Crim Pro Quizzes (1-6)

Lakukan tugas rumah & ujian kamu dengan baik sekarang menggunakan Quizwiz!

A supplier of a chemical compound used in processing methamphetamines contacted police about a large order of the chemical placed by Defendant. Aware that Defendant would be picking up several 50 gallons drums of the chemical in the near future, police brought the supplier a 50 gallon drum of the chemical that included a tracking device in a hidden compartment and the supplier gave this drum to Defendant. Over the next two days, Officer learned where Defendant went throughout the day and was able to set up surveillance at those locations. Defendant did not travel on private property during the period of surveillance. Based on those observations, Officer developed probable cause that Defendant was producing methamphetamine in a garage. Officer secured a search warrant for the garage. Thereafter, Officer conducted a search of the garage, resulting in the seizure of a large quantity of methamphetamines. Prior to his trial for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following answers best describes how the court should rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. The Court has upheld similar police conduct on the ground that it does not amount to a search when the police use technology to discover what one knowingly exposes to the public. The court should deny the motion. B. When the police placed the tracking device in the 50 gallon drum, it constituted a trespass and hence was a search. Lacking probable cause, the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The court should grant the motion. C. When the police placed the tracking device in the 50 gallon drum, they unlawfully seized Defendant's property without a warrant or probable cause. The court should grant the motion. D. The police conduct violated Defendant's reasonable expectations of privacy by following his activities for two days. As a result, the court should grant the motion.

After local officials conducted a hearing on drug trafficking in their area, the chief of police implemented a policy whereby police routinely set up a roadblock to stop motorists. Police followed a standard procedure whereby they stopped every motorist, asked each motorist about the presence of drugs in the vehicle. Officers were trained to look for telltale signs of drug use or drug trafficking and to detain only those who fit the relevant profile. The average time of each stop was less than two minutes. When based on their training, Officers identified Defendant as a drug trafficker, Defendant was asked to pull off to the side of the road where a drug-sniffing dog signaled the presence of narcotics. The immediate search of the vehicle resulted in the seizure of a large amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. Because the roadblock in this case had the primary purpose of detecting criminal activity - drug-trafficking - and not highway safety, it violates the Fourth Amendment. The court should grant the motion. B. Because police are legitimately concerned about drivers who are under the influence of narcotics, the program does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court should deny the motion. C. The use of the drug dog, a frightening and unexpected presence at a checkpoint, heightened the intrusion on the individual liberty to make the checkpoint unreasonable. The court should grant the motion. D. The roadblock in this case is a reasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment because the important government interest in curbing drug trafficking outweighs the brief intrusion on individual liberty. The court should deny the motion.

DEA Agent observed Defendant deplane her incoming flight from Miami, Florida. She was the last person off the flight and appeared nervous. With their suspicions aroused, Agent and his partner approached Defendant in the concourse, identified themselves, and asked to see her identification. The agents asked her how long she had been in Florida and what the purpose of her trip had been. She explained that she had been there only for a day and had gone to a seminar. When she could not name the location of the seminar, Agent retained her identification and asked her to accompany the agents to an interview room, located only about 50 feet from where they were standing. She went with the agents. Once there, her luggage was brought to the room and Agent asked if Defendant would allow him to search the luggage. She said, "Go ahead." Agent found a packet of heroin in a suitcase. After her indictment for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? A. Given all of the surrounding circumstances, Defendant was under arrest when she was moved from the concourse to the interview room. The court should grant the motion because there was no probable cause to justify the arrest. B. The consent to search was unrelated to any detention. The court should deny the motion. C. Agents had reasonable suspicion to detain Defendant because she fit the drug courier profile. Based on that alone, the search was proper. The court should deny the motion. D. Given all of the surrounding circumstances, Defendant was still free to leave when she was moved from the concourse to the interview room. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant was staying at an acquaintance's apartment. Officer received a radio call notifying Officer of a recent armed robbery. Suspecting the involvement of Defendant and his acquaintance, Officer and a backup team entered the apartment and searched the apartment for the two men. During the course of the search for the men, Officer located a shotgun similar to one used in the robbery. On trial for armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. The state claims that Defendant cannot object to the police conduct. Which of the following answers is the most accurate in light of Supreme Court precedent? A. As an overnight guest, Defendant can object to the police conduct. B. Because Defendant was an object of the police search, he can object to the police conduct. C. Because the police conduct was so egregious, the Court has held under similar facts that anyone affected by the conduct may object to the Fourth Amendment violation. D. Defendant lacked a sufficient interest in the premises to object to the police conduct.

Defendant was under investigation for the sexual assault and murder of his step-daughter. In jail on other charges, Defendant was befriended by Snitch, who was posing as a convicted mob boss but working undercover for the police. The police asked Snitch to find out what he could about the sexual assault and murder. During their daily routine, Snitch warned Defendant that other detainees were going to harm Defendant because he was suspected of being a child molester. Snitch offered to protect Defendant but only if he came clean about his crime. Defendant did so. At trial for murder, the state secured a conviction, in part, in reliance on Snitch's testimony about Defendant's admissions made to Snitch. On appeal, Defendant challenged the use of his statement to Snitch and has demanded a new trial. How should the court rule on Defendant's appeal? A. The court should rule that the statement was made involuntarily. It must also determine whether the state has carried its burden beyond a reasonable doubt that the erroneous admission did not affect the outcome at trial. B. The court should reverse Defendant's conviction because the statement was not preceded by Miranda warnings. C. The court should rule that the statement was made involuntarily. As a result, it must reverse Defendant's conviction and order a new trial. D. The court should rule that defendant's statement was voluntary. As a result, the court should uphold the conviction.

FBI Agent suspected Defendant, a union official, of extortion and other federal offenses. Agent arranged with other agents to search the Union's office. Arriving at the office without a warrant, Agent attempted to secure the consent of Defendant and other union members present in the office at the time. They refused. The search yielded many documents that implicated Defendant in extortion and other federal offenses. Charged with those crimes, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? A. Defendant has standing to challenge the search; on these facts, the agents violated the Fourth Amendment by failing to secure a warrant. The court should grant the motion. B. Defendant has standing to challenge the search but on these facts, the agents' conduct comes within an exception to the warrant requirement because the place searched was an office occupied by numerous employees. The court should deny the motion. C. Defendant lacks standing to challenge the search because he lacks an expectation of privacy in an office. The court should deny the motion. D. Defendant has standing to challenge the search. The court should grant the motion.

Officer arrested Defendant for armed robbery. During a post-arrest interrogation without Miranda warnings, Defendant admitted that he committed the crime and told the police where he left the weapon and proceeds of the crime. Based on that information, police found the physical evidence. Charged with armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the statements and the physical evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. A violation of Miranda does not require suppression of physical evidence gained as a result of a statement taken in violation of Miranda. The court should suppress the use of Defendant's statement, but not the physical evidence. B. The Court has held that the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine does not apply even if the court were to find that the confession was involuntary because such a holding assumes that the police would not have found the evidence anyway. The court should deny the motion in its entirety. C. Because Miranda is constitutionally based, the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine applies. The court should suppress both the statement and the physical evidence. D. Because Miranda is not constitutionally mandated, a violation of Miranda does not require suppression of the physical evidence or the statement. The court should deny the motion.

