard voices, and became delusional. During these periods, she might appear quite normal, oriented to time and space, although sometimes she might also appear subdued or agitated. During one of her periods of illness, she became convinced that she was compelled by a vengeful god to follow divine instructions. Following these instructions, she walked into the third precinct station house and told the desk sergeant that five years ago she murdered her newborn baby, incinerated the remains, and sprinkled the ashes in her garden. The sergeant was astounded. He asked Ms. Tiefer to sit down, and he proceeded to ask her questions about the crime. Ms. Tiefer appeared coherent and rational. She provided details of the event, and at the conclusion of her account, the sergeant said, "Well, I'm going to have to arrest you, Ma'am." The sergeant placed her in a cell and, 15 minutes later, Detective Johnston arrived and told Ms. Tiefer that he wanted to ask her some questions. He read her the Miranda warnings, and asked her if she was willing to waive her rights. She said, "Yes, I am here to do god's will." She then answered questions, again confessing to the murder of her child. At a hearing to determine the admissibility of her incriminating statements to the sergeant and the detective, uncontradicted expert testimony established that, at the time she spoke to both officers, she was in a psychotic state and suffering from serious mental illness. The medical experts explained that Ms. Tiefer suffered from "command hallucinations" which interfered with her volitional abilities and disabled her from making free and rational choices. They also testified that she was so detached from reality that she could not understand the rights she had when she was advised that she could remain silent, her words could be used against her, or that she was entitled to have the presence of a lawyer." The defendant has moved to exclude all of her statements. The district court should: A. Grant the motion in its entirety because Ms. Tiefer was acting involuntarily and the use of any of her statements would violate Due Process of Law. B. Deny the motion in its entirety because none of the problems Ms. Tiefer was experiencing were caused by the police and, there was, therefore no state action. C. Grant the motion but only with respect to the statements made to the sergeant because Ms. Tiefer was questioned by the sergeant before she was advised of her Miranda rights. D. Grant the motion but only with respect to the statements made to the detective because Ms. Tiefer did not validly waive her Miranda rights. E. Grant the motion but only with respect to the statements made to the detective because Ms. Tiefer was never advised that the statements she made to the sergeant were inadmissible, and she may have agreed to answer the detective's questions because the "car was out of the bag"

D. Grant the motion but only with respect to the statements made to the detective because Ms. Tiefer did not validly waive her Miranda rights.

Marlene, the next door neighbor, came over to Nick's apartment to use the phone. Marlene called Janice, and the two of them had a whispered conversation about Nick and his friend Tony. During the conversation, the two incriminated themselves and Nick and Tony in a conspiracy to illegally import endangered birds from Brazil. As it happens, however, the police placed a tap on the phone. The police had extensive evidence, far more than probable cause, to establish that the 4 were involved in an illegal importation scheme, but at that point, they were delayed by other pressing business and had not yet completed the paperwork to obtain a warrant for the tap. Assume all four are tried, separately, for conspiracy to violate federal import statutes. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. All four have standing to object to the illegal tap. B. Only Nick, as the owner of the phone, has standing to object to the illegal tap. C. Only Marlene and Janice, as the participants in the conversation, have standing to object to the illegal tap. D. Only Tony lacks standing to object to the illegal tap. E. None of the four can object to the tap because the police had probable cause, and they would have inevitably secured the warrant.

D. Only Tony lacks standing to object to the illegal tap.

Marlene, the next door neighbor, came over to Nick's apartment to use the telephone. Marlene called Janice, and the two of them had a whispered conversation about Nick and his friend Tony. During the conversation, the two incriminated themselves and Nick and Tony in a conspiracy to illegally import endangered birds from Brazil. As it happens, however, the police placed a tap on the telephone. The police had extensive evidence, far more than probable cause. to establish that the four were involved in an illegal importation scheme, but, at that point, they were delayed by other pressing business and had not yet completed the paperwork to obtain a warrant for the tap. Assume all four are tried, separately, for conspiracy to violate federal import statutes. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. All four have standing to object to the illegal tap. B. Only Nick, as the owner of the phone, has standing to object to the illegal tap. C. Only Marlene and Janice, as the participants in the conversation, have standing to object to the illegal tap. D. Only Tony lacks standing to object to the illegal tap. E. None of the four can object to the tap because the police had probable cause, and they would have inevitably secured the warrant.