Officer developed probable cause to arrest Defendant for the sale of cocaine. When Officer arrested Defendant, Officer searched Defendant and removed an envelope and a flip-phone. After handcuffing Defendant, Officer looked at the paper and flipped open the phone. The paper revealed the names of individuals to whom Defendant had sold drugs; the flip-phone showed phone numbers of individuals who called Defendant about purchasing drugs. Charged with the sale of cocaine, Defendant has moved to suppress the use of the evidence taken from Defendant. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? A. The court should deny the motion as to the paper in light of cases upholding similar searches; but the court should grant the motion as to the flip phone because, in light of the extensive invasion of privacy, Officer needed to get a warrant to search the phone on these facts. B. The court should grant the motion with regard to the paper because Defendant could not have gained access to the paper when Officer examined the paper. The court should deny the motion as to the flip phone because cell phones are often used as weapons (for example, to trigger an explosive device) and therefore still represented a threat to Officer. C. The court should grant the motion because, when Officer performed the search, Defendant did not have access to the paper or phone and could not destroy the evidence. D. The court should deny the motion because both searches were justified as searches incident to a lawful arrest.

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant committed a particularly heinous murder. Officer spent two years searching for Defendant, who was successful in eluding the police. On the day of Defendant's arrest, Officer received a tip that Defendant was in his home. Officer set up surveillance and saw a man whom Officer recognized as Defendant appear at a bedroom window. Concerned that Defendant would elude him again, Officer called for backup units to join him. When those units arrived, Officer knocked on the front door. When no one responded after a few seconds, Officer used a battering ram to break into Defendant's home. Officer arrested Defendant in his bedroom and after handcuffing Defendant, found a handgun in a bedside table. Forensic evidence determined that the handgun was the murder weapon. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? A. An officer needs an arrest warrant to make an in-home arrest (and probable cause that the suspect is at home at the time of the entry). As a result, the court should grant the motion. B. Officer had probable cause to believe that Defendant was at home and, because he did not have time to secure a warrant, the arrest in Defendant's home was lawful. The court should deny the motion. C. Officer's probable cause had become stale between the date of the crime and the date of the arrest. As a result, the arrest was not based on probable cause. The court should grant the motion. D. The Court has held that the exclusionary rule does not apply when police violate the knock-and-announce rule. The court should deny the motion.

Officer suspected Defendant of conducting an illegal marijuana operation in his suburban home. Absent probable cause to secure a warrant, Officer and another officer, a member of the K-9 unit, brought a drug sniffing dog up to the front door of Defendant's home. After the dog signaled the presence of marijuana, Officer filled out a search warrant application and got it approved by a magistrate. Pursuant to the warrant, Officer searched Defendant's home, where Officer found a large stash of marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. The Court has held that amplification of the human senses does not amount to a search unless the "technology" is not in general use among members of the public. Because drug-sniffing dogs are a device not in general public use, the police conduct amounted to a search. The court should grant the motion. B. Because a dog sniff revealing only contraband does not violate a person's reasonable expectation of privacy, this was not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The court should deny the motion. C. The officers' conduct in bringing a drug-sniffing dog onto the curtilage of the home amounted to a trespass, rendering their conduct a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court should grant the motion. D. Because a home owner has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his home, any attempt by police to approach the front door amounts to a warrantless search. The court should grant the motion.

Officer suspected Defendant of selling methamphetamines, but did not have probable cause to arrest Defendant. When Officer saw Defendant driving his vehicle, Officer called into the police station to ask whether any outstanding warrants existed for Defendant's arrest. Checking the data base, a police department employee saw a warrant from a neighboring county's police data base. That warrant indicated that Defendant was wanted for failing to appear at a hearing on a traffic offense. Unbeknownst to Officer, the police department negligently failed to delete the warrant from the computer after Defendant had paid a fine. In reliance on the employee's report of an outstanding warrant, Officer arrested Defendant. During the subsequent search, Officer found methamphetamines on Defendant's person and found a book, indicating names of purchasers of methamphetamines. Charged with the sale of methamphetamines, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? A. The Court has held that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the error in reporting the warrant was merely negligent whether the mistake was made by a judicial or police employee. The court should deny the motion. B. Although Officer was entitled to rely on the warrant, he used the outstanding warrant as a pretext for an arrest and thereby violated the Fourth Amendment. The court should grant the motion. C. The Court has held that an officer can rely in good faith on a warrant, even if it should have been withdrawn, but only if the error was made by a judicial, not law enforcement, employee. The court should grant the motion. D. The Court has held that the exclusionary rule does not apply unless the Officer was acting intentionally in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court should deny the motion.

The police conduct a search of Barbara's house, entering at 2:00 a.m., a valid strategic move under existing law. By the time the case gets to trial, the Supreme Court has ruled that, in the absence of specific authorization in the warrant itself, such an entry would be invalid, and any evidence found will be inadmissible. Does the exclusionary rule bar the introduction of the evidence found at Barbara's house at trial? A. No, because the search of Barbara's house was consistent with established precedent at the time of the police search. B. Yes, because there are no exceptions to the exclusionary rule. C. None of these answers are correct. D. Yes, because the search of Barbara's house violated the Fourth Amendment.

The police investigate Eric in connection with a double homicide. Prior to Eric's trial, the police use an unnecessarily suggestive police procedure—a poorly designed lineup—to get a witness to identify Eric as the killer. Under which circumstances will the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment compel the exclusion of this identification evidence? A. If there is a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. B. If the police acted improperly when they constructed the lineup. C. None of these answers are correct. D. If a judge was not present for the lineup procedure that identified Eric as the killer.

Unable to determine whether Defendant was operating an illegal gambling operation, Officer asked one of his informants to get to know Defendant. Informant did so and told Officer that Defendant did maintain an apartment from which he conducted his activities as a bookie. Officer arranged to tape a phone conversation between Defendant and Informant. Informant called and placed a bet with Defendant. Charged with illegal gambling, Defendant has moved to suppress the conversation recorded by Informant on the grounds that the police conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation with a person who, as it turns out, is working with the police and was recording the conversation. The court should deny the motion. B. Taping the phone conversation violated Defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy. Absent a warrant, the police conduct violated Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. The court should grant the motion. C. Because there was no trespass into a constitutionally protected area, the police conduct did not violate Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. The court should deny the motion. D. Because the Fourth Amendment only protects persons, their homes and effects, the Court has held that mere words cannot be seized and thus are outside the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

Unable to develop probable cause to arrest Defendant for drug trafficking, Officer waited until he saw Defendant's vehicle parked illegally in a tow-away zone. Officer called for a tow truck and had Defendant's vehicle taken to an impoundment lot. There, he searched the vehicle. Feeling along the passenger seat, Officer felt a lump of something under the fabric. He used a knife to cut the material and there, he found a packet of heroin. Charged with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. Officer exceeded the scope of an inventory search and lacked probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime was located under the fabric. The court should grant the motion. B. The initial intrusion was proper as part of an inventory search and Officer developed probable cause once he felt the lump. The court should deny the motion. C. Officer's conduct was proper as an inventory search. The court should deny the motion. D. Officer's conduct was unreasonable because his seizure of the vehicle was a pretext. The court should grant the motion.

While Defendant was driving his car, he was broadsided by another motorist. Defendant's vehicle was totaled and Defendant was taken to the hospital. As Defendant was placed in an ambulance, Officer noticed that a pipe for smoking crack cocaine on the floor of the car and smelled the odor of crack on Defendant's clothing. After Defendant was removed from the scene and his car towed to Defendant's home, Officer conducted a search of the vehicle. In it, he found several packets of crack cocaine. Charged with possession of crack cocaine, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to dismiss? A. The Court has held that police do not need a search warrant to search a vehicle when they have probable cause. The court should deny the motion. B. Officer lacked probable cause to search the vehicle. The court should grant the motion. C. Given the vehicle's immobility, a warrant was required to justify a search. The court should grant the motion. D. The search was a proper inventory search. The court should deny the motion.