D. Only Tony lacks standing to object to the illegal tap.

Raphael Trice was charged with assault with intent to commit robbery and illegal possession of a firearm. The government's evidence at trial showed that, just before 2pm on a Sunday afternoon, Earl Green was shot while walking near his residence. Green testified that Trice approached him and demanded that Green "give it up." Trice then shot green with a shotgun and ran away. Green, who was only grazed by the shot, immediately called 911 and, within minutes after the incident, identified Trice as the shooter. Green explained that he knew Trice from the neighborhood. He even gave the police the address where he was "pretty sure" Trice lived. Green accompanied the police down to the station to provide further information and, while there, an officer showed him a photo of Trice and said, "Is this the guy who robbed you?" Green said yes. A short time later, Detective Truman obtained an arrest warrant for Trice and arrested him in his home. While in the home, Detective Truman saw Trice's mother and several small children who apparently also lived in the home. Detective Truman escorted Trice to his police car where he read Trice the Miranda warnings and ask, "Do you want to answer any questions at this time?" and Trice replied emphatically, "No." Detective Truman then asked Trice for his full name, social security number, and whether he had any serious medical conditions. Truman then asked Trice, "I'd like to know where the shotgun is. There are little kids in your house. I don't want anyone to get hurt." Trice responded, "It's okay, I gave it back to the person I borrowed it from." Truman did not ask any more questions. Prior to trial, Trice moved to suppress any testimony related to Mr. Green's identification of his photograph at the police station and any in-court identification of Trice by Mr. Green. The trial court should: A. Disallow both the photo identification and the in-court identification because the photo identification was unnecessarily suggestive, and any in-court identification would be impermissibly influenced by the photo identification. B. Disallow both the photo identification and the in-court identification because Trice's 6th amendment right to counsel was not honored. C. Permit Mr. Green to testify as the photo identification because it was arguably reliable, but disallow any in-court identification because there is some risk of error, and jurors attach too much significance to such identifications. D. Permit Mr. Green to testify about the photo identification and to make an in-court identification. E. Permit Mr. Green to make an in-court identification but not to testify about the photo identification.

D. Permit Mr. Green to testify about the photo identification and to make an in-court identification.

On August 1, Detective Holmes was conducting an investigation of Moriarity. Moriarity had previously made a cocaine sale to Detective Holmes' colleague, Detective Watson, in the parking lot of Moriarity's apartment complex. Moriarity had arranged for another parking lot transaction with Watson to take place at 1pm on August 1. Holmes arranged to watch the transaction from an observation post across the street from the aprtment complex. From that post, Holdmes could see through a large glass window in Moriarity's building into the hallway outside Moriarity's apartment, but not into the apartment itself. At around the scheduled time of the sale, Holmes saw Moriarity and a friend, later identified as Pinky emerge from Moriarity's apartment. Holmes was not acquainted with Pinky and had no information concerning him. Moriarity and Pinky conversed briefly in front of the large window in the hallway outside of the apartment. Moriarity then entered the apartment alone while Pinky lingered momentarily at the window and then reentered Moriarity's apartment. Moriarity then left the apartment and met Watson in the parking lot and sold him a small amount of cocaine. Moriarity then returned to his apartment and approximately twenty minutes later, Moriarity and Pinky left the apartment and started walking up the street. Holmes and Watson then ran up to them, spun them around, frisked them, and placed them under arrest. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. The arrest of Moriarity and Pinky was unlawful because there was no emergency and no flight, and the police had ample opportunity to obtain a warrant. B. The stop and frisk of Moriarity and Pinky was lawful but, neither was, at the particular moment, subject to arrest. C. The detectives' failure to obtain a warrant for Moriarity's arrest on the earlier drug sale tainted the stakeout and the subsequent surveillance of Moriarity and Pinky. D. The arrest of Moriarity was lawful but the arrest of Pinky was not. E. The stop and frisk of Moriarity and the arrest of both was lawful.