After a visit to Mexico, Defendant returned home to the United States by way of a checkpoint between Tijuana, Mexico and San Diego, California. At the border, Agent signaled Defendant to leave the line and to go to a special screening area. There, Agent ordered Defendant to a private area where another agent performed a strip search of Defendant. Agent also supervised a full examination of Defendant's vehicle, which included the removal of the gas tank. The strip search resulted in discovery of a large packet of cocaine within Defendant's underwear; the search of the vehicle netted a sizeable amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? A. The Court has held that border searches without any level of suspicion are reasonable only if they do not involve extensive intrusion into property or on the body of a person entering the country. The court should grant the motion. B. The Court has upheld similar searches of vehicles at the border without any level of suspicion, but has suggested that intrusive body searches must be based on some level of suspicion. The court should grant the motion with regard to evidence found on Defendant's body, but deny the motion as to evidence found in the vehicle. C. The Court has held that the scope of a search at the border depends on whether the person searched is a citizen. The Fourth Amendment does not apply to non-citizens, but only to the People, i.e., citizens of the United States. Thus, because Defendant was a citizen of the United States, the search was unlawful. The court should grant the motion. D. The Court has held that border searches are per se reasonable. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant lived in a rural area at the end of a country road. He installed a chain link fence around the property; he planted bushes along the fence and obscured the view from the roadway; and he placed "No Trespassing" signs on the fence. Inside the fenced area, in the middle of a field not far from his house, Defendant grew a sizeable amount of marijuana. Based on an uncorroborated tip that Defendant was growing marijuana, Officer drove to the edge of Defendant's property and entered the property. Once on the property, he noticed the marijuana plants. Thereafter, Officer secured a search warrant for Defendant's property. During the execution of the warrant, Officer and fellow officers seized the marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion in light of Supreme Court precedent? A. Because members of the public do not routinely enter into the fields of other persons, the entry by Officer was a violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy of the owner and hence a search without a warrant. The court should grant the motion. B. The marijuana was not in an area associated with the intimate activities of the home. As a result, entry onto the property was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court should deny the motion. C. Entering Defendant's property without a warrant was a trespass. As a result, the court should grant the motion. D. The officers should not have entered into a fenced-in area; that is always protected by the Fourth Amendment. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant owned a construction business. Inspector, an employee of the state's Occupational Safety and Health Agency, arrived at Defendant's business and demanded access to inspect for safety violations. Defendant attempted to deny Inspector access but acquiesced when Inspector showed him a copy of the state statute, requiring access for all businesses. During the course of Inspector's examination of the premises, he saw a sizeable amount of cocaine. Inspector called Officer and Officer, in reliance on that information, secured a search warrant for the premises. Officer executed the warrant immediately and seized the cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? A. The Court has characterized such entries as inspections, not searches. As a result, Inspector did not need a warrant to make his entry reasonable. The court should deny the motion. B. The Court has held that a warrantless search of a business premise pursuant to a health and safety regime is unreasonable. Instead, Inspector needs a warrant even if the warrant is based only a general administrative plan not individualized probable cause. The evidence found was the product of that illegality. The court should grant the motion. C. Inspector's entry was lawful because he entered a highly regulated business. But traditional Fourth Amendment requirements apply when an inspector comes upon evidence of criminal activity. The court should grant the motion. D. The Court has held that, because the construction trade is highly regulated, warrantless searches of such businesses are reasonable. Inspector saw the evidence in plain view and his communication of the information gave Officer probable cause to secure the warrant. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant, a sailor on shore leave, was involved in a fistfight in a bar that turned into a drunken brawl. Waking in jail in the morning, Defendant remembered the fight but little else. Officer approached Defendant, gave him Miranda warnings, and asked if Defendant waived his rights. Defendant, believing that he would be charged with simple battery, agreed to waive his rights and admitted that he hit another patron in the bar. Only later did he learn that the patron had died and Defendant was being investigated for murder. Charged with murder, Defendant moved to suppress his statement. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. Defendant's waiver was not a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to remain silent. The court should grant the motion. B. Defendant's waiver was knowing and intelligent despite not being told that he was being investigated for murder. The court should deny the motion. C. The police withholding of the crucial information that the man had died amounted to trickery in order to gain his waiver, hence his waiver was involuntary. The court should grant the motion. D. Because Defendant could not remember much about the previous night, he was not competent to waive his rights. The court should grant the motion.

In reliance on an informant's tip, Officer believed that Defendant was selling drugs from his home. The informant who had provided Officer information leading to prior convictions offered Officer considerable detail but did not tell him the source of his information. Officer took the warrant to Magistrate, who under state law, did not receive a salary but received $100 for each warrant that she issued and did not have to be a lawyer. After reading the warrant, Magistrate issued the warrant. During the execution of the warrant, Officer found a large quantity of narcotics in Defendant's home. Charged with possession of narcotics with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. Even if the warrant was invalid, Officer acted in reasonable reliance on the warrant. The court should deny the motion. B. The magistrate who issued the warrant was not neutral and detached because she got paid only if she issued the warrant. The court should grant the motion. C. The tip failed to demonstrate the underlying circumstances whereby the informant secured his information. As a result, the warrant lacked probable cause. The court should grant the motion. D. The Court has held that non-lawyer magistrates are not adequately trained to determine the existence of probable cause. The court should grant the motion.

Officer developed probable cause that Defendant murdered a rival gang member and that Defendant used a shotgun to kill his victim. After learning that Defendant resided with his parents, Officer secured a search warrant for their home. In the warrant, Officer failed to list the shotgun as evidence to be seized but listed only a distinctive sweater that Defendant was wearing at the time of the shooting as the items to be seized. During the course of the search, an officer entered Defendant's parents' bedroom where she found the sweater. She seized the sweater. Sometime later, another officer looked in Defendant's bedroom, where he found the shotgun. He seized the weapon. Prior to his trial for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? A. Entry into Defendant's parents' bedroom was permissible. As a result, the search for and discovery of the sweater was lawful. Further, on similar facts, the Court held that discovery of evidence, even if its exclusion from the warrant was not inadvertent, is permitted as long as it was in plain view. The court should deny the motion. B. Entry into Defendant's parents' bedroom was permissible. As a result, the search for and discovery of the sweater was lawful. But once officers found the evidence listed in the warrant, they should have ended their search. The court should deny the motion as to the sweater but grant it as to the shotgun. C. Entry into Defendant's parents' bedroom was unlawful. And once officers found the evidence listed in the warrant, they should have ended their search. The court should grant the motion. D. Because the search was of Defendant's parents' home, Defendant lacks standing to object to the search. The court should deny the motion.

Officer filled out a warrant for the search of Defendant's home, where, according to Officer, Defendant stored proceeds of a recent bank robbery. In the affidavit, Officer described in detail the items to be seized (including a large amount of cash, a particular weapon, and specific items of clothing). Officer failed to include that information in the warrant itself or include words of incorporation (i.e., Officer did not refer to the affidavit in the warrant). Magistrate signed the warrant. Based on the warrant, Officer executed a search of Defendant's home that led to the seizure of the items named in the affidavit. On trial for armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. On similar facts, the Court has found the warrant defective because it did not include the items to be seized, which is clearly required under the actual language of the Fourth Amendment. The court should grant the motion. B. Because the warrant did not cross-reference the affidavit, the court should grant the motion. C. On similar facts, the Court has held that because the officer who filed the affidavit executed the warrant, the search was lawful because he knew what items could properly be seized pursuant to the warrant. The court should deny the motion. D. On similar facts, the Court has upheld a defective warrant on the ground that because the magistrate signed the warrant, the officer acted in good faith in executing it. The court should deny the motion.

Officer lacked probable cause to arrest Defendant for drug trafficking. Officer arranged for Informant to wear a wire to see if Defendant would sell Informant a sizeable amount of cocaine. Defendant and Informant first met in a restaurant but then when they began to discuss the sale of cocaine, Informant suggested that they go to Defendant's home to avoid public scrutiny. Defendant agreed. While in Defendant's home, Informant and Defendant discussed the terms of the sale, a conversation that was transmitted to Officer, who was located nearby. After Defendant made the sale, Officer secured arrest and search warrants for Defendant and his home. The search netted a large amount of cocaine. Charged with the sale of cocaine, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? A. Because Defendant was unaware that Informant was wearing a wire, Informant's entry, under false pretenses as an invited guest, was a trespass. The court should grant the motion. B. Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation with a person who, unbeknownst to him, happens to be transmitting the conversation to the police. The court should deny the motion. C. Because Defendant invited Informant into his home, Informant was lawfully on the premises and could do what he wanted. The court should deny the motion. D. Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy that a conversation in his own home where no one could overhear would be transmitted to the police. The court should grant the motion.

Officer received a phone call from an anonymous caller who indicated that Defendant was standing at a bus stop and was wearing a plaid flannel shirt and blue jeans. The caller also said that Defendant was carrying an unregistered firearm on his person. Following up on the tip, Officer observed Defendant at the bus stop and approached him. The officer saw nothing that suggested possession of a weapon, but out of concern for his and others' safety, Officer patted down Defendant and located a loaded weapon in his waistband. Charged with the unlawful possession of a firearm, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. The level of detail provided in the tip, giving an exact location and clothing, showed sufficient reliability of the tipster once Officer corroborated the detail, thereby justifying the stop. The court should deny the motion. B. The amount of detail in the tip is far too little to justify stopping Defendant in the first instance. The court should grant the motion. C. Out of concern for officer and public safety, the Court has upheld a patdown in similar circumstances. The court should deny the motion. D. Officer lacked probable cause that Defendant was committing a crime. The court should grant the motion.

Officer stopped Defendant, a motorist, for a traffic violation. In the course of the stop, Officer began to think that Defendant might be involved in illegal drug activity. Officer asked Defendant to consent to a search of his vehicle. Believing that a person cannot say no to an officer's request, Defendant gave Officer permission to search the vehicle. Officer found a sizeable amount of marijuana in the trunk of the vehicle. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? A. Defendant's belief that he had to consent makes his consent involuntary. The court should grant the motion. B. Officer's conduct was lawful because Officer did not coerce Defendant into consenting. The court should deny the motion. C. Officer did not need consent as long as the stop of the vehicle was lawful. The court should deny the motion. D. Absent a warning that Defendant was entitled to refuse consent, Defendant's consent was not a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Fourth Amendment rights. The court should grant the motion.

Officer suspected Defendant of committing a recent burglary. Knowing that Defendant was on probation, Officer called Defendant's home to set up an interview with him. When no one answered, Officer left a voicemail asking Defendant to contact him. When Defendant called back, Defendant agreed to meet Officer at the police station. Once there, Officer took Defendant to an interview room where, without providing Miranda warnings, Officer discussed Defendant's involvement in the burglary. Not long after the interview began, Defendant admitted that he was involved in the crime. After the interview, Officer allowed Defendant to leave the stationhouse but later formally arrested him when Defendant was charged with burglary. Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. The Court has held that probationers are especially in need of Miranda warnings because being on probation makes them subject to the power of the police in ways that ordinary citizens are not. The court should grant the motion. B. Because Defendant went to the station voluntarily, the fact that the questioning took place in the police station without more does not make it custodial interrogation. The court should deny the motion. C. The Court has held that interrogation that takes place at a police station is custodial interrogation within the meaning of Miranda. The court should grant the motion. D. Because Officer allowed Defendant to leave the stationhouse, he was not in custody during the interview. The court should deny the motion.

Officer suspected but could not prove that Defendant was engaged in an illegal drug production operation or where Defendant had his drug operation. Working with a local seller of chemicals, some of which are used in the production of methamphetamines, Officer learned when Defendant ordered several drums of a particular chemical. Before seller shipped the chemical, Officer arranged to substitute a drum filled with the chemical and containing a beeper. After Defendant picked up the drums, Officer was able to track Defendant's movements. Trailing Defendant, Officer found Defendant's operation in a rural area. Officer was able to pinpoint the drum to a barn about fifty yards from a farmhouse where Defendant and his co-workers lived. To be sure that the chemical was used in drug production, Officer went onto the property and looked into an open barn. There, he saw and photographed evidence to establish probable cause that the chemicals were in fact being used in drug production. Officer then secured a warrant to search Defendant's property and seized evidence of drug trafficking. Charged with the illegal manufacture of methamphetamines, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. The Court has held that the use of a beeper does not violate the Fourth Amendment because beepers are widely available to the public. The court should deny the motion. B. Officer's conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The initial use of the beeper merely allowed Officer to learn what Defendant knowingly exposed to the public. Further, the barn was not within the curtilage. The court should deny the motion. C. Until Officer entered Defendant's property, Officer's conduct was lawful. But entering the curtilage without probable cause made his search unlawful. The court should grant the motion. D. The only illegality was the placement of the beeper in the drum of chemicals. That was a trespass. Lacking probable cause to trespass, Officer violated the Fourth Amendment. The court should grant the motion.

Officer was attempting to corroborate a tip that a courier was about to leave a sizable amount of heroin in the basement of a particular apartment building. Officer entered the basement of the building, accessible to anyone in the building. Officer's search in the basement did not reveal any heroin. Officer left briefly but returned an hour later and now found heroin in the basement. Officer asked the building superintendent if Officer could look at a security tape for that period of time. The superintendent allowed Officer to do so. During the hour when Officer was not present, three men entered the basement of the apartment building alone and at different times and any one of them could have been the courier. Shortly thereafter, Officer saw Defendant, one of the men whom he had seen in the video. Officer arrested Defendant in the common area in the apartment building where he lived and did a full body search of Defendant. The search revealed several packets of heroin. Charged with possession of heroin, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following answers offers the best explanation for how the court should resolve that motion? A. Officer needed to secure an arrest warrant to arrest Defendant because this was his home. As a result, the search was not justified as a search incident to lawful arrest and the court should suppress the evidence. B. Officer lacked probable cause to arrest Defendant. As a result, the search was not justified as a search incident to lawful arrest. As a result, the court should suppress the evidence. C. Officer's conduct in entering the basement area was an illegal search. As a result, the heroin discovered in the search incident to arrest is a fruit of the unlawful search. The court should suppress the evidence. D. Officer was not entitled to conduct a full body search when making an arrest absent suspicion that the suspect was armed. As a result, the search was not justified as a search incident to lawful arrest and the court should suppress the evidence.

Officer was called to the scene of an armed bank robbery and developed probable cause to arrest Defendant. Officer and his partner located Defendant and arrested him shortly after the robbery. Seeing a holster without a gun and concerned about the location of Defendant's weapon, Officer asked Defendant where the weapon was located. Defendant refused to tell them. In response, Officer, with weapon drawn, told Defendant that Defendant had no choice about whether Defendant would cooperate with the police and that he had to tell them where the weapon was located. In response, Defendant told them that he hid the weapon and showed Officer where he had hidden it. Charged with bank robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress his statement and the weapon. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. The public safety exception does not apply because on these facts, there was no possibility that the suspect could gain access to the weapon. The Miranda violation leads to a suppression of the statement and the weapon. The court should grant the motion in its entirety. B. Officer's words and actions render the statement involuntary. Because the statement was involuntary, discovery of the weapon was the illegal fruit of that violation. The court should grant the motion in its entirety. C. Officer's statement that Defendant was obligated to show where the weapon was located renders the statement involuntary. As a result, the court should suppress the statement. But the subsequent discovery of physical evidence is not the fruit of the poisonous tree. The court should deny the motion as to the weapon. D. Miranda warnings would not be required here because Officer is asking a question under the public safety exception. The court should deny the motion.