D. The arrest of Moriarity was lawful but the arrest of Pinky was not.

After a magistrate refused to issue a search warrant for want of probable cause, the police, following their instincts that criminal activity was underway, went to a house registered under the names of Mr. and Mrs. Smith at 302 Broadway. Mr. Smith answered the door but declined to give the officers consent to search and slammed the door in the officers' faces. The police left and returned the next day, only Mrs. Smith was home. The officers truthfully told Ms. Smith that they were investigating illegal drug activity and then asked her for permission to search the house. Mrs. Smith said, "Well you are the police and I guess you can search if you want to. Come in." The police searched the house ultimately finding cocaine in the bedroom. Later, the police learned that at the time of the search, Mr. and Mrs. Smith were going through a messy divorce and that Mrs. Smith was only there to remove her belongings. Int eh trial of Mr. Smith for illegal possession of cocaine, which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. The cocaine is inadmissible against Mr. Smith because he did not consent to the search. B. The cocaine is admissible against Mr. Smith because he lacks standing to object to the search. C. The cocaine is inadmissible against Mr. Smith because the police lacked probable cause to search D. The cocaine is admissible against Mr. Smith because the search was made with consent. E. The cocaine is inadmissible against Mr. Smith because the police returned to the house after Mr. Smith refused to give consent knowing that he would not be present to object to the search.

D. The cocaine is admissible against Mr. Smith because the search was made with consent.

A Vermont statute requires all farms engaged in the production of maple syrup to register with the State Maple Syrup Board (MSB). Registered farms are by statute subject to periodic inspection to determine whether syrup production practices meet the high requirements set by the MSB. Boffo owned and operated a Vermont farm that produced maple syrup. But Boffo was engaged in more than maple syrup production. He was also growing marijuana on his property and had never actually registered with the MSB. Police had heard rumors about Boffo's drug activities but had nothing reliable to go on. Officer Friendly called MSB officials on their inspection of Boffo's farm. While on the inspection, Officer Friendly looked into various sheds and buildings hoping to find evidence of a marijuana growing operation. She found and seized 50 plants growing in a small garage 100 yards from Boffo's house. In his prosecution for possession of marijuana, Boffo has moved to exclude the marijuana plants. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. The evidence will not be excluded because the garage was not part of the curtilage. B. The evidence will not be excluded because it was discovered in the house of a lawful inspection of Boffo's farm. C. The evidence will not be excluded because Officer Friendly gained her vantage point from a spot where she was legally entitled to be. D. The evidence will be excluded because the search was pretextual, and Officer Friendly lacked probable cause and a warrant. E. The evidence will be excluded because Boffo was not registered under the statute was, therefore, not subject to syrup production inspections.

D. The evidence will be excluded because the search was pretextual, and Officer Friendly lacked probable cause and a warrant.

One morning Officers Gunny and Gander responded to a 911 call of a home being burglarized. Upon reaching the victim's home, they encountered the homeowner running toward them yelling, "they took my TV and everything!" The homeowner said that the perpetrators were teenagers who had just fled toward a house at the end of the block. The officers ran to the house and beneath an open rear window, found a box containing a TV and other household items. The officers entered the Mayberry Street house to see if the burglars, or other victims, may be inside. They found no one inside but did see a gun on the kitchen table. The officers then radioed headquarters to direct another officer to pick up the gun later, and they returned to the burglary victim to obtain more information. That afternoon, Officer Hunter entered the house, retrieved the gun, and determined that it was unregistered. Assuming someone has standing to raise the issue, which of the following statements most accurately and appropriately describes the admissibility of the unregistered gun? A. The gun is admissible because the police had probable cause to think that the burglars or other victims might be inside the Mayberry Street house, were in hot pursuit of the perpetrators, and saw the gun in plain view. B. The gun is admissible because the police entered the Mayberry Street house under exigent circumstances, and once they saw the gun, the owner no longer had any expectation of privacy with respect to it. C. The gun is inadmissible because the police had no probable cause to enter the Mayberry Street house since they had no description of the burglars and did not see them enter the premises. D. The gun is inadmissible because Officer Hunter did not obtain a warrant to seize the gun. E. The gun is inadmissible because initially the police should have secured the Mayberry Street house from the outside and waited for a warrant to enter.