Police received a tip that Defendant, a suspect wanted in connection with a robbery that occurred the day before, was in a coffee shop. Several officers surrounded Defendant with their guns drawn. One officer placed Defendant in handcuffs and another, still with his weapon drawn and held three inches from Defendant's face, told him that he wanted to know where the weapon was that Defendant used in the robbery. Defendant indicated that it was in his attaché case, which was on a chair next to where Defendant was sitting. On trial for armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress his statement. Which of the following is the best answer ? A. The case comes within the public safety exception to Miranda. The court should deny the motion. B. The statement was involuntary. The court should grant the motion. C. The court should grant the motion to suppress the gun if it finds that the police conduct violated Miranda. D. The police did not have to give Miranda warnings because the suspect was not in custody when being questioned. The court should deny the motion.

Responding to an emergency call that someone had fired a weapon at a particular address, officers determined that the weapon was fired from Defendant's apartment and they entered the apartment. Defendant was inside and admitted to unlawful discharge of the weapon, and they placed him under arrest. Officer then looked further through the apartment to determine whether anyone who might have been injured was still in the apartment. While looking, Officer noticed an expensive stereo turntable that seemed out of place in the squalid apartment. To determine if it was stolen, he moved the turntable to locate its serial number on the back. He then called in the number and learned from an officer on duty that the turntable had been taken in a recent burglary. On trial for that burglary, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. The conduct did not amount to a Fourth Amendment search because it involved such a minor additional intrusion into Defendant's privacy. The court should deny the motion. B. Although lawfully inside the apartment, Officer engaged in an unlawful search when he moved the turntable to read the serial number. The court should grant the motion. C. Once lawfully inside the apartment, the stolen stereo equipment was in plain view and Officer was justified in seizing it. The court should deny the motion. D. Officer was not justified in continuing to look through the apartment after Defendant was arrested because he did not have probable cause to believe anyone was still on the premises. As a result, the discovered stolen stereo must be suppressed. The court should grant the motion.

San Francisco Police Officer noticed Defendant, a disheveled man, sitting in a fancy car with Arizona license plates. With his suspicions aroused, Officer approached the vehicle and asked Defendant what he was doing in the area. Appearing nervous, Defendant said he had driven to town to see the San Francisco Giants play baseball that night. Officer was aware that the Giants were on an extended road trip. When asked by Officer, Defendant could not remember the name of the vehicle's owner. At that point, Defendant attempted to start the vehicle. Officer reached into the vehicle and grabbed the keys. Officer ordered Defendant out of the car. While Defendant complied with the order, Officer saw a weapon in Defendant's waistband. Officer grabbed the weapon. Once Defendant exited the car, Officer saw a sizeable packet of cocaine on the driver's seat. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? A. Officer properly detained Defendant based on articulable suspicion based on his appearance and explanation of what he was doing in the area. Officer lacked justification to order Defendant out of the vehicle. Seizure of the weapon and cocaine was the product of Officer's illegal order to exit the vehicle. The court should grant the motion. B. Officer's conduct was lawful. The stop did not occur until Officer reached for the keys by which time he had articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Ordering Defendant out of the vehicle was lawful. Further, the seizure of the weapon and the seizure of the cocaine were based on plain view. The court should deny the motion. C. Officer properly detained Defendant based on articulable suspicion based on his appearance and explanation of what he was doing in the area. The Court has often emphasized the risk to officers when they confront suspects during car stops. As a result, suspicion of criminal activity alone was sufficient to justify a weapon's patdown. The court should deny the motion. D. Defendant was detained when Officer approached the vehicle. Noticing a disheveled person in a fancy car is not articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. As a result, the stop was illegal. The court should grant the motion.

Suspecting but needing proof that Defendant was involved in the drug trade, Officer attached a tracking device to the underside of Defendant's vehicle. Over the next two days, Officer learned where Defendant went throughout the day and was able to set up surveillance at those locations. Based on those observations, Officer developed probable cause that Defendant had a large amount of heroin in his car. Officer called for a backup team and arrested Defendant. Thereafter, Officer conducted a search of Defendant's vehicle, resulting in the seizure of a large quantity of heroin. Prior to his trial for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following answers best describes how the court should rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. Monitoring devices are readily available in society. Because the Supreme Court has held that police conduct does not amount to a search when an officer uses widely available technology, the court should deny the motion. B. The police trespassed in placing the tracking device on the car and then using it to learn Defendant's movements. A warrant was required to justify the placement, so the court should grant the motion. C. The Court has upheld similar police conduct on the ground that it does not amount to a search when the police use technology to discover what one knowingly exposes to the public, i.e., a car's movements along public streets. The court should deny the motion. D. Defendant cannot show that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the exterior of his vehicle. As a result, Officer's conduct was not a search and the court should deny the motion.

The police are investigating a case of drug trafficking. In the course of this investigation, the police want to electronically eavesdrop on the communications of Gunther. By federal statute, what legal standard or standards must the government satisfy before a warrant may be issued for electronic surveillance of Gunther? A. Normal investigative procedures have been tried and failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous. B. All of these answers are correct. C. Probable cause to believe that Gunther is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an enumerated offense. D. Probable cause to believe that the communications concerning the drug trafficking will be obtained through the interception.

While arriving to execute a search warrant for narcotics at a specified address, Officer encountered Defendant as he was leaving the house. At that point, Officer did not know Defendant's connection to the house or to any narcotics. Officer requested that Defendant come back into the house. Officer sat Defendant on a couch and handcuffed Defendant during the course of the search, which took over an hour to complete. Officer found a small amount of marijuana in the home. When Officer learned that Defendant owned the home, Officer arrested Defendant for possession of the marijuana. During the course of a search of Defendant, Officer found a sizeable packet of heroin. Charged with possession of marijuana and heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. Officer's conduct amounted to an illegal seizure of Defendant at the outset because Officer lacked any level of suspicion that Defendant was involved in criminal activity. The court should grant the motion. B. The detention of Defendant as an occupant of the premises during the course of executing a search warrant is reasonable. Further, Defendant's ownership of the home gave Officer probable cause to arrest him for ownership of the home's contents - the marijuana. The court should deny the motion. C. The officer could detain Defendant only if the fact that Defendant emerged from the premises where drugs were expected to be found created articulable suspicion that Defendant was involved in drug activity. However, Officer exceeded the bounds of a lawful Terry stop by handcuffing Defendant and by detaining him for an hour. The court should grant the motion. D. The detention was lawful, but the search of Defendant's person was not justified because ownership of the premises, without learning more about who else lived there, did not give the police probable cause to arrest Defendant for the small amount of marijuana found. The court should grant the motion.

Police officers enter an apartment illegally and in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Once inside the apartment, the police wait while they seek a warrant to search the apartment. The warrant is issued pursuant to information unconnected with the initial entry. The warrant is granted and the police discover evidence that the prosecutor wishes to introduce at trial. Which exception to the exclusionary rule best describes this situation? A. Inevitable discovery B. Independent source C. Attenuation of the taint D. Good faith

B. The fact pattern presents an example of the independent source exception to the exclusionary rule, because the source for the warrant was independent of the original illegal entry into the apartment. Indeed, the fact pattern above was presented in Murray v. United States (1988), in which the Supreme Court applied the independent source doctrine, and allowed the evidence to be introduced at trial.

In a bank robbery case, Clara is interrogated by police detectives and asserts her right to remain silent. If the police stop the interrogation immediately, when can they resume questioning her? A. They can only resume questioning if there has been a break in custody of at least 14 days. B. They can resume questioning after a significant lapse of time and a set of fresh warnings. C. They cannot resume questioning at all unless a lawyer is present. D. They can only resume questioning if Clara reinitiates discussion.

B. The Supreme Court in Michigan v. Mosley (1975) held that a defendant may waive their right to remain silent after first asserting that right, so long as the defendant's right to cut off questioning is "scrupulously honored," a significant period of time elapses(two hours in Mosley), and the police provide the suspect with a new set of Miranda warnings. The other choices all relate to requirements that follow a suspect's assertion of their right to counsel, not their right to silence, and are therefore not correct.