D. The gun is inadmissible because Officer Hunter did not obtain a warrant to seize the gun.

While on routine patrol along Highway 80, police noticed Barney speeding and driving in a reckless manner. They pulled him over, and despite the fact that he appeared to be a frail and elderly gentleman and despite the fact that it was bitterly cold, the police ordered him out of the car. As Barney exited the car, several pieces of paper fell from his pocket and onto the ground. As Barney was standing near his vehicle and straightening himself up, Magnum, one of the officers, looked down at the papers and, seeing that they were stock certificates, wrote down the stock numbers and other identifying information. Officer Magnum also walked around the vehicle and peered through the windows. She saw more papers on the front seat and wrote down the numbers she saw displayed on these papers as well. The other officer, Kojak, approached Barney and told him he was under arrest for reckless driving. Because Barney seemed shaky on his feet, Officer Kojak asked him whether he had any alcoholic beverages to drink. Barney replied, "Well yes, I have just come from a party and let me tell you, the liquor was flowing pretty good over there." Officer Kojak then said, "Well consider yourself under arrest for drunk driving too." As Barney sat handcuffed in the patrol car, both officers searched the interior of the car and recovered a gun in the glove compartment. They also searched the trunk and opened several tightly rolled up paper bags and found marijuana. The slips that Officer Magnum observed on the front seat of Barney's car were betting slips. Barney is now charged with illegal gambling. Prior to his trial he moves to exclude Officer Magnum's testimony concerning the betting slips. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. The motion should be granted because the car stop was illegal, and the papers were a direct product of that illegality. B. The motion should be denied because Magnum never actually searched anything; the exclusionary rule applies to physical objects, like persons, houses, and effects. C. The motion should be granted because Magnum did not have any reasonable suspicion to think that there was criminality associated with the papers. D. The motion should be denied because Magnum observed and recorded the information about the betting slips without violating any of Barney's 4th Amendment rights. E. The motion should be granted because Magnum's actions amounted to a search, and she had no probable cause to view and record the numbers on the betting sips.

D. The motion should be denied because Magnum observed and recorded the information about the betting slips without violating any of Barney's 4th Amendment rights.

The police stopped a car containing four occupants almost immediately after receiving a report from a parking lot attendant that he had been robbed at gunpoint by two men. The car matched the description, and the description of the robbers matched two of the four occupants. Following the stopping of the automobile, the occupants were handcuffed and placed in a patrol car. The officers then searched the passenger compartment of the car and found a bag under the driver's seat. The officers felt the outside of the bag and noted that the items inside did not feel like a weapon but proceeded to open it anyway. Upon opening the bag, the officers found the proceeds of the robbery. The officers, wanting to locate the guns, then unlocked the trunk and found two handguns. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. The search is invalid because, although it was incident to the arrest, the items seized were beyond the control of the suspects. B. The search of the passenger compartment was valid but the search of the locked trunk exceeded the scope of the officers' lawful authority. C. The search of the passenger compartment of the car is invalid because the police were not permitted to open the bag once they determined that there were no weapons inside the subsequent search of the trunk was fatally tainted by the search of the passenger compartment. D. The search is valid because there was probable cause and the automobile exception applied. E. The search of the passenger compartment is valid because it was reasonable to believe that evidence of the robbery would be found therein but the search of the trunk is invalid because the police can never search the trunk during a search incident to arrest.

D. The search is valid because there was probable cause and the automobile exception applied.

Fire inspectors having no warrant but having probable cause to believe that a specific house contains fire code violations, enter the house without consent and conduct an inspection. They find the violations as expected. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. The search is proper as an administrative or regulatory search because, as such, it is sufficient that the fire inspectors had probable cause to believe the house contained fire code violations. B. The search is proper so long as the fire inspectors are acting pursuant to statutory authority and so long as they conduct the searches on a regularized, systematic, and non-arbitrary basis. C. the search is proper if there was probable cause and if the code violations were criminal and not just administrative in nature. D. The search was improper because there was no warrant. E. The search was improper because administrative searches can only be conducted with consent--even though the withholding of consent can be a crime.

D. The search was improper because there was no warrant.

Clifford Bogel's brother was murdered in DC one day in early June. That very day, Bogel flew from CA to DC to make funeral arrangements. Three days later undercover officers saw a man, later identified as Clifford, run up and shoot a man on the street. Marty, the victim, was shot multiple times and collapsed and died on the sidewalk. The police chased after Bogel, he eluded them briefly, but they eventually captured him and placed him under arrest. At the station house, Detective Gonzalez wanted to question Bogel about Marty's murder and read Bogel the Miranda warnings. Bogel said he did not want to talk right then. Gonzalez then left the room and did not speak to Bogel again. About one hour later, Detective Parker asked Detective Gonzalez if he could speak to Bogel about the murder of his brother. Gonzalez told parker that he had read Bogel his Miranda warnings and that Bogel had invoked his right to silence and did not want to talk about the murder case against him. Neither detective had any reason to believe there was a connection between the two murders. Gonzalez then introduced Parker to Bogel, telling Bogel that Parker only wanted to talk to him about the murder of his brother. Gonzalez then left Parker alone with Bogel. Parker told Bogel that he was investigating the murder of his brother and that he wanted to talk to him only about that murder and not the murder that Bogel was charged with. Parker asked Bogel if he had any information about who might have shot his brother. Bogel asked about what others had told the police, and when Parker said no one seemed to know what happened, Bogel then said, "Let me tell you what happened." Bogel then explained his view of who killed his brother, and he went on to make incriminating statements about his involvement in the murder case against him. In the murder case against him, Bogel now seeks to suppress the incriminating statements he made to Detective Parker. Bogel claims the statements were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. The district court should: A. Supper the statements because Bogel invoked his right to silence and questioning him again within one hour did not scrupulously honor his rights. B. Suppress the statements because Detective Parker did not rewarn Bogel before he asked him the questions about this brother's murder. C. Suppress the statements because, once Bogel invoked his MIranda rights, further questioning could only take place with Bogel's lawyer present. D. Admit the statements because Bogel evinced a willingness and desire to engage in a discussion with Detective Parker. E. Admit the statements because the questions Detective Parker asked were not interrogation within the meaning of Miranda.

E. Admit the statements because the questions Detective Parker asked were not interrogation within the meaning of Miranda.

During the course of a murder investigation, Police developed evidence, including an eyewitness account and fingerprints on the candlestick used as the murder weapon, to believe that Col. Mustard murdered Mr. Green in the conservatory of Mustard's home. Police decided to arrest Col. Mustard but he had apparently gone into hiding. Police watched airports and train and bus depots and placed two officers to watch his home. One late evening, two weeks later, the officers watching Mustard's home observed Mustard enter a back door. Over the next hour, they saw him go to the kitchen, have a snack, and then go into an upstairs bedroom, put on pjs, and shut off the light. The police then entered the house and arrested Mustard without a warrant. They asked him no questions, took him to headquarters, and read him his Miranda warnings, and booked him. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. The arrest was valid because a warrant is not necessary when police arrest a dangerous fugitive who was avoiding capture. B. The arrest was invalid because the police lacked probable cause and a warrant. C. The arrest was valid because, had the warrant been obtained at the beginning of the investigation, it would have been stale, and had the police waited at the house to get a warrant, Mustard would have fled. D. The arrest was valid because under the murder crime scene exception, police permitted to enter premises where the murder occurred. E. Any statements made by Mustard in the house would have been inadmissible against him.

E. Any statements made by Mustard in the house would have been inadmissible against him.

Eleanore is visibly upset, reports to the police that she was just robbed of her purse while getting into her car outside of convenience store. She says the suspect ran away in the direction of town. Police drive her around the neighborhood, and when she spots Drummond, she says, "That's the man who robbed me." The police arrest Drummond, search his person, and find cocaine. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. The police should have detained Drummond under Terry v. Ohio while they sought an arrest and search warrant. B. Eleanore's identification must be suppressed because Drummond was not provided with a lawyer at this pretrial identification procedure. C. Eleanore's identification is inadmissible because the police did not stage a lineup. D. Since Eleanore's account to the police mentioned only the details of the robbery and did not provide the police with a detailed description of Drummond, there was no probable cause for Drummond's arrest. E. Even though Eleanore has had no previous dealings with the police and thus no track record of reliability, as an ordinary citizen in these circumstances, Eleanore is presumed reliable.