After a recent bombing that led to the death of several people, the United States Attorney General authorized agents to place pen registers on phones of several individuals, including Defendant, who were suspected of being involved in terrorist activities. (A pen register allows the government to determine who a suspect is calling but does not reveal the contents of the person's conversation.) A federal statute requires prior authorization for a pen register except in the case of terrorism. Shortly after the installation of the pen register, governmental agents learned whom Defendant was calling. Based on that information, the government was able to secure a lawfully issued warrant to search Defendant's home. The search revealed evidence of his involvement in the bombing. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence revealed as a result of the use of the pen register. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. Defendant's argument is frivolous because Congress has no power to regulate pen registers. The court should deny the motion. B. The Court held that the use of a pen register is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Lacking probable cause and a warrant, the government's conduct was illegal. The court should grant the motion. C. The government's use of the pen register comes does not violate the Fourth Amendment and is within an exception to the federal statute that requires prior authorization of a pen register. The court should deny the motion. D. Congress has no authority to permit a pen register without prior authorization. The court should grant the motion.

Agent was investigating Defendant for money-laundering and suspected that Defendant and Banker were co-conspirators. Unable to develop probable cause against Defendant, Agent persuaded Informant to break into Banker's home and to search his home for incriminating evidence. There, Informant found detailed records implicating Defendant and Banker in the scheme. Indicted for money-laundering, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. In limiting the exclusionary rule, the Court has held that a court should suppress evidence only in cases of intentional violations of the Fourth Amendment. Because this was such a violation, the court should grant the motion. B. In limiting the exclusionary rule, the Court has held that a court should suppress evidence only in cases of intentional or reckless violations of the Fourth Amendment. Because this was such a violation, the court should grant the motion. C. Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights have not been violated. The court should deny the motion. D. Because Informant, not Agent, committed the illegal entry, no governmental actor was involved in the illegal conduct. As a result, no Fourth Amendment violation took place. The court should deny the motion.

DEA Agent observed Defendant deplane her incoming flight from Miami, Florida. She was the last person off the flight and appeared nervous. With their suspicions aroused, Agent and his partner approached Defendant in the concourse, identified themselves, and asked to see her identification. The agents asked her how long she had been in Florida and what the purpose of her trip had been. She explained that she had been there only for a day and had gone to a seminar. When she could not name the location of the seminar, Agent asked her to accompany the agents to an interview room, located only about 50 feet from where they were standing. She agreed to go along. Once there, Agent asked if Defendant would allow him to search her purse. She said, "Go ahead." Agent found a packet of heroin in her purse. After her indictment for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? A. Given all of the surrounding circumstances, Defendant was under arrest when she was moved from the concourse to the interview room. In addition, based on the facts, the agents lacked articulable suspicion to arrest her. The court should grant the motion. B. Given all of the surrounding circumstances, Defendant was under arrest when she was moved from the concourse to the interview room. In addition, based on the facts, the agents lacked probable cause to arrest her. The court should grant the motion. C. A reasonable person in Defendant's position would not have felt that her freedom was constrained. Further, she consented to the search. The court should deny the motion. D. Agents had reasonable suspicion to detain Defendant because she fit the drug courier profile. Based on that alone, the search was proper. The court should deny the motion.

Defendant operated a marijuana farm in a rural and mountainous area. Based on uncorroborated tip to that effect, Officer used a helicopter to get a view of Defendant's property. Officer's job was made difficult by the isolated nature of the property, but the Officer was able to secure a view of the property while the helicopter remained in lawful airspace often used by helicopters flown by fire, police and emergency personnel. They recognized Defendant's crop as marijuana. Officer secured a search warrant, which the Officer and other officers executed. They discovered close to a ton of marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. The Court has held that overflight in lawful airspace will never constitute a search as the public could do the same. As a result, the police conduct was lawful. The court should deny the motion. B. Because could not be a trespass on the facts of the case, the court should deny the motion. C. As long as it is clear that the helicopter was in public airways at an altitude at which members of the public travel with sufficient regularity, the court should deny the motion because there would have been no violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy. D. Defendant can prevail only if he can show that the helicopter overflight interfered with Defendant's use of his property. Absent such a showing, the court should deny the motion.

Defendant, a citizen of the United States, moved to Canada, where he was a lawfully domiciled alien. Once in Canada, Defendant set up a drug-trafficking operation whereby he shipped cocaine from South America to Canada and then to the United States. In cooperation with Canadian officials, United States Drug Enforcement agents secured an arrest warrant for Defendant and, after he was arrested and waived extradition, he was transported to the United States for trial. Canada indicated that it reserved the right to seek to have Defendant returned to Canada to face prosecution there and that any evidence of Defendant's guilt was not lost. Canadian police searched Defendant's home in Canada and located a large cache of drugs. They informed the United States and agreed to share the evidence for use at his trial in the United States. The search was conducted without probable cause and a warrant. Charged with the sale of illegal drugs, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? A. The Court has held that an American living abroad is not a member of the community of "people" protected by the Fourth Amendment. The court should deny the motion. B. The exclusionary rule applies whenever a court is asked to accept evidence seized in violation of fundamental principles of United States justice. The court should grant the motion. C. The Fourth Amendment has no applicability to a search done by police in their home country without participation by United States personnel. The court should deny the motion. D. The absence of probable cause and a warrant invalidates the search, and no evidence may be used by United States courts. The court should grant the motion.

Officer received a phone call from Son, who lived out-of-state and expressed concern that he had not heard from his parents in some time. Son asked if Officer could check on his parents. Because this was a small town and because Officer knew the family, Officer agreed to do so. Arriving at the parents' home, Officer noticed a strange odor emanating from the house. Calling for back up, Officer entered the home through an unlocked door. There, he saw a woman's body, badly beaten. Officer rushed through the house to determine whether there were other victims in the home. He quickly realized that the house was otherwise empty. When backup officers arrived, Officer explained the scene and indicated that from his familiarity with the family, Defendant, the woman's husband, was a prime suspect. Several officers went through the house and did a detailed search, locating a good bit of incriminating evidence against Defendant, including letters from another woman with whom he appeared to be having an affair. On trial for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. Officer lacked probable cause that an exigency existed to allow entry into the house and the subsequent search was the fruit of that unlawful entry. The court should grant the motion. B. The search was justified by Son's consent to search the house. It was reasonable for Officer to believe his consent extended not only to finding out if his parents were okay but also to securing the crime scene if they were not. The court should deny the motion. C. The search exceeded the initial justification for the entry. The court should grant the motion. D. The search was justified by the crime scene exception to the probable cause and warrant requirements. The court should deny the motion.

Tina is walking home from her bus stop late at night on a brightly lit street when she stops and sets her purse down to dig out her door keys from her pocket. Corey, a thrice-convicted pickpocket comes up from behind her and snatches her purse off the ground. When she pursues him, he tosses a stick at her to slow her down, but she ducks and it just misses hitting her. She continues to pursue him, but after a few blocks she gets too tired and stops. Tina goes immediately to the police station and reports the theft. She describes Corey's hair, face, and clothes in detail. Two officers are radioed his description and told to pursue him. Tina waits at the police station to give a full report and looks at some mug shots. As Tina is going through the mug shots, the officers bring Corey in in handcuffs, saying, "We've got the purse snatcher." A few pages later, Tina identifies Corey's mug shot from the book. Corey's motion to suppress Tina's mug shot identification as evidence should be: A. Denied, because she got such a good look at him that she would have identified the photo anyway. B. Denied, because there was other independent evidence to suggest Corey's guilt. C. Granted, because the totality of the circumstances suggest that the photo session was likely to produce a misidentification. D. Denied, because there was no intentional police misconduct.

Bonnie is getting divorced and promised her husband she would not re-enter their marital home without his permission. However, she mistakenly believes that half of everything in the house is hers. One day she comes by when her husband is not home and takes some of his prized artwork that he acquired before the marriage. Bonnie is subsequently charged with burglary. At trial, Bonnie's defense counsel fails to call any witnesses, make any objections, or perform more than a cursory cross-examination. Bonnie is convicted. On appeal, Bonnie argues ineffective assistance of counsel. The argument will likely: A. Fail, because she admitted that she took the items in question. B. Prevail, because her attorney's misconduct is per se evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel. C. Fail, unless she can conclusively prove that she would have been acquitted if her attorney had performed differently. D. Prevail, only if she can show that there is reasonable probability that the outcome would have changed if her attorney performed differently.

Defendant was arrested for the murder of her seriously impaired child. The officers brought her to the stationhouse where two officers interrogated her for two hours. The officers chose not to provide her with Miranda warnings. After she confessed, the officers gave her coffee and donuts and a short bathroom break. At that point, Officer read her Miranda warnings and asked her again whether she killed her child. She again confessed and signed a written confession. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress both confessions. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. An initial intentional violation of Miranda must result in the suppression of a second Mirandized confession. The court should grant the motion. B. Because Miranda is a constitutionally-based decision whose violation amounts to a violation of the Fifth Amendment, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies. Here, whether or not the initial violation was intentional, the second confession was a fruit of the first confession and must be suppressed. The court should grant the motion. C. A Miranda violation has no evidentiary fruit beyond the initial confession. As a result, while the prosecution cannot use the first confession, it can use the second confession. The court should grant the motion as to the first confession, but deny it as to the second confession. D. Under the circumstances in this case, the Miranda warnings were not effective, and the court should grant the motion.

Detective was working on a case nicknamed the "Lone Ranger." The Lone Ranger wore a mask similar to the movie character the Lone Ranger and committed a series of armed robberies on his own. Detective developed probable cause that Defendant was the Lone Ranger and secured a warrant for Defendant's arrest. Learning that Defendant was at home, Detective and other police officers went to Defendant's home and, after Defendant did not respond to their announced presence, the police entered forcibly. Police spread out through the house until Detective located Defendant in his bedroom. After Defendant's arrest, Officer noticed a cellar door ajar. After Officer called down the stairs to demand anyone else in the home to come out, Officer went into the cellar where he found the Lone Ranger mask. Charged with multiple counts of armed robbery, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? A. Officers may automatically conduct a protective sweep of an arrestee's home to assure their safety. The court should deny the motion. B. The police had articulable suspicion that someone who might present a danger to them was within the basement, allowing the quick search of the area from which an attack could be launched. The court should deny the motion. C. The police needed probable cause to search the area beyond the arrestee's control. The court should grant the motion. D. The police may conduct a protective sweep of areas of the home beyond the immediate area of the suspect's arrest if they have articulable suspicion that someone else may present a risk of harm. But on these facts, the police lacked articulable suspicion that anyone else was in the home. The court should grant the motion.

FBI Agent suspected Defendant of being connected to the Mob. Unable to get hard evidence against him, Agent arranged with a local restaurant to place a "bug" in a private dining room that Defendant reserved for a dinner with one of his associates. The bug allowed Agent to overhear and tape several incriminating conversations between Defendant and his associate. As a result, Agent was able to secure a warrant for the arrest of Defendant and a warrant to search his home. The evidence seized at his home allowed the government to indict Defendant for violations of the federal racketeering statute. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? A. Defendant was in a place where he could have been overheard by any member of the public. As a result, he cannot claim a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court should deny the motion. B. Because any member of the public could have overheard the conversation, Agent was authorized to do so without probable cause and a warrant. But his use of the recording device was an unconstitutional seizure. The court should grant the motion. C. Because Defendant rented the dining room for private use, he was in a constitutionally protected area. As a result, the use of the bug was an unwarranted search. The court should grant the motion. D. Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy that his private conversation would not be overheard. As a result, the use of the bug was an unreasonable search. The court should grant the motion.

Game Warden was working near a pier when he saw Defendant catch something with a hand-line, which could be used to catch lobsters as well as other seafood. Catching and keeping lobster was out of season at that time; catching other seafood was not out of season. State law provided that any Game Warden could conduct an inspection of the catch of any individual operating in the state if the Warden had articulable reason to believe that the individual was catching seafood out of season. Warden also saw Defendant place whatever he caught in a black bag. Warden saw Defendant get in his vehicle. Warden followed and stopped Defendant three blocks from the pier. Warden asked Defendant if he had any fish or lobsters in his vehicle. When Defendant said no, Warden told Defendant he was going to conduct a search of Defendant's vehicle. Inside an ice chest, Warden found marijuana, which he recognized instantly, and a lobster. Warden tossed the lobster back into the water and arrested Defendant for possession of marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. Warden lacked probable cause to arrest Defendant or to search his vehicle. Because Warden did not have probable cause, the court should grant the motion. B. Warden was authorized to search for a violation of fish and game laws, but could not seize evidence of criminal activities. That is so to prevent administrative searches from becoming criminal searches. The court should grant the motion. C. The case comes within the Court's "special needs" doctrine (dealing, for example, with highly regulated businesses). As a result, Warden's conduct was lawful even if he lacked a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The court should deny the motion. D. Warden's activities come within the special needs doctrine, allowing state actors to engage in searches without satisfying the requirements for traditional criminal investigations. The court should deny the motion.

Ken was convicted of assault of a federal officer and imprisoned in a federal penitentiary in West Virginia. While in prison, federal authorities began investigating the murder of Ken's 11-year-old stepdaughter who was murdered in Texas two years earlier. Believing that Ken was responsible for this killing, federal agents decided to plant an informer at the West Virginia prison to befriend Ken and possibly obtain evidence about the crime. In accord with this plan, the F.B.I. hired Norris to be a paid informant and placed him in the prison as a fellow inmate, masquerading as an organized-crime figure. Norris soon befriended Ken and learned that he was being threatened by other inmates because of a rumor that he had killed a child in Texas. Norris then raised the subject in several conversations, but Ken repeatedly denied any such involvement. After Ken started receiving rough treatment from other inmates because of the rumor, Norris offered to protect Ken but told him, "You have to tell me the truth about what really happened ... you know if you want me to help you." Believing that Norris would protect him from the other inmates, Ken then admitted to Norris that he had driven his stepdaughter to the desert where he killed her. Based upon this confession, Ken was then indicted in Texas for the first-degree murder of his stepdaughter. Prior to trial, Ken moves to suppress the statement given to Norris. Ken's motion to suppress will MOST likely be: A. Denied, because under the "totality of circumstances," Norris' conduct was not inherently coercive . B. Denied, because the confession was voluntary. C. Granted, because Norris was a "false friend" and Ken was tricked into making the confession. D. Granted, because the confession was coerced by the threat of physical violence, absent protection from the government agents, that motivated Ken to confess.

Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant was engaged in felony drug trafficking but had yet to secure an arrest warrant. While on patrol, she noticed Defendant standing directly in the doorway of his apartment. Officer approached Defendant in order to make an arrest. Seeing the officer approaching, Defendant ran into his apartment. Officer pursued and arrested Defendant in the living room of his apartment where Officer saw and seized a large amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. The facts are controlled by Payton v. New York (1980), requiring the police to have an arrest warrant when the police make an arrest in the suspect's home. The evidence was the fruit of that poisonous tree and should be suppressed. The court should grant the motion. B. Because the officer had probable cause to arrest, as long as Officer was acting with a good faith belief that a warrant was not required, the arrest and seizure come within the good faith exception to the warrant requirement. The court should deny the motion. C. While the arrest without a warrant was unlawful because it was made in Defendant's home and Officer lacked a warrant, the Court has held that seizure of contraband is not illegal because it would have been discovered inevitably upon the proper execution of a warrant. The court should deny the motion. D. Officer may arrest Defendant without a warrant because he began the arrest in public and, once begun, could pursue Defendant into his house. The court should deny the motion.

Officer observed Defendant engage in a drug purchase of a small amount of heroin on a street corner where Officer was on a stakeout. Officer saw that Defendant had the heroin in a small brown paper bag and followed Defendant to her automobile and, as soon as she pulled away from the curb, Officer turned on his flashing lights and pulled Defendant over. Officer handcuffed Defendant and placed her in the back of his patrol car and went back to Defendant's vehicle to search for the drugs. After finding the small brown paper bag with the heroin on the front seat, Officer opened the trunk, where he located a larger quantity of heroin. Charged with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the heroin on the front seat and in the trunk. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. The search of the passenger compartment was justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest; that gave Officer probable cause to search the rest of the vehicle. B. The search was justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest. The court should deny the motion. C. Officer exceeded the scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest because Defendant was detained in the police vehicle. The court should grant the motion as to the evidence found in the passenger compartment and the trunk. D. Officer exceeded the scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest because Defendant was detained in the police vehicle when Officer searched in the trunk. But the search of the passenger compartment was lawful. The court should deny the motion as to the evidence found in the passenger compartment but grant the motion as to the evidence found in the trunk.

Officer obtained a warrant to search Defendant's home for narcotics. Officer and his fellow officers approached Defendant's home. Concerned that Defendant might destroy the drugs, they knocked but entered without waiting even seconds. They located Defendant in the front room of the house where they also located a shotgun and a large stash of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? A. The entry violated the knock-and-announce rule as the officers did not wait at least 15 seconds for onset of the exigency of destruction of evidence. The court should grant the motion. B. The Court has held that the knock-and-announce rule does not apply in narcotics cases because they inevitably present issues of armed suspects and destruction of evidence. The court should deny the motion. C. At common law, a violation of the knock-and-announce rule rendered the entry a trespass, resulting in the suppression of evidence. Because as a matter of original understanding of the Fourth Amendment, the evidence would have been suppressed, the court should grant the motion. D. Because police properly armed with a search warrant have lawful authority to enter and search, the violation of the knock-and-announce rule is a minor technicality not worthy of suppression of the evidence. The exclusionary rule does not apply. The court should deny the motion.

Two officers arrested Defendant for murder of a cab driver shortly after he committed the crime. Officers were still searching for his weapon. Officer Abel gave Defendant Miranda warnings while the three officers were driving Defendant back to the police station. He invoked his right to counsel. Passing near a grade school, Officer Bernard looked directly at Defendant and stated, "Listen to me. I know you have asked for a lawyer, but I sure would hate it if a child found that sawed-off shotgun and hurt herself." A few moments later, Defendant said, "I left the weapon back by that shopping center, back in the dumpster." The officers located the weapon. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the statement. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. Time elapsed after Officer Bernard's comment. Thus, Defendant volunteered the statement without having been asked a question. The court should deny the motion. B. Because this was just an offhand remark by Officer Bernard, it was not interrogation and so Miranda was not violated. The court should deny the motion. C. The officer's comments demonstrate that he was deliberately attempting to elicit an incriminating statement. The court should grant the motion. D. The statement by Officer Bernard amounted to improper interrogation after an invocation of the right to counsel. The court should grant the motion.

Police received an anonymous letter stating that Defendant and his wife were big drug dealers; that they bragged about not having to work; that they kept a large amount of cash and drugs at their home at a specified address; that they were planning a trip to Florida to pick up 30 pounds of marijuana; that Defendant would drive to Florida and meet his wife there; and that she would fly there on a specified date; and they would immediately drive home together. The letter arrived with the police the same day that the author predicted that Defendant and his wife would arrive home. Based on that information, Officer secured a search warrant for Defendant and his wife's home. When executing the warrant, the police did not find any marijuana, but did find a substantial amount of cocaine. On trial for possession of cocaine, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? A. The search was illegal because the search did not result in discovery of the evidence that the police were searching for. The court should grant the motion. B. On similar facts, the Court found that the police had probable cause. The court should deny the motion. C. The police did not need a warrant since they had exigent circumstances to search the house before the Defendant and his wife returned. The court should deny the motion. D. Absent some corroboration of the letter's contents, the magistrate should not have issued the warrant. The court should grant the motion.

D. (FYI - later in the semester we will learn about the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule which might apply here but you don't need to know this to answer the question).

The police are investigating a case of attempted homicide. During questioning at the police station, Clark asserts his right to counsel, and declares that he will not answer any questions until he receives a lawyer to represent him. Given that Clark has asserted his right to counsel, can Clark later waive that right? A. None of these answers are correct. B. Always, because the right to counsel can be waived at any moment. C. Never, because the right to counsel cannot be waived once asserted. D. Yes, if Clark initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police, or there has been a break in custody of at least 14 days.

D. According to Edwards v. Arizona (1981), the police must cease an interrogation after a suspect has asserted right to counsel, until such time as counsel is present—unless the accused initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police, or there has been a break in custody of at least 14 days (Maryland v. Shatzer).

Frank is suspected of armed robbery. He is brought to the police station and placed in a lineup with four other men of roughly the same age, weight, and height. The only problem is, Frank is Asian-American, and all the other men in the lineup are white. If Frank challenges his identification, a court would most likely: A. Refuse to consider the question, because there are no constitutional standards for lineup procedures. B. Find that there was nothing wrong with the lineup procedure. C. ind for Frank, because he was clearly misidentified. D. Find for Frank, because the lineup was unnecessarily suggestive.

D. In Stovall v. Denno (1967), the Supreme Court concluded that an identification procedure violates due process when it is unnecessarily suggestive.

The police believe that Jason is responsible for an egregious case of embezzlement. In order to build the case against Jason, the police conduct an interrogation of Jason that yields a confession. The interrogation took place over ten hours, Jason was deprived of drinking water, and the police threatened to "smack" Jason if he didn't confess to his involvement in the scheme. Which of these criteria are relevant for evaluating the voluntariness of Jason's confession? A. The length of Jason's interrogation B. Threatening Jason with violence C. Depriving Jason of water D. All of these answers are correct.

D. The Supreme Court has considered all of the above in finding a confession to be involuntary, because courts use a"totality of the circumstances" approach to determining voluntariness. Length of interrogation, deprivation of bodily needs, and the use or threat of force are all relevant.

During an assault investigation, the police submit Calista to a lineup identification so that a witness, named Darryl, can attempt to identify the assailant in the case. Under which circumstances does Calista have a right to counsel during this lineup identification? A. In both her pre-indictment and post-indictment lineups. B. If Calista's lineup occurs before indictment. C. Always. D. If Calista's lineup occurs after indictment.

D. The Supreme Court has held that the constitutional right to counsel during a lineup applies to a post-indictment lineup. But the Court in Kirby v. Illinois (1972) concluded that the right to counsel does not apply in pre-indictment lineups.

Crim Pro Quizzes (1-6)

Set pelajaran terkait

muscles of the pectoral region

EXAM 1 SOC 1

History quizs 2&3

12. Outcomes-based risk sharing (Value Based Agreements) for pharmaceuticals

40. Bankruptcy

LS CH4 - Job-Order Costing

ROTC - Oral Exam

Chapter 9-11

The expanding Universe

Taylor Chapter-22 review questions Nurse, leader, Manager, Care coordinator

Biology CK-12: Reproduction

DMM

Pedretti Chapter 43, Amputations and Prosthetics

Biomedical Research Investigators and Key Personnel

Chapter 7 PSY HW (Thinking)

COMM 101: Interpersonal and Group Interaction, George Mason University Final

Nutrition

Experiment 13: Colligative Properties

1 Biodiversidad.

Hypertension