E. Even though Eleanore has had no previous dealings with the police and thus no track record of reliability, as an ordinary citizen in these circumstances, Eleanore is presumed reliable.

Police were called to a local convenience store where they made an on-the-scene arrest of Tommy Henderson for robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. The police had no warrant but witnesses' accounts gave them probable cause to believe that Henderson brandished a gun and forcibly took money from two of the store's customers. Henderson was booked and charged with two counts of robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm. Under applicable state procedure, Henderson was brought before a magistrate within twenty four hours. At this initial appearance, there was no determination of probable cause, but Henderson was informed of the charges against him, advised that he was entitled to a preliminary hearing within thirty days, and bail was set at $5,000. Although Henderson was not asked to enter a plea, or indeed not invited to say anything, he interrupted the judge to say, "I shouldn't be here without a lawyer. My cousin is a layer. I'd like to call him. Otherwise, I need a public defender because I don't have any money." The judge simply said: "There will be time enough for that later, Mr. Henderson; we have other business at the point." Henderson, unable to make bail, was remanded to the custody of the local police. Three days later, Henderson was given Miranda warnings and interrogated about the incident at the convenience store. He waived his rights and, after talking with the police officers for about thirty minutes, made incriminating statements. If Henderson brought a declaratory judgement action claiming he was entitled to a judicial hearing on the issue of whether there was probable cause to arrest and hold him, which of the following is the government's strongest argument to defeat his claim? A. Immediately after Henderson's arrest, the prosecutor filed an information reciting the basic facts on which the charges were based. B. The day after Henderson's appearance before the Magistrate, the court released Henderson from custody on the condition that he wear a monitoring bracelet and remain at home. C. There was no further need to establish probable cause because the police had made a public place arrest and their factual basis was obtained from information furnished by reliable eyewitnesses. D. Under the applicable state procedures, Henderson was advised of his right to have a preliminary hearing within thirty days, but having failed to request such a hearing, he waived any further preliminary proceedings. E. Immediately after Henderson's arrest, the grand jury handed up an indictment charging Henderson with two counts of robbery and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm arising out of the convenience store incident.

E. Immediately after Henderson's arrest, the grand jury handed up an indictment charging Henderson with two counts of robbery and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm arising out of the convenience store incident.

Officer Jones is part of a new community outreach program of the police department. He is going from door to door to introduce himself to the neighborhood and develop a cordial relationship with the residents. He gets to Elmer's house, walks up the steps, and knocks on the front screen door. Through the open wooden door, he sees a marijuana plant growing in a pot on a table in the open. The house is silent, and no one answers his knock. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. Jones may seize the marijuana because it is in plain view. B. Jones may seize the marijuana because the owners have exhibited no reasonable expectation of privacy in it. C. Jones may seize the marijuana immediately because of the exigent circumstance that it may promptly be destroyed. D. jones has violated the Constitution by entering upon the property and the curtilage of the defendant's house without justification and without a warrant. E. Jones may apply for a search warrant using the evidence he obtained by looking through the open door because he violated no constitutional right in getting that information.

E. Jones may apply for a search warrant using the evidence he obtained by looking through the open door because he violated no constitutional right in getting that information.

Police officer Arlene Jenkins stopped Bobby Potter for speeding. Seated next to Potter in the front passenger seat was Daisy Lambert. Jenkins checked Potter's license and registration and, finding everything in order, wrote out a ticket. She was about to hand the ticket to Potter when she noticed that Potter was sweating and fidgeting and appeared extremely nervous. Jenkins suspected that Potter had illegal drugs on him. She directed him to step out of the vehicle and began to search him. She found a small crack pipe in his jacket pocket, and said, "What is this?" Potter replied, "It is my crack pipe. I smoke crack. I am an addict, if you must know." Hearing that, Jenkins ordered Potter's passenger out of the car and searched the entire interior of the car including Daisy Lambert's handbag which was on the floor of the front passenger's side of the car. Before the search, Ms. Lambert called out, "Wait just a minute, now. That's my bag and I insist you give it to me right now." Officer Jenkins ignored the comments, conducted the search, and found cocaine in the handbag. If Ms. Lambert is tried for possession of cocaine, what is the most likely outcome of her motion to suppress the drugs found in her handbag? A. The drugs will be excluded because Officer Jenkin's search incident to the arrest of Mr. Potter did not lawfully include Ms. Lambert's personal items which she specifically identified as belonging to her. B. The drugs will be excluded because Officer Jenkins did not have reasonable suspicion to search Mr. Potter, and all other evidence was derivative of that illegality. C. The drugs will be admissible because Officer Jenkins had probable cause to search Mr. Potter for drugs and to act for his own safety; once Officer Jenkins discovered the crack pipe and Potter made his admissions, Officer Jenkins had probable cause to search the car and all containers within it for drugs. D. The drugs will be admissible because Ms. Lambert, as a mere passenger, has no standing to complain of a search of Mr. Potter, Mr. Potter's vehicle, or any containers she voluntarily placed in the vehicle. E. The drugs will be admissible because Ms. Lamber has no standing to complain of the search of Mr. Potter and, after the search of Mr. Potter and his admissions, Officer Jenkins had probable cause to search the interior of the vehicle and all containers, including the handbag, where drugs could be found.

E. The drugs will be admissible because Ms. Lamber has no standing to complain of the search of Mr. Potter and, after the search of Mr. Potter and his admissions, Officer Jenkins had probable cause to search the interior of the vehicle and all containers, including the handbag, where drugs could be found.

While on routine patrol along Highway 80, police noticed Barney speeding and driving in a reckless manner. They pulled him over, and despite the fact that he appeared to be a frail and elderly gentleman and despite the fact that it was bitterly cold, the police ordered him out of the car. As Barney exited the car, several pieces of paper fell from his pocket and onto the ground. As Barney was standing near his vehicle and straightening himself up, Magnum, one of the officers, looked down at the papers and, seeing that they were stock certificates, wrote down the stock numbers and other identifying information. Officer Magnum also walked around the vehicle and peered through the windows. She saw more papers on the front seat and wrote down the numbers she saw displayed on these papers as well. The other officer, Kojak, approached Barney and told him he was under arrest for reckless driving. Because Barney seemed shaky on his feet, Officer Kojak asked him whether he had any alcoholic beverages to drink. Barney replied, "Well yes, I have just come from a party and let me tell you, the liquor was flowing pretty good over there." Officer Kojak then said, "Well consider yourself under arrest for drunk driving too." As Barney sat handcuffed in the patrol car, both officers searched the interior of the car and recovered a gun in the glove compartment. They also searched the trunk and opened several tightly rolled up paper bags and found marijuana. The securities that had fallen out of Barney's pocket turned out to be stolen, and Barney faces prosecution for possession of stolen securities. Barney now moves to exclude Officer Magnum's testimony concerning the stolen securities. Which of the following statements is the most accurate and appropriate? A. The evidence should be excluded because the police acted unreasonably in ordering Barney, an elderly and frail individual, out of the car and into the bitter cold; the securities would not have fallen to the ground if Barney remained in the car. B. The evidence should be excluded because the police did not give Barney an opportunity to pick up the securities before Officer Magnum quickly copied down the identifying information. C. The evidence should be admitted because Barney did not immediately retrieve the securities and police could reasonably assume he had abandoned them. D. The evidence should be admitted because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy concerning the details of public documents such as securities. E. The evidence should be admitted because the officer made the observations from a lawful vantage point.

E. The evidence should be admitted because the officer made the observations from a lawful vantage point.

Because of several anonymous calls to police headquarters, the police suspected that Johnny, 21 years old and living at home with his parents, was responsible for the murder of a 13 year old boy named Emory. Two officers went to Johnny's house and, being admitted by Johnny's father, told the father that they had come to talk to Johnny about the murder of Emory. They falsely told the father that they had conclusive evidence, including fingerprints, linking Johnny to the crime. The father then hollered to his son to come down from his room. No sooner had Johnny entered the living room than his father began beating him. As the police looked on, the father punched him and slapped him screaming, "you killer! you no good bum!" The son then screamed--"No, no, no! Dad, wait, it was an accident. I can explain!" At that point, the officers pulled Johnny away from his father and placed him under arrest. Once at the police station, the officers placed Johnny in an interrogation room and read Johnny his Miranda rights. Eventually, the police obtained a full written confession from Johnny. Assume Johnny's lawyers file a motion to exclude Johnny's statements at home. The strongest argument in support of such a motion is... A. The statements are inadmissible because Johnny was never given an opportunity to invoke his Miranda rights. B. The statements are inadmissible because the police obtained consent to enter the home on false pretenses. C. The statements are inadmissible because the police had no probable cause to pursue Johnny at his home, and all of the statements were a product of that illegality. D. The statements are inadmissible because the police lied about the evidence they had against Johnny. E. The statements are inadmissible because they were coerced by the father whom the police effectively used as their agent.

E. The statements are inadmissible because they were coerced by the father whom the police effectively used as their agent.

When is a "no-knock" warrant justified?

Reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.

A state may constitutionally criminalize the refusal to submit to this form of testing for the presence of alcohol in a driver's system

a breath test

where a detention can be based on nothing more than "apparent Mexican ancestry"

a fixed inland border checkpoint

what is the permissible scope of a terry frisk

a pat down of the outer clothing for the presence of weapons

Basis for a terry stop

a police officer's reasonable belief that criminal activity is afoot and that the suspect is armed and dangerous

what constitutes a seizure of a person

a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the encounter

What type of error is committed when an attorney countermands a client's decision to testify?

a structural error

the prerequisite for application of the emergency aid exception

an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury.

Interrogation

any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect

interrogation with a terry stop does not require Miranda warnings because it does not constitute

custody

once the 6th amendment right attaches, an informant actively working with the government CANNOT do this:

deliberate elicitation

Probable cause involves ___ that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.

fair probability

Test for the sufficient of a non-verbatim Miranda advisement

full effective equivalent

Open field doctrine

holds that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy to areas beyond the curtilage of the home

for a tip to form a basis for reasonable suspicion, it must be reliable in its assertion of this, not just its tendency to identify a determinate person:

illegality

the two types of searches where the officer's motive is a consideration

inventory and checkpoint searches

An informant's elicitation from a suspect would violate the suspect's 5th amendment rights if the suspect's responses were

involuntary

what is the area of a vehicle that may be searched incident to the lawful arrest of a recent occupant?

passenger compartment

What is the level of proof required to open a closed container located in the trunk of a car?

probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime.

A fleeing suspect is not seized even though there was a show of authority because he failed to

submit to the show of authority

when a defense attorney fails to notify a client of a plea offer, the client must show this to recover for ineffective assistance

that the plea offer would have been accepted by the defendant, adhered to by the prosecution and accepted by the trial court

test for whether two offenses are one for purposes of analyzing the offense-specific nature of the 6th amendment

the Blockburger test: whether each requires proof of a fact the other does not

The two competing policies that must be balanced to determine whether to apply the exclusionary rule

the benefits of deterrence and the social costs, principally letting a guilty and possibly dangerous defendant go free

When does the 6th amendment right to counsel attach?

the initiation of formal proceedings

Who has the burden to establish an exception to the exclusionary rule?

the prosecution

A search incident to arrest is no longer authorized after

the suspect no longer has access to the interior of the vehicle (cuffed and stuffed)

the permissible scope of a search incident to lawful arreest:

the suspect's person and the area from within which he might have obtained either a weapon or something that could have been used as evidence against him.

Jones resurrected the idea that this intentional tort can result in a 4th amendment search.

trespass

A drug dog sniff of a vehicle incident to a routine traffic stop would be impermissible if an officer did this.

unnecessarily prolonged the stop

the totality of the circumstances inquiry for probable cause based on an anonymous tip should include

veracity basis of knowledge

The test for validity of a consent search

voluntariness under the totality of the circumstances

the test for the admissibility of a subsequent Mirandized statement after an initial statement taken in violation of Miranda is whether the second statement was made:

voluntary

test for whether a terry stop has gone on too long

whether the police acted diligently to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly