Criminal Procedure

Defendant is arrested for drunk driving. He is taken to the police station for processing and the police tow his car to the police impound lot. After the car is brought into the lot, it is searched. As part of the search, the trunk is opened, and a kilo of cocaine is discovered. At his trial for possession of a controlled substance, Defendant moves to suppress the cocaine found in the trunk of his car. How should the judge rule? 1. Grant the motion because the police lacked probable cause to search the trunk. 2. Overrule the motion if the search was based on reasonable suspicion. 3.Overrule the motion if the search was part of the police department's standard procedures 4. Grant the motion if it can be shown that the police hoped to find incriminating evidence when they conducted the search.

3. Overrule the motion if the search was part of the police department's standard procedures. These facts suggest that this was a permissible inventory search.

Police have probable cause to arrest Danny for felony armed robbery committed one week ago. They follow Danny to his apartment and watch as Danny's girlfriend opens the door to the apartment and greets him affectionately as he walks through the door. Without a warrant, the police enter the apartment and arrest Danny. Which of the following statements is true? 1. Danny's arrest violated the Fourth Amendment, because it was made without an arrest warrant. 2. Danny's arrest violated the Fourth Amendment if the Police had to search for Danny in the Apartment and did not have a warrant to search the apartment. 3. Danny's arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment since the arrest was for a felony offense. 4. Danny's arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment since Danny was a dangerous felon who could have harmed Girlfriend or any others in the apartment.

1. Danny's arrest violated the Fourth Amendment, because it was made without an arrest warrant. Is not 3 bc the felony exception announced in Watson only applies to warrantless felony arrests in a public place. A person's own apartment is not a public place.

Defendant is at the police station after being arrested for possession of cocaine (you may assume the arrest was lawful). In response to a police question, he provides his name, John Paul Jones. A detective in the room happens to overhear the response, and recognizes the name from a report earlier that evening about a gang related shooting. Based on an informant's tip, the detective knows that John Paul Jones was the name of the alleged shooter. After Jones is booked, the detective takes him to an interrogation room. After being advised of his Miranda rights and executing a valid waiver, John Paul Jones confesses to the shooting. At his trial for the shooting, his defense attorney moves to suppress the confession. His theory is that the confession was the result of the answer to the original question to Jones requiring him to give his name, and that Jones had not been advised of his Miranda rights prior to being asked that question. Based on this theory, which is the most appropriate ruling by the Court: 1. Deny the motion suppress. 2. Grant the motion to suppress.

1. Deny the motion suppress. The court in Rhode Island v Innis defined interrogation as questioning/words/actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Asking a suspect his name is not likely to elicit an incriminating response and is not interrogation even though it is direct questioning, so the Miranda requirements do not apply to the question.

On May 9, 2019, an informant phoned the Boston police to report that Sally Suspect would be arriving at Boston's Logan Airport on May 12, 2019. The informant, who did not identify herself, said that Sally would be wearing a Burberry plaid raincoat and carrying a new matching plaid briefcase and purse. The informant said that Sally would be carrying one pound of Jamaican marijuana (a felony offense) in her new plaid purse. The police check the airlines and discover that Sally left Boston for Jamaica on May 10, and is scheduled to return on May 12, 2019. A check with the Boston Burberry store reveals that Sally recently purchased a plaid raincoat, briefcase and purse. Assume that the anonymous tip DID provided probable cause, and that neither an arrest or search warrant has been obtained. Which of the following statements are legally correct? 1. Sally can be arrested as she is walking up the public sidewalk adjacent to her house. 2. Sally cannot be arrested without a warrant unless the police can show that Sally was committing a felony in their presence. 3. Sally cannot be arrested without a warrant because this is a felony offense. 4. A statute which would authorize such an arrest without a warrant is unconstitutional.

1. Sally can be arrested as she is walking up the public sidewalk adjacent to her house. Is not 2, bc there is no requirement that the felony be committed in the presence of the officers. Remember the statute that the Court upheld in Watson allowed postal officials to arrest without a warrant even if they had probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested "has committed or is committing such a felony." Thus, the Court held that they can arrest for past felony violations.

Police are investigating Defendant for his role in an armed robbery that took place at the local bank last week. As part of their criminal investigations police routinely log on to suspects Facebook pages to see if they can obtain any useful information. When they logged on to Defendant's account, they did not obtain anything of significance on the public site. However, they did get information that Friend was a "Facebook friend" of Defendant. The police contacted Friend and obtained her permission to log on the private portion of her Facebook page. On that page police discovered a private chat between Defendant and Friend where Defendant said he has just gotten "a large pile of cash and was ready to party." This chat took place the day after the bank robbery. Police used information from this chat along with other evidence to obtain an arrest warrant for Defendant. In assessing whether the police examination of Friend's Facebook chat was a search, which of the following factors would NOT be a relevant consideration? 1. That the chat took place in a private chat room not accessible to the general public. 2. That this information was maintained by a private company, not a government entity. 3. That Friend gave the police permission to access her Facebook account where they could view this chat. 4. As part of their customer disclosures, Facebook tells its users that all information maintained on Facebook websites is subject to routine monitoring without notice.

1. That the chat took place in a private chat room not accessible to the general public. Even though the chat may have taken place in a private chat room, Defendant assumed the risk that Friend would disclose that private conversation to others. Answer choices 2, 3, and 4 are all relevant factors in assessing the application of the 3rd Party Doctrine.

Under the Supreme Court's precedent which of the following scenarios without other facts, would most likely be found to overbear the Defendant's will, making any confession constitutionally inadmissible? 1. The defendant in response to voices she hears in her head telling her to confess, goes to the nearest police station and confesses to a crime she committed 20 years ago. 2. After reading Defendant his Miranda rights and obtaining a waiver, the police keep the Defendant isolated and subject him to 20 hours of uninterrupted interrogations by a team of investigators with only short bathroom and water breaks. At hour 19, Defendant confesses to the crime. 3. The police lie to the Defendant about her finger prints being on the murder weapon in order to get her to confess. 4. The police approach a friend of Defendant and get the friend to convince Defendant to confess.

2. After reading Defendant his Miranda rights and obtaining a waiver, the police keep the Defendant isolated and subject him to 20 hours of uninterrupted interrogations by a team of investigators with only short bathroom and water breaks. At hour 19, Defendant confesses to the crime. Yes, even though the defendant was read his Miranda rights, that does not make any subsequent confession voluntary, per se. Here the length of the uninterrupted questioning is similar to the facts in Ashcraft where the court held that 36 hours of uninterrupted questioning resulted in an involuntary confession.

Suspect is apprehended on street corner for questioning based on probable cause that he is dealing illegal drugs. Suspect is advised of his Miranda rights, Suspect responded "I don't want to talk with you right now." At that point, Officer 1 ceased all questioning and transported Suspect to the station. 3 hours later Officer 2 reads Suspect his Miranda rights again and this time Suspect agrees to talk. Suspect admits to being involved in illegal drug sales and also admits to an unrelated armed robbery that occurred in a neighboring jurisdiction. Which of the following is a correct statement of the law? 1. The statement admitting to drug sales must be suppressed but the statement about the armed robbery is admissible. 2. Both statements may be admissible. 3. Neither statement is admissible. 4. The statement admitting to drug dealing is admissible but statements about the armed robbery must be suppressed.

2. Both statements may be admissible. The test is whether the police scrupulously honored the defendant's request not to talk with the police. We know from Michigan v. Mosley that the Court looks at several factors to determine if the police scrupulously honored the request to remain silent. We have several factors here that demonstrate that the suspect's right to silence was scrupulously honored. First this was not an absolute invocation, he said "I don't want to talk to you right now" suggesting that this was only a temporary invocation and that he may be willing to talk later. In Mosley, the Court placed emphasis on the questioning about a different offense because Mosley expressly told the police that he did not want to talk about the robberies when he initially invoked. Here we do not have that type of invocation we have just a statement that he did not want to talk "right now." Here as in Mosley, the cops stopped questioning once the suspect invoked. Here as in Mosley the cops re-read him his full Miranda warnings. Here even more so than in Mosley, there was a longer time interval. Here, even more so than in Mosley, there was a different location for the questioning. Taking all of these factors into consideration and noting carefully how the suspect initially invoked his right to silence by simply saying, "I don't want to talk to you right now," under the scrupulously honored test announced in Mosley and looking at the available answer choices for the question, B is the best answer choice. Also, since an arrest is not a critical stage of the proceedings, no 6th Amendment right to counsel attached and questioning can cover any offense.

Three police officers in uniform and carrying holstered guns board a bus at a rest stop in South Carolina at 2:30 a.m. The bus is coming from Miami and is bound for New York City. The police tell the passengers that they will be interviewing the Miami passengers because Miami is a drug source city. Two police officers approach 19 year old Defendant who is traveling alone. (The third police officer remains at the front of the bus keeping her gun holstered). The police ask Defendant if they can search him. Defendant says nothing, but raises his hands. During the pat-down of Defendant's outer garments the police officer notices a hard object that he has a hunch may be crack cocaine. The police officer uses his fingers to manipulate the object and determines that it is a rock like item in a baggie. The officer reaches into Defendant's pocket and retrieves what is later determined to be crack cocaine. The BEST argument for admitting the crack cocaine evidence is: 1. This was a Terry frisk and it was permissible under these facts. 2. Defendant consented to the search. 3. The crack cocaine is admissible under the plain feel doctrine. 4. People who travel on buses have implicitly consented to any police search.

2. Defendant consented to the search. not 1 bc here is insufficient evidence to establish reasonable suspicion for this frisk.

Police officers have reasonable suspicion to believe that Doper's luggage, which he has taken from an airline baggage claim area and is about to carry with him to a waiting taxi, contains drugs. Which of the following accurately describes the legal extent of what the police can do with the luggage? 1. Police may seize the luggage for 2 hours while they obtain a search warrant. 2. Police may briefly seize the luggage before Doper places it in the taxi, immediately have drug dogs sniff it for drugs, and if the dog sniff is positive, secure the luggage for 2 hours while they obtain a search warrant. 3. Police may briefly seize the luggage before Doper places it in the taxi, immediately have drug dogs sniff it for drugs, and if the dog sniff is positive, then immediately search the luggage without a warrant. 4. Police may simply wait until Doper places the luggage in the taxi without using drug dogs and then stop the taxi, seize the luggage, and open the luggage to search for any drugs inside.

2. Police may briefly seize the luggage before Doper places it in the taxi, immediately have drug dogs sniff it for drugs, and if the dog sniff is positive, secure the luggage for 2 hours while they obtain a search warrant. The police can briefly seize the luggage based on reasonable suspicion. If that detention takes only a short time while dogs sniff the luggage that does not transform the seizure into something more. Once the dogs alert on the luggage, the police now have probable cause to hold the luggage for a longer time while they obtain a warrant.

One day Debby Defendant who was in town for business decided to take her pet iguana "Iggy" for a walk. (Debby always travels with Iggy). Debby was mad at Iggy because he had just eaten the hotel bedspread and so she was pulling Iggy's chain very tight, and she was kicking Iggy down the sidewalk. Unfortunately for Debby, the local sheriff, who is an iguana lover, saw this and decided to follow Debby and arrest her for cruelty to animals (a felony offense). Sheriff followed Debby as she made her way back to her hotel, but before he could arrest her, Debby went inside her hotel room. Sheriff knocked on the door and yelled in to Debby that she was under arrest. Debby came to the door and opened it but did not step outside. She stood in the threshold with her hands in her pockets. Sheriff ordered her to remove her hands from her pockets and to come with him. Debby refused so Sheriff reached inside the door, grabbed Debby and pulled her out into the hallway and arrested her. During the subsequent search of Debby incident to the arrest, the Sheriff found three bags of cocaine in Debby's shoe. You now represent Debby. What is your BEST argument for suppressing the evidence? 1. The search of the shoe exceeded the scope of a valid search incident to arrest. 2. The arrest of Debby was unreasonable. 3. The police lacked probable cause to search for cocaine. 4. Since the crime of cruelty to animals is a felony, the fact that the offense occurred in the officer's presence cannot be considered by the court.

2. The arrest of Debby was unreasonable. The general rule is that an arrest without a warrant is unreasonable, unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies. The best argument is that a hotel room is like a home. In this case although Debby opened the door, she never stepped outside of the room and the police had to enter the room by reaching in, in order to grab her and make the arrest. Like Payton, the felony exception to the warrant rule does not apply because this is not a public place and at a minimum the police needed an arrest warrant even if they had probable cause.

Officer Jones stops Defendant for a traffic infraction for which arrest is not authorized. It is late at night in an area with virtually no other vehicle traffic. Officer Jones asks Defendant to step out of his vehicle to check his license and Officer has Defendant stand at the front of the vehicle. No one else is in the vehicle. Officer Jones then shines his flashlight into the interior of the vehicle, and looks on the seats and floor of the vehicle. He then observes a bag of what appears to be cocaine protruding from under the passenger seat (assume the appearance of the bag provided Officer Jones with valid probable cause to believe it contained cocaine. Officer Jones seizes the bag, and arrests Defendant for possession of cocaine based on a positive field test result. At trial, Defendant moves to suppress the cocaine. Which statement below is most accurate: 1. The cocaine should be suppressed because Officer Jones had no legal authority to look under the seats of the vehicle. 2. The cocaine should be admitted because Officer Jones seized the bag after observing it from a lawful vantage point. 3. The cocaine should be admitted only if the prosecution can establish that Officer Jones had the discretion to arrest Defendant for the speeding violation. 4. The cocaine should be suppressed if Officer Jones subjectively hoped that he would find marijuana in the car and was using the traffic stop as a subterfuge to look into the car's interior.

2. The cocaine should be admitted because Officer Jones seized the bag after observing it from a lawful vantage point. This is a question of plain view. As long as the officer was in a place he was legally entitled to be when he observed the evidence, and as long as the bag was in plain view and immediately recognizable as containing cocaine the seizure is legal. See Horton v California. Here all three criteria have been met. It does not matter that Officer Jones never intended to arrest Defendant, he can still require Defendant to step out of the car to conduct the traffic stop.

The police have been conducting surveillance of Tom Cruise and they have seen him carrying around a small brown paper bag. Assume the police have valid probable cause to believe the bag contains illegal drugs. The police observe Tom carry the brown bag into his car which is parked in a city parking lot, and as Tom starts to drive away, the police stop his car, order him out of the vehicle, and search the entire car, including the trunk, in order to find the bag. The police find the bag hidden under a tire in the trunk. The police open the bag and find illegal drugs inside. The police then arrest Tom Cruise. Prior to trial, Tom's defense counsel moves to suppress the drug evidence. How should the court rule? 1. The court should grant the motion, because the police did not have a warrant to search the car. 2. The court should deny the motion, because the search falls within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. 3. The court should grant the motion, because even though the police did not need a warrant to search the car, they did need a warrant to open the bag. 4. The court should deny the motion, because the police had probable cause to arrest Tom after they discovered the evidence and therefore would have inevitably found the drugs when they searched incident to arrest.

2. The court should deny the motion, because the search falls within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. We know from the Acevedo case that if the police have probable cause to search somewhere in the car for a closed container, they can search those locations and if the closed container is discovered the police can seize the container and open it without a warrant. Therefore, answer choice 1 is wrong. Answer choice 3 is wrong because Acevedo expressly holds that no additional warrant is required before searching the container that was discovered in the car. Answer choice 4 is wrong because this search exceeded the area that could have been searched under the search incident to arrest exception.

Concerned by the spike in property crimes during the COVID pandemic a group of local merchants decides to hire a private security company to help them improve the security around their business buildings. The private firm installs surveillance cameras that use the most up to date technology providing 24-hour surveillance of the buildings and any areas within 100 feet of the buildings. This surveillance technology does much more than make a video recording. It also captures conversations and analyzes each person's movements using an algorithm to determine if the person's behavior poses an immediate threat to property. The information collected by this system is maintained for 4 years. Recently the police suspected Defendant of committing a string of break-ins in a neighborhood close to these businesses and they believe that Defendant was part of a larger ring of organized criminals. They request any information on the private security company's database related to Defendant and they specifically request audio recordings of any conversations of Defendant. The company provides the information which does include Defendant's half of a cell phone conversation he had four months ago where he can be heard saying, "we will need a lot more tech before we try and get into any of these stores. The security around here is tight." Assume the prosecution wants to offer this evidence at trial to establish Defendant's role in a larger conspiracy. What is the prosecution's BEST argument for claiming that the collection of this evidence was NOT a search under the 4th Amendment? 1. The 3rd Party Doctrine holds that any evidence or information initially collected by a non-government person or entity is not a search regardless of the information collected and regardless of whether the person was aware that the information was being collected by a 3rd party. 2. The defendant assumed the risk that conversations he had on his cell phone could be overheard by others and he does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those statements. 3. Because the technology used to make video and audio recordings in this case is technology that is readily available to the general public, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. 4. The only place that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy is in the home, and because this conversation did not take place in the home, there is no 4th Amendment search.

2. The defendant assumed the risk that conversations he had on his cell phone could be overheard by others and he does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those statements. We know from past cases, including White, that when a defendant has conversations with other people, they assume the risk that that other person may disclose the contents of that conversation. Further, when a person knowingly discloses information to the public, they lose any expectation of privacy. By speaking in public on a cell phone the defendant assumed the risk that others might overhear and record his portion of the conversation. Answer 1 is not correct because it is too broad of a statement. Carpenter v. United States put some important limitations on the 3rd party doctrine. Answer 3 is incorrect, because the prevalence of the technology is just one factor in determining reasonable expectation of privacy. Answer 4 is incorrect because it is too broad of a statement. While the home enjoys the greatest 4th Amendment protections, it is not the only place where the 4th Amendment applies.

Police receive an anonymous telephone call stating that S., living at 1723 Sycamore Street, is using her home for prostitution. Officer C confirms that a woman named S lives at 1723 Sycamore. He then watches the house from a sidewalk across the street while, twice during the evening, a visitor arrives, enters the house, then leaves after approximately one hour. Officer C notices that while the visitor is inside, the front door is closed, which he knows from his experience as a police officer is sometimes a signal used by prostitutes to indicate they are not available to other clients. Which of the following statements is true? 1. The police officer's observation of the home was a search because people have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding who comes in and leaves their homes. 2. The police officer's observation was not a search because he observed the activity from a public place and any member of the public could have seen this same activity 3. The police officer's observations was a search because even if members of the public could have observed this activity, police officers still need a warrant. 4. The police officer's observations was not a search because people only have a reasonable expectation of privacy in activities inside the home.

2. The police officer's observation was not a search because he observed the activity from a public place and any member of the public could have seen this same activity This is similar to Ciraolo. People do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information they knowingly disclose. Any member of the public could have observed this activity without trespassing on to the defendant's property. Answer choice 1 is wrong because even if people have a subjective expectation of privacy in this information, that expectation is not reasonable if they knowingly disclose it to the public. Answer choice 3 is wrong because even though the 4th Amendment only applies to government officials, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in information that the public can observe. Answer choice 4 is wrong because it is too broad of a statement. We know that the curtilage area surrounding the home does enjoy 4th Amendment protection.

Police respond to an anonymous phone call tipster who informs the police that an apparently drunken hit and run cyclist has just left the scene of an accident which the cyclist caused on a busy bike path. As the police approach the area, they see a cyclist fitting the tipster's description riding erratically on the street, the bike path and the sidewalk. They see the cyclist leave the bike path and ride down a side road. The police make a u-turn at the nearest possible location and with siren on and lights flashing they follow the route of the cyclist. A few minutes later they find the suspect's bike in a ditch and see someone wearing cyclist clothing entering the house trailer in a nearby trailer park. They follow muddy footprints from the abandoned bike up to the house trailer, knock, announce that they are the police and that the suspect should come out. When no one comes out, the police enter and seize the sole occupant of the trailer, who smells of alcohol and has muddy shoes. Which of the following is a correct statement of the law under Supreme Court precedent? 1. House trailers do not enjoy 4th Amendment protection. 2. The warrantless entrance into the home when the police are in hot pursuit is justified under the exigency exception. 3. Because the arrest took place in a home, both an arrest warrant and a search warrant are required. 4. The police lacked probable cause to believe that the suspect had committed any crime for which they could arrest.

2. The warrantless entrance into the home when the police are in hot pursuit is justified under the exigency exception. Just because the police are in hot pursuit that is not the end of the analysis for the exigency exception to the warrant requirement. Other factors for that exception to apply include the seriousness of the offense. This warrantless entry MAY be justified, but we would first need to know more about the possible offenses at issue. We cannot say in every circumstance that police can enter a home without a warrant while in hot pursuit.

In which of the following situations would the Police action most likely violate the Fourth Amendment? 1. Three police officers execute valid arrest warrant to arrest Dealer at his house for selling drugs. Dealer answers the door and as the Officer's enter the home, one officer hears voices in an adjacent room. One officer stays with Dealer while the other two officers fan out and begin looking in the other rooms of the house. One officer goes to the bedroom where he heard voices. On the bedroom floor he discovers several individually packaged bags of crack cocaine. He also determined that the voices were coming from a clock radio next to the bed. 2. Police execute arrest warrant against Defendant at his place of employment while he is working at his desk; as they handcuff Defendant, Police search the drawers of the desk at which he was working. 3. Police Officers in uniform approach Suspect on the street and ask if they may search his briefcase; Suspect says "No," and walks away; Police Officers then walk with Suspect down street, one at each side, asking Suspect why he won't let them search his briefcase if he has nothing to hide. Eventually Suspect consents to the search. 4. Police Officers arrest Suspect for a traffic violation and take him to the station house where he is booked; Police officers' conduct a strip search of Suspect before he is locked up. The search is standard procedure at this station because all incarcerated suspects go to a single large holding cell.

3. Police Officers in uniform approach Suspect on the street and ask if they may search his briefcase; Suspect says "No," and walks away; Police Officers then walk with Suspect down street, one at each side, asking Suspect why he won't let them search his briefcase if he has nothing to hide. Eventually Suspect consents to the search. In order for consent to be valid it must be voluntary. Voluntariness is determined under a totality of the circumstances and the police do not have to inform the suspect of his right not to consent. See Bustamonte. Under these facts, it is likely that the consent would be invalid because the police did not fully honor Suspect's refusal. Instead they continued to walk with him and restricted his freedom of movement by walking on either side of him, using a show of authority and pestering him with continued questioning. While the Suspect may not have been seized for purposes of a Terry stop (See California v. Hodari D.), the totality of the circumstances indicate that the consent was not voluntary.

Concerned by the spike in property crimes during the COVID pandemic a group of local merchants decides to hire a private security company to help them improve the security around their business buildings. The private firm installs surveillance cameras that use the most up to date technology providing 24-hour surveillance of the buildings and any areas within 100 feet of the buildings. This surveillance technology does much more than make a video recording. It also captures conversations and analyzes each person's movements using an algorithm to determine if the person's behavior poses an immediate threat to property. The information collected by this system is maintained for 4 years. Recently the police suspected Defendant of committing a string of break-ins in a neighborhood close to these businesses and they believe that Defendant was part of a larger ring of organized criminals. They request any information on the private security company's database related to Defendant and they specifically request audio recordings of any conversations of Defendant. The company provides the information which does include Defendant's half of a cell phone conversation he had four months ago where he can be heard saying, "we will need a lot more tech before we try and get into any of these stores. The security around here is tight." Assume the prosecution wants to offer this evidence at trial to establish Defendant's role in a larger conspiracy. What is the BEST argument for suppressing this evidence under the 4th Amendment? 1. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy for any phone conversation and the recoding of this conversation violated the 4th Amendment. 2. Because Defendant did not know his conversation was being recorded his 4th Amendment rights were violated. 3. The detailed nature of the information collected by this private security company and the amount of time this information is maintained on the database, which was provided to the police, violated Defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy. 4. The Court in Carpenter v. United States overruled the 3rd party doctrine, so Defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in information collected by 3rd parties, like private security firms.

3. The detailed nature of the information collected by this private security company and the amount of time this information is maintained on the database, which was provided to the police, violated Defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy. While we can't say conclusively that this is a search under the 4th Amendment, these factors listed in this answer choice would make the best argument under controlling Supreme Court caselaw. Answer 1 is incorrect because that statement is too broad. Answer choice 2 is wrong because even if the defendant did not know his voice was being recorded, that is not a dispositive factor. Answer choice 4 is wrong because Carpenter limited the application of the 3rd party doctrine in the context of collecting cell phone location data, but did not broadly overrule the 3rd party doctrine.

In response to recent violent attacks by a mob of angry protesters at the U.S. Capital and concerns that similar attacks might occur at other public buildings the mayor of Anytown U.S.A. has decided to take a number of precautions. First, she has approved a new police task force to regularly monitor the social media postings of various groups that are deemed to be a threat to public safety. This task force compiles a database based on publicly available information and assesses the threats that members of these groups pose to public safety. This threat assessment is then provided to other law enforcement agencies and public officials. Second, the mayor has installed special cameras on the exterior of City Hall. These cameras are equipped with facial recognition software that allows facial images to be collected of anyone who is entering City Hall or walking within 100 feet of the building. These images can be matched against the database created by the police task force. If a person's image matches the face of a person in the task force database, that real-time information is provided to the City Hall security detail. The security detail will then approach the person and conduct an in-person assessment to determine if the person poses a threat. Additionally, the images collected by the facial recognition cameras are maintained for three years and can be routinely accessed by law enforcement. Finally, law enforcement has a fleet of drones equipped with cameras and facial recognition software that they will deploy during any public rally or demonstration that takes place near city hall. These drones will fly at 100 feet above the crowd taking pictures and matching any faces in the crowd to their database of members of known groups that may pose a public safety threat. These pictures are maintained by law enforcement for 3 years. To determine if this program in its totality constitutes a search under the 4th Amendment what factors ARE relevant? 1. The availability of face recognition cameras and related software to the general public. 2. Whether the police have to trespass onto private property to collect this information. 3. How long these records are maintained in a police database 4. All of these factors are relevant. 5. Only factors 2 and 3 are relevant.

4. All of these factors are relevant. These three factors are all relevant to the question "was this a search?"

The police had been monitoring Suspect's behavior for several months and believed that he was the ringleader of a local drug cartel. One afternoon, after they observed Suspect leave his home, they entered an unlocked front door to search for evidence of drug trafficking. The police did not have a warrant. In Suspect's kitchen the police discovered several unregistered high-powered assault rifles. The police did not find evidence of drug trafficking. The weapons were seized by the police and Suspect is now facing several weapons related charges in state court. At a pre-trial hearing Suspect seeks to suppress evidence of the weapons, because the police obtained them in violation of the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement. How should the judge rule? 1. Deny the motion because the 4th Amendment exclusionary rule only applies to federal crimes, and this is a state crime. 2. Grant the motion to suppress the weapons from being admitted but allow the police to testify about what they found in Suspect's home. 3. Deny the motion if there was sufficient probable cause for the police to conduct the search. 4. Grant the motion and not allow any reference to the weapons by any witness.

4. Grant the motion and not allow any reference to the weapons by any witness. The exclusionary rule applies to this warrantless search and not only must the physical evidence be suppressed, police officers cannot testify about what they saw because their observations are the fruits of an illegal search, thus, answer choice 2 is wrong. Answer choice 1 is wrong because the exclusionary rule applies to both state and federal crimes. Answer choice 3 is wrong because even if there was sufficient probable cause the police still needed to get a warrant.

Danny is arrested for burglary after coming to the police station voluntarily in response to a request from a detective over the telephone. At the station, Danny is immediately booked and jailed. Detective Smith advises Danny of his Miranda warnings. Danny states that he does not want to talk with the police until he speaks with his lawyer. Danny calls his lawyer from the jail, and later that day they confer. The next morning, Detective Smith has Danny brought to the interrogation room and asks him if he willing to talk to Detective Smith about an unrelated crime. Danny says he is not sure if he should talk, and asks Detective Smith what he thinks. Detective Smith tells Danny it is entirely up to him. Danny then says he will discuss the matter and signs a Miranda rights warning waiver form. Danny then gives an incriminating statement about the unrelated offense. How should the judge rule on a motion to suppress the statement? 1. Grant the motion because Detective Smith did not scrupulously honor Danny's invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to silence. 2. Deny the motion because Danny made an ambiguous request for counsel at the second interview and the police have no duty to clarify the request. 3. Deny the motion because Danny's initial request for counsel was for an unrelated offense. 4. Grant the motion because Detective Smith did not honor Danny's invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel.

4. Grant the motion because Detective Smith did not honor Danny's invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. Answer choice 1 in incorrect because the suspect did not invoke his right to silence, only his right to counsel. Answer choice 2 is incorrect because once the suspect invoked his right to counsel the police cannot reinitiate questioning on ANY offense for 14 days following the suspect's release from Miranda-custody. Answer choice 3 is incorrect because the Edwards bar prohibits reinitiating questioning on ANY offense. Answer choice 4 is correct because once the suspect invoked his right to counsel the police cannot reinitiate questioning on ANY offense for 14 days following the suspect's release from Miranda-custody.

Officer notices several garbage cans just outside of S's home in her open carport. Officer walks into the carport and opens the garbage cans to look inside. While examining the contents of the garbage cans Officer discovers drug paraphernalia, including used hypodermic syringes with trace amounts of heroin on them. Based on the discovery of this drug paraphernalia Officer obtains a search warrant to search S's home where more illegal drugs are discovered. Which of the following statements is true? 1. The examination of the garbage cans was not a search because people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their garbage, so the subsequent search warrant and search of the home is valid. 2. This was a search under the 4th Amendment because carports are part of the home. 3. Even if the court determines that the examination of the garbage cans was a search, the search of the home is still valid because it was authorized by a warrant. 4. If the court determines that the examination of the garbage cans was a search, the subsequent search of the home is invalid, even if it was accompanied by a warrant.

4. If the court determines that the examination of the garbage cans was a search, the subsequent search of the home is invalid, even if it was accompanied by a warrant. If the initial search of the garbage cans violated the 4th Amendment, that violation would taint the validity of any search warrant that bas based on that illegally obtained information, thus, answer choice 3 is wrong. Answer choice 1 is wrong because that is too broad of a statement. In Greenwood the Court held that garbage seized from a garbage can left on the curb and subsequently examined was not a search, but here our facts are very different because the garbage is being searched while on the defendant's property and that may in-fact be a search. Answer choice 2 is wrong because it is too broad of a statement. To say that all carports are part of the home does not account for situations where the carport may not be attached to the house and may be in a location very far from a house.

After a Terry stop based on reasonable suspicion that the suspect is about to commit or has just committed a crime involving possible use of a weapon, which of the following is true? 1. If the officer had no personal fear that the suspect would harm the officer, then there was no reasonable suspicion to frisk. 2. If the suspect in fact turns out to possess no weapons, this can be used as evidence that the frisk was unreasonable. 3. If the suspect in fact turns out to possess weapons, this can be used as evidence that the frisk was reasonable. 4. In most instances the same reasons that justified the stop will justify the frisk.

4. In most instances the same reasons that justified the stop will justify the frisk. True. While some of the cases we discussed involved situations where the police had reasonable suspicion to stop but not frisk (e.g. Mendenhall), in most cases the belief that the suspect is about to commit or has committed a crime and that the suspect is presently armed and dangerous, will justify both the stop and the frisk.

Dealer used his cell phone to call one of his salespeople to arrange the purchase of several bags of heroin (a felony offense). Unfortunately for Dealer, the person on the other end of the phone was not a salesperson, but was in fact a cop, who had just obtained the phone a few minutes earlier during a drug bust. The cop answered the phone and posing as salesperson agreed to meet Dealer in an hour at a restaurant to complete the sale. When Dealer showed up at the restaurant he was promptly arrested and searched, and bags of heroin were found in his coat pocket and seized. The police did not have an arrest warrant. At trial Dealer moved to suppress the bags of heroin. Which of the following statements is an accurate statement of the law based upon Supreme Court precedent? 1. Under the search incident to arrest exception, the police can only search for weapons and cannot look into closed containers and pockets of the suspect without probable cause. 2. Under the felony-arrest exception, Dealer can be arrested in a public place without an arrest warrant but a restaurant is not a public place. 3. Under the totality of the circumstances, the police did not have probable cause because we know nothing about the veracity or identity of Dealer. 4. The 4th Amendment does not apply to the initial phone call between Dealer and the police officer

4. The 4th Amendment does not apply to the initial phone call between Dealer and the police officer This is similar to White. In White the defendant told information to a friend who was also a police informant and the informant disclosed the conversation to third parties (the police). The Court held that when a person tells information to another, he assumes the risk that the information will subsequently get disclosed to others, including the police. This case is slightly different, since the person on the other end of the phone was a policeman. However, Dealer assumed he was talking to a salesperson, and he never attempted to further clarify the identity of the person on the other end of the phone. Thus, he assumed the risk by believing that he was talking to a salesperson and he has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation. Because the 4th Amendment does not apply to the initial phone conversation, the subsequent arrest and search is not poisoned by an illegal search.

Officer Alexander is assigned to stop people who she observes leaving a possible crack house. She sees a person knock at the door of the house, and, when no one answers, return to his car and drive away. Alexander follows, and two blocks later, she observes the car fail to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. She pulls the car over. As Alexander approaches the car, she observes the driver lean down as if reaching beneath his seat. When she arrives at the car window, she observes what appears to be the handle of a screwdriver sticking out from beneath the driver's seat. Based on these facts, which of the following statements is true? 1. The stop of the car was not based on probable cause. 2. Based on what the police officer has observed, she now has probable cause to search the car for drugs. 3. Based on what the officer has observed, she now has probable cause to arrest the defendant and search the passenger compartment of the car. 4. The fact that the police officer was investigating drug crimes is irrelevant in assessing the legality of the stop of the defendant.

4. The fact that the police officer was investigating drug crimes is irrelevant in assessing the legality of the stop of the defendant. It doesn't matter why the officer was in the area, or what the officer's subjective intent, hope or plan was. The question is whether the officer had an objective factual basis for the stop. Answer choice 1 is wrong because the stop was based on the traffic violation, which the officer observed. Answer choice 2 is wrong, because under the totality of the circumstances test, there is no evidence to indicate that there are likely to be drugs in the car. Answer choice 3 is wrong because it is too broad. Maybe the officer can search the passenger compartment after arresting the defendant for the traffic violation, but only if the defendant remains in close proximity to the car. The officer is not going to find any evidence of the traffic violation by searching the passenger compartment.

Don meets Cliff at a bar. They engage in pleasant conversation for an hour, after which Don suggests they go to Cliff's apartment to engage in some illegal activities. Cliff says, "You seem like a nice enough person, and you're welcome to come over, but I don't want you engaging in any illegal activities in my house." Don and Cliff then go to Cliff's house. A few moments later, police officers, who have been investigating Don's involvement in drug trafficking activities, pry open a window in Cliff's house and observe Don in possession of illegal drugs. The officers notify a judge of their observations, promptly obtain an arrest warrant, and within minutes burst in and arrest Don in possession of the drugs. Don moves to suppress the drugs claiming that the warrant was obtained by an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. What result? A) Admit the drugs, because Don has no constitutional protection in someone else's house when he goes there to engage in illicit activities. B) Exclude the drugs because Don was a guest of Cliff and the police illegally searched Cliff's apartment when they pried open the window. C) Admit the drugs because the police entered the house to arrest Defendant with a warrant. D) Exclude the drugs, unless the drugs were immediately recognizable as soon as the police opened the window.

A) Admit the drugs, because Don has no constitutional protection in someone else's house when he goes there to engage in illicit activities. Don does not have standing to assert a 4th Amendment violation because he was a mere guest in Cliff's home and was only there to engage in illegal activities. Therefore, B is the wrong answer choice. C is wrong because the arrest warrant was tainted by the initial illegal search. D is wrong because the illegal search is not saved by the fact that the police immediately recognize the drugs.

At arraignment, Suspect invokes her right to counsel. Police, after taking her back to the station may do which of the following: A. After Mirandizing her and obtaining a clear waiver of her Miranda rights, ask her about the offenses for which she was arraigned. B. If Suspect initiates the conversation and waives her counsel rights, ask her about an offense, including the offenses for which she was arraigned. C. Fingerprint and ask biographical information questions without counsel present and without advising suspect of her counsel rights. B & C Only A, B , and C

A, B , and C The correct answer choice is A, B, and C. Even though the 6th Amendment right to counsel has attached, there is no Edwards bar associated with that right so the police can initiate questioning on any topic so long as the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waives the right to counsel, which happened in both options A and B. Option C is permissible because it is not a deliberate elicitation of incriminating evidence by asking mere background and other questions associated with the booking process.

Based on legally intercepted e-mail messages, FBI agents obtain probable cause to believe that Ted has agreed to build a bomb that other conspirators intend to use to kill Dr. Mark, a provider of abortion services, at a conference Dr. Mark is scheduled to attend in six weeks. Agents arrive at Ted's home. When they find no one home, they enter it without a warrant. They discover the bomb. They leave the home to call a judge to obtain a search warrant of the home. The judge authorizes the warrant. In order for the independent source exception to the exclusionary rule to apply to the warrant which of the following is true: A. The prosecution must show that the search warrant is not based on any information obtained from the illegal search of the home. B. The prosecution must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the police would have sought a search warrant regardless of the illegal search of the home. C. The prosecution must show that the search warrant is based on probable cause. D. The prosecution must show that the police did not act in bad faith when they first entered the home without a warrant. A only A and C only A, B, and C only A, B, C and D

A, B, and C only The correct answer choice is A, B and C. All of these requirements must be met in order for the independent source exception to work. However, the exception is not based on the good or bad faith of the police officers therefore answer choice D is wrong.

Which of these situations is a search for purposes of the 4th Amendment? A. An electronic listening device is placed by police on the outside wall of Defendant's office and incriminating conversations are overheard. B. Police officers reassemble, from ripped up papers found in defendant's curbside trash, notes and drawings related to a planned bombing. C. Posing as window washers in an adjacent taller building, and using binoculars, police officers look over Defendant's patio wall into Defendant's porch where they observe cocaine on a picnic table, for which they then obtain a search warrant. D. A police officer disguises himself as a drug "buyer" and wearing a recording device under his clothing, he secretly records a drug purchase from the defendant.

A. An electronic listening device is placed by police on the outside wall of Defendant's office and incriminating conversations are overheard. this is similar to Katz and people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversations in a phone booth or an office.

Police approach a group of young men on the street corner of an area known for drug trafficking. Officer A has a hunch that the suspects are selling drugs. As Officer A approaches he shouts, "you are all under arrest." Suspect B flees into the City Park. When Officer A commands suspect to "Stop or I'll shoot," Suspect B throws something in a bush, and then flees without stopping. Officer A fires his weapon at Suspect, but Suspect B disappears into a waiting car, leaving a trail of blood. Officer A reaches into the bushes and retrieves a bag containing cocaine. Suspect B is later apprehended and the State uses the cocaine against Suspect B at his trial. When Suspect B objects that the evidence found in the bushes should not constitutionally have been used against him, the State's best response is: A. No Fourth Amendment seizure of Suspect B had yet occurred when Suspect B threw the evidence into the bushes. B. Suspect B had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the items he threw into the bushes. C. Even if Suspect B was seized before he threw the evidence into the bushes, the seizure was based on sufficient information and was therefore lawful. D. Firing a bullet and striking Suspect B does not amount to physical force so there was no seizure in this case.

A. No Fourth Amendment seizure of Suspect B had yet occurred when Suspect B threw the evidence into the bushes. Under the Court's precedent in California v. Hodari D. a suspect can be seized by either force or show of authority. If the seizure is by a show of authority, the suspect must actually submit to that authority. Here, the initial seizure was by a show of authority, "You are all under arrest;" "Stop or I'll shoot." However, the suspect did not actually submit. Instead he began running and threw the evidence away before he was shot at and before he was ever seized, thus Option A would be the best argument for the State to make. Option B would not work because if Suspect was seized before he threw the evidence into the bushes then the abandonment of the evidence is the fruit of an illegal seizure. Why would the seizure be illegal before the evidence was thrown into the bushes? Because at that point, the seizure was based on only a hunch and a hunch is not a sufficient basis to seize a suspect. See Terry v. Ohio. Thus, option C does not work for the State. Option D is also a bad argument. Even though the police officer is not physically touching the suspect, shooting the suspect in an attempt to prevent him from fleeing is likely to be seen as a seizure by force.

Cops pull suspect over for speeding. Suspect exits his truck with license and registration. Cop asked if he had weapons, suspect says no but shows him the mace on his key chain. Cop tells suspect to get back in the truck and calls for backup. When backup arrives, cop has suspect get out of the truck and the backup cop searches the truck and finds a gun case and a gun. Cop testified that he suspected that the driver had a gun because of NRA sticker, hunting equipment, and because driver objected to the search of his vehicle claiming it violated his constitutional rights. In assessing whether this traffic stop violated the 4th Amendment what facts would be relevant? I. The initial basis for the stop. II. The time it took for the second police officer to arrive at the scene. III. Whether the defendant's actions delayed the length of the stop. IV. The officer's reasons for believing that a gun was in the truck. all factors are relevant i and ii only i, ii, and iii only i, ii, and iv only

All factors are relevant All of these factors are relevant in determining whether the initial stop was legal and whether the police officers exceeded the initial scope of the stop without sufficient justification.

After Donald Druggie makes a lane change without signaling, Police Officer pulls Druggie over and orders him to exit the car. Officer hopes to find evidence that Druggie has illegal drugs in his car. Assume the state law authorizes the police to arrest for the lane change offense even though the punishment for failing to signal a lane change is a $50.00 fine. Officer decides to arrest Druggie for the illegal lane change. He first searches Druggie by patting down his jacket. He feels a cigarette package in Druggies jacket pocket but Officer does not believe it contains cigarettes. Officer reaches into Druggie's pocket and pulls out the cigarette package. He opens the package and sees that it contains a list of names and phone numbers covered in a white powdery substance he believes is cocaine. Officer next places Druggie in handcuffs and puts him in the back of the squad car. He then searches the passenger compartment of Druggie's car. Under the passenger seat Officer discovers approximately 50 empty packages of cold-medicine tablets. Officer knows that several illegal meth labs in the area use medicine tablets such as these to cook meth illegally. Officer next opens Druggie's trunk and searches the trunk where he discovers two small baggies of crack cocaine. At trial the prosecutor seeks to offer the following evidence: I. The phone list to show that Druggie was dealing drugs to people on the phone list. II. The empty cold medicine packages to show that Druggie was involved in cooking meth. III. The rocks of crack cocaine found in the trunk. Which of this evidence is admissible under the 4th Amendment law as established by the Supreme Court? I Only I & II Only None of the above. All of the above.

All of the above. Under the search incident to arrest exception the court held in Robinson that the police could search the person arrested to include jacket pockets. The police can further remove items from the pocket and open the items up to remove their contents. The cold packets found in the car would not be admissible as part of the search incident to arrest, see Arizona v. Gant. However, the discovery of the phone list covered in a white powder believed to be cocaine, gives Officer probable cause to search areas in the car where there is probable cause to believe that other evidence of drugs may be. Since Druggy was recently in the car, there is probable cause to believe that more evidence of drugs may be found in the passenger compartment. Once Officer sees evidence of the cold tablets in the passenger compartment, probable cause expands to other areas in the car which may contain evidence of drugs, including the trunk. Under the automobile exception the search of the passenger compartment and the search of the trunk, including closed containers in the trunk, can be searched without a warrant. Therefore all the evidence is admissible.

Cops involved in high-speed chase of the suspect. Suspect abandoned the car and hides in a cotton field. While hiding, the suspect stabbed himself several time and lost about 1 quart of blood. The cops apprehend him and took him to the hospital. The suspect is given morphine and prepped for surgery. Before surgery the cops interview him. The cops were aware that he was a drug addict but were not aware of the impact that that would have had on his condition at the time of the questioning. Medical expert testified that the loss of blood, the morphine, and the drug addiction would have made the suspect intoxicated at the time he gave a statement. The cops testified that the suspect appeared awake and alert. Based on Supreme Court precedent, which fact is NOT relevant in determining if the defendant's will was overborne? I. The fact that suspect stabbed himself. II. The fact that the questioning took place in the hospital. III. The fact that the suspect appeared awake and alert. IV. The intoxicated state of the suspect at the time of the questioning. All of the facts are relevant Fact I is not relevant. Facts I and II are not relevant. Fact II is not relevant.

All of the facts are relevant All of these factors are relevant in a totality of the circumstances analysis, including the fact that the suspect caused a self-inflicted wound because if that wounds and subsequent loss of blood was the primary reason for why the suspect spoke with the police, a court could determine that any "overborn will" was not brought on by police conduct. See Colorado v. Connelly. Also, the location of the questioning is a relevant factor in determining if the suspect's will was overborn. See Spano and Ashcraft.

On May 9, 2019, an informant phoned the Boston police to report that Sally Suspect would be arriving at Boston's Logan Airport on May 12, 2019. The informant, who did not identify herself, said that Sally would be wearing a Burberry plaid raincoat and carrying a new matching plaid briefcase and purse. The informant said that Sally would be carrying one pound of Jamaican marijuana in her new plaid purse. The police check the airlines and discover that Sally left Boston for Jamaica on May 10, and is scheduled to return on May 12, 2019. A check with the Boston Burberry store reveals that Sally recently purchased a plaid raincoat, briefcase and purse. You are an attorney working for the Boston Police Department. A Detective has asked your advice about whether there is probable cause to arrest Sally at Logan Airport. Assume for the purposes of the question that Detective has not yet obtained an arrest or search warrant for Sally. Which of the following statements is legally correct? A. The tip was of greater reliability because it was provided by a confidential informant. B. The basis of the informant's knowledge is probably satisfied by these facts. C. The veracity of the informant is probably satisfied by these facts because the tip contains predictive information. D. Both B and C

B. The basis of the informant's knowledge is probably satisfied by these facts. We know nothing about the informant so the veracity prong has not been satisfied. While the basis of knowledge prong may be satisfied because of the detail and prediction of future events, the information independently corroborated by the police does not point to criminal conduct. Therefore the independent corroboration does not close the gap with respect to the informant's veracity.

While walking across the Boston Common one evening Patty was attacked by an unknown assailant who grabbed her backpack and ran off into the night. She reported the incident to the police. Three or four days later she began receiving anonymous emails from a Gmail account that had no return email address. The email messages said "I am watching you" and the person sending the message claimed to be the man who took her backpack. Patty immediately notified the police. The police working with her internet service provider used a very sophisticated monitoring device installed on the service provider's equipment that allowed the police to scan all email messages coming into Patty's account. The device could determine what account the email originated from, but it could not open or read the contents of the email. Information obtained from this monitoring device indicated that Doe's e-mail account was the source of the emails. The police obtained a search warrant for Doe's computer and obtained additional specific information linking Doe to the emails and to the attack of Patty. At trial, Doe moved to suppress the evidence obtained from his computer and email account. Doe contended that the sophisticated monitoring device was a warrantless search and the police lacked probable cause to conduct the search. How should the judge rule on Doe's motion? A. Deny the motion, because there were sufficient grounds for probable cause at the time the monitoring device was used B. Grant the motion, because the police cannot conduct any type of electronic monitoring under the 4th Amendment without a warrant. C. Deny the motion, because the use of the email monitoring device was not a search. D. Deny the motion, because the internet service provider, not the police conducted the actual monitoring of the email account.

C. Deny the motion, because the use of the email monitoring device was not a search.

Defendant had previously been stopped in a high crime area while riding his bike. On one of those occasions the defendant had been in possession of food stamps from another person. On the evening in question the cops saw the defendant ride his bike through a stop sign. They ordered him to stop. The defendant did not immediately stop and was seen pushing something into the handlebars of his bike. When the defendant did stop, he was patted down and a knife was discovered in his pocket. He kept looking over towards his bike. The police decided to search his bike without a warrant, hopping that they would find drugs. They tapped on the handlebars and three rocks of crack cocaine fell out. Which of the following statements is true? A. The tapping of the bike handlebars was not a search because the public does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in bikes. B. This search violated the 4th Amendment because it was not based on probable cause. C. This search violated the 4th Amendment because it was done without a warrant. D. It is irrelevant that the police hoped to find drugs when they tapped the handlebars of the bike.

D. It is irrelevant that the police hoped to find drugs when they tapped the handlebars of the bike. In determining the legality of the search, the police officer's subjective hope or belief is not relevant. What matters is whether probable cause exists from the objective facts based on a totality of the circumstances. Answer choices A and B are wrong because the statements are too broad and conclusory. We cannot say definitively that people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bikes they ride in every circumstance. Similarly, we can't say definitively that probable cause does not exist under these facts. There is a pretty strong case to be made here for probable cause. Answer choice C is wrong because it is possible that the mobility exception may apply to the warrant requirement.

Suspected flew from Columbia to Miami. Customs agents questioned her about general travel plans, and her nervous responses and general demeanor caused greater suspicion. Suspect was taken to a second room and strip searched by two female customs agents but nothing was found. After that search, another customs agent gave her several news clippings about what can happen to drug mules if the drugs they are carrying rupture. Customs agent then talked with her for about 8 minutes "as a father would to a daughter" and he explained the serious health consequences and danger involved. After the talk, suspect admitted to carrying drugs. After drugs were removed from her body, suspect was arrested and given Miranda warnings. Based upon Supreme Court precedent, when determining whether the suspect was interrogated which of the following factors should a court consider? I. Whether the DEA agents hoped that showing the suspect the articles and talking about the health consequences of being a drug mule would get the suspect to confess. II. Whether the DEA agents asked the suspect any direct questions about whether she was a drug mule. III. Whether this police tactic has been successful in getting suspects to confess in the past. IV. How long the suspect was talked to before she confessed. All of the factors are relevant. Factors II, III and IV are relevant. Factors II and IV are relevant. Factors I and III are relevant.

Factors II, III and IV are relevant. All of the factors are relevant, except the first factor. The test for interrogation is: Express questioning and words or actions on the part of the police (other than those attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. This is an objective test and it is not relevant that the police may have subjectively hoped that this tactic would cause the suspect to confess. However, if this tactic had been successful in the past, then one could say that the police "should know" that this tactic is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.

James is arrested pursuant to an indictment charging him with rape. James is advised of his Miranda rights at the time of his arrest, and says he does not want to talk to the police without a lawyer. Three days later while still in police custody, James is approached by Detective Brown. Detective Brown tells James he wants to talk to him about an unrelated burglary he is suspected of having committed. He advises James of his Miranda rights again, and this time James signs a rights waiver indicating he is willing to discuss the matter. James then confesses to the burglary. What is the best legal argument/s regarding the admissibility of the confession? I. The confession should be suppressed because the police violated James' 5th Amendment right to counsel under Miranda and its progeny. II. The confession should be suppressed, because the police violated James' 6th Amendment right to counsel under Messiah and its progeny. III. The confession should be admitted because James' 5th Amendment right to counsel was scrupulously honored. IV. The confession should be admitted because the confession was not a product of "deliberate elicitation" of information on the charge for which James was arrested. I Only I and II Only III Only III & IV Only

I Only III and IV incorrect bc These are not the tests when a defendant invokes his right to counsel under Miranda not is this the test for a Miranda interrogation.

Which of the following statements is TRUE about the Miranda warning requirements? I. The warnings must be given even to a knowledgeable suspect who clearly knows their rights before custodial interrogation. II. Warnings must be given at the time the suspect is arrested or otherwise placed in Miranda custody. III. Warnings must be given anytime the police plan to interrogate a suspect. IV. If police give accurate warnings and the suspect waives their Miranda rights, any statement that follows will be deemed to be voluntary. All the statements are TRUE I, II and III are TRUE II and III are TRUE I is TRUE None of the statements are TRUE

I is TRUE Statement I is correct. The Court in Miranda expressly stated that even suspects who had knowledge about their rights must be given warnings before custodial interrogation. Statement II is false. Custody is only one of the two Miranda prongs. There must also be an interrogation before warnings are required. Statement III is false, there must also be Miranda-custody before warnings are required. Statement IV is false. Miranda warnings and waiver is an important factor in determining if the statements were voluntary, but the warnings do not replace the voluntariness analysis.

Which of the following warnings did the Court require in Miranda? I. Right to remain silent. II. Informed how any inculpatory statements will be used. III. The consequences of remaining silent. IV. Right to consult an attorney and have a lawyer present during questioning. V. Right of indigent suspect to get a lawyer free of charge. VI. That the police will make counsel available. All of these warnings are required. I, II, IV and V are required. I, IV and V are required. I, II, III, IV, and V are required.

I, IV and V are required. The following warnings are NOT part of the Miranda warnings. II. This an inaccurate statement. The police must warn the suspect that ANY statement can be used, it is not limited to inculpatory statements. III. Is not one of the Miranda warnings. VI. Is not a Miranda right nor is it part of the warnings. The police don't have to make an attorney available, they just can't question the suspect without an attorney being present, if the suspect requests one.

Defendant is arrested, given Miranda warnings and indicates that she does not want to talk to the police. She is arraigned and appointed counsel. The appointed council stresses with Defendant the importance of not talking to anyone about the offense. Later that day the police place Defendant in a holding cell. Informer, who works regularly with the police, promptly engages her in a discussion about her charges and the strength of the evidence in Defendant's case. Defendant, believing Informer to be trustworthy, confides inculpatory information to Informer. Informer then relays the substance of the conversations to the police. At trial Defendant objects to the admission of her statements to Informer arguing that her rights have been violated. Which of the following provide a legal basis to suppress the evidence? I. The statements should be excluded because they were a product of custodial interrogation and Miranda warnings were not given by Informant. II. The statements should be excluded because the police violated Defendant's 5th Amendment right to counsel. III. The statements should be excluded because the police did not scrupulously honor Defendant's 5th Amendment right to remain silent. IV. The statements should be excluded because the police deliberately elicited the statements from Defendant in violation of the 6th Amendment. I & IV Only II & III Only I, II, & IV Only IV Only

IV Only Answer choice I is incorrect because under Illinois v. Perkins, Miranda warnings are not required in this situation. Answer choice II is incorrect because the defendant never invoked her 5th Amendment right to counsel under Miranda. Answer choice III is wrong because it is too broad of a statement under the Mosely factors. Also, per Illinois v. Perkins, this is not a situation involving custodial interrogation covered by Miranda. Answer choice IV is correct. The right to counsel attached once the defendant was arraigned and we know from U.S. v. Henry, this type of jailhouse questioning violates the defendant's 6th Amendment right to counsel.

Police officers arrest Sally for a burglary which occurred in Boston, and she is taken to the station for questioning. The police "Mirandize" her and she tells the officers she will not talk to them until she has consulted her attorney. What can the police do now regarding further questioning of Sally? I. Police officers, known to Sally as such, may question Sally later that day about an unrelated crime in Providence, if they again "Mirandize" her and she waives her rights before this second attempted interrogation. II. After Sally consults with her attorney, police officers, known to Sally as such, may question Sally about the crime for which she is charged, without her attorney being present, if they again "Mirandize" her and she waives her rights before this second attempted interrogation even if the second interrogation takes place within 14 days of her initial request for counsel. III. After Sally consults with her attorney, police officers, known to Sally as such, may question Sally about the unrelated crime in Providence, without her attorney being present, if they again "Mirandize" her and she waives her rights before this second attempted interrogation even if the second interrogation takes place within 14 days of her initial request for counsel IV. Paid police informants, disguised as fellow prisoners, enter the jail at the direction of the police, may question Sally about the burglary in Boston, since Sally would be unaware it was the police who were questioning her. I Only II Only III Only IV Only None of the above.

IV Only Once the suspect has invoked her right to counsel after being Mirandized, the police cannot reinitiate questioning on ANY offense within 14 days, while she remains in Miranda custody, without providing her a lawyer who must be present at the questioning. See, Edwards v. Arizona & Minnick v. Mississippi. However, because the case has not yet reached a critical stage and the 6th Amendment right to counsel has not yet attached, U. S. v. Henry, does not apply, and the Court held in Illinois v. Perkins that questioning by an undercover agent in this context does not trigger the Miranda protections because the defendant is unaware of the informant's status.

Police officers arrest Sally for a burglary which occurred in Boston, and for which she has been indicted and she remains in custody. The police "Mirandize" her and she tells the officers she will not talk to them until she has consulted her attorney. What can the police do now regarding further questioning of Sally? I. Police officers, known to Sally as such, may question Sally later that day about an unrelated crime in Providence, if they again "Mirandize" her and she waives her rights before this second attempted interrogation. II. After Sally consults with her attorney, police officers, known to Sally as such, may question Sally about the crime for which she is charged, without her attorney being present, if they again "Mirandize" her and she waives her rights before this second attempted interrogation even if the second interrogation takes place within 14 days of her initial request for counsel. III. After Sally consults with her attorney, police officers, known to Sally as such, may question Sally about the unrelated crime in Providence, without her attorney being present, if they again "Mirandize" her and she waives her rights before this second attempted interrogation even if the second interrogation takes place within 14 days of her initial request for counsel IV. Paid police informants, disguised as fellow prisoners, enter the jail at the direction of the police, may question Sally about the burglary in Boston, since Sally would be unaware it was the police who were questioning her. I Only I & III Only I, III, & IV Only All of the Above None of the Above

None of the Above Once the suspect has invoked her right to counsel after being Mirandized, the police cannot reinitiate questioning on ANY offense within 14 days, while she remains in Miranda custody, without providing her a lawyer who must be present at the questioning. See, Edwards v. Arizona & Minnick v. Mississippi. In addition, in U. S. v. Henry, the Court held that once the 6th Amendment right attaches, a police informant cannot initiate questioning, even if the defendant is unaware of the informant's status.

Mrs. Speedy was observed by Officer Wiggum driving through town without having her children in their car seats as required by state law. Officer Wiggum stopped Mrs. Speedy, arrested her and took her to the police station, even though under state law he had the authority to either arrest her or just issue her a citation and send her on her way. Police procedures do not allow for vehicle inventories for misdemeanor offenses. After Speedy is handcuffed and placed in the squad car which of the following areas of the car can Officer Wiggum search without a warrant? I. Closed, but not locked glove box. II. Search the map pockets on the back of Mrs. Speedy's seat. III. Search the pockets of Mrs. Speedy's coat lying on the front seat. IV. The trunk of Mrs. Speedy's car. ii Only i and ii only i, ii, and iii only all of the above none of the above

None of the Above The rationale for this warrantless search would be a search incident to arrest because there is no probable cause to suggest that evidence of a crime is located in the car. As we know from Atwater, it makes no difference that the police could have just given her a citation for this misdemeanor offense. Since the police have the authority to arrest, they can conduct a search incident to arrest. This search is not based on probable cause but is based on the concern for officer safety and the preservation of evidence. The problem here is that the search was not done contemporaneously with the arrest. Because the suspect had already been removed from the vehicle and placed her in the squad car, there was no continuing threat that she would get back into her car. In addition, because the arrest was for the children not being placed in car seats, there was no reasonable belief that a search of the car would yield any evidence related to that offense. Based on the Court's ruling in Arizona v. Gant, this search incident to arrest of any area of the car is not justified.

Based on legally intercepted e-mail messages, FBI agents obtain probable cause to believe that Ted has agreed to build a bomb that other conspirators intend to use to kill Dr. Mark, a provider of abortion services, at a conference Dr. Mark is scheduled to attend in six weeks.Agents arrive at Ted's home. When they find no one home, they enter it without a warrant. They discover the bomb. They leave the home to call a bomb disposal unit. While waiting for the unit, the bomb detonates, blowing out an exterior wall of the home. The agents re-enter the home and seize bomb fragments. Assume the first entry into Ted's home was unlawful. In their case in chief, prosecution witnesses want to testify that they saw a bomb in defendant's home prior to the explosion. In order for the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule to permit this testimony which of the following statements is true: A. The prosecution must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the bomb would have been discovered lawfully. B. The prosecution must establish that the police did not act in bad faith when they conducted the initial search. C. The prosecution must show that the bomb was discovered by lawful means. A only. A and B only. A, B, and C None of the above.

None of the above. The standard for inevitable discovery is preponderance of the evidence. The good or bad faith on the part of the police is not a factor for this exception. The prosecution have to show that the evidence would have inevitably discovered by lawful means, not that it actually was discovered by lawful means.

Suspected flew from Columbia to Miami. Customs agents questioned her about general travel plans, and her nervous responses and general demeanor caused greater suspicion. Suspect was taken to a second room and strip searched by two female customs agents but nothing was found. After that search, another customs agent gave her several news clippings about what can happen to drug mules if the drugs they are carrying rupture. Customs agent then talked with her for about 8 minutes "as a father would to a daughter" and he explained the serious health consequences and danger involved. After the talk, suspect admitted to carrying drugs. After drugs were removed from her body, suspect was arrested and given Miranda warnings. Based upon Supreme Court precedent, when determining when the suspect was placed in Miranda-custody which of the following factors should a court consider? I. Whether the suspect speaks/understands English. II. The suspect's nervous demeanor. III. If it objectively appears that the suspect is a minor. IV. The suspect's gender. All of these factors are relevant. None of these factors are relevant. Only factor III is relevant. Only factors I and III are relevant. Only factors I, III, and IV are relevant.

Only factor III is relevant. Based on the Court's holding in J.D.B. v. North Carolina, if it objectively appears that the suspect is be a minor, that fact is relevant in determining if the suspect is in Miranda-custody. The test for Miranda-custody is whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave or terminate the questioning. The other factors listed have not, as of yet been recognized by the Court as relevant factor in this reasonable person test.

State law imposed an implied consent condition or all drivers in the state. The implied consent law deemed that all drivers within the state consented to urine chemical tests to determine drug impairment if there is probable cause to believe that the driver was partially at fault for an accident. What factors would be relevant in determining if this statute was constitutional? I. The manner in which the urine test was conducted. II. Whether the driver would face criminal sanctions if the test determined that there were drugs in their system. III. The level of public harm that impaired drivers cause. IV. Whether the state has less intrusive and more effective ways to detect and prevent impaired driving. i only i and ii only i ii and iii only All of the listed factors are relevant

i ii and iii only Items I-III are all relevant factors. The Court in Skinner looked at each of these factors in assessing the constitutionality of drug testing railroad workers after an accident. However, the Court in Sitz expressly said that factor IV was not a relevant consideration for the courts. It was the executive branch's responsibility to decide how best to use their resources.

In which situation would the consent to search be invalid under controlling Supreme Court precedent? I. A roommate of Suspect gives Police permission to search the kitchen of their shared apartment; Suspect has contraband in the kitchen cabinets. II. Suspect's spouse consents to search of shared bedroom over Suspect's objections. III. Landlord consent's to search of Tenant's apartment in Tenant's absence. IV. Suspect's spouse consents to search of shared house. Police conduct the search while suspect is at work and do not attempt to obtain Suspect's consent. i only i and ii only ii and iii only ii, iii, and iv only

ii and iii only A person who has the authority to consent can give valid consent. However, if two parties have an equal interest in the area searched, the police do not have valid consent if one party objects. The police are not required to seek out the absent property owner's consent, so long as the police themselves do not make the joint owner unavailable. Under these rules, consent under situations II & III are invalid.

Police received a phone call reporting sounds of a struggle in an apartment. Police officer Cain arrived and knocked on the door of the apartment, announced his presence, and demanded the door be opened. Receiving no response, he forcibly entered the apartment. He entered each room and opened each closet but found no one. In a small linen closet, he saw dozens of prescription bottles that appeared to be full of pills. On the face of the bottles were the names of prescription painkillers, the names of several different prescribing doctors, and dates that suggested they were purchased over a period of just a few days. In Cain's experience, a large collection of painkillers prescribed by several doctors purchased in a few days was consistent with illegal possession and possibly distribution of the drugs. Which of the following information below would be relevant in assessing whether these painkillers were discovered in plain view: I. That the discovery of these painkillers was inadvertent. II. Whether the officer had to move or manipulate the bottles to read the information contained on the labels. III. Whether the location the officer is looking is a place where people could be located. IV. The police officer's past experience with how possession of painkillers in this manner is consistent with illegal drug possession and distribution. i only ii and iii only all factors are relevant ii, iii, and iv only

ii, iii, and iv only All of the factors except I are relevant. We know from Horton that the discovery of the contraband in plain view does not have to be inadvertent. Factor II is relevant because if the police have to manipulate the bottles to read the information, that will constitute an additional search, per Arizona v. Hicks. Factor III is relevant because the police are looking for people. If they are searching an area where it is unlikely for people to be, then they have exceeded the scope of their lawful search and plain view will not apply. Factor IV is relevant because the police officer's knowledge and training is relevant to establishing probable cause for the seizure of the bottles.

Because of ongoing concerns of terrorist threats, Big City officials want to develop a program that allows them to conduct random checks of cars driving into Big City in order to determine if the driver poses a terrorist threat. Big City officials come to you as the city attorney for advice on how best to structure the program. Which of the following advice complies with Supreme Court precedent? I. There must not be a law enforcement purpose to the program. II. If the cars are stopped only briefly, it will not be considered a seizure for 4th Amendment purposes. III. Suspicionless stops and searches of vehicles do not violate the 4th Amendment. IV. The duration of the stop and the scope of the search are relevant factors in determining 4th Amendment compliance. all of the above none of the above i and iv only iv only

iv only I is incorrect. For a program such as this, law enforcement cannot be the primary purpose, but it is possible that it can be a secondary purpose. II is wrong, even a brief stop is a seizure for 4th Amendment purposes if the driver does not reasonably feel free to leave. III is wrong. Suspicionless stops and searched MAY violate the 4th Amendment even if there is a special need for the stop and search. IV is correct. Under a Terry balancing, these two factors are particularly important.

High School attempted to complete a pre-winter break clean out of all lockers. Students were required to go to the lockers, teachers were instructed to look for excessive trash, overdue books, food, weapons and drugs. If students did not show up, lockers were opened the next day. A student's locker was opend without the student being present. The only thing inside the locker was a coat.School officials patted down the coat, found a small bag of pot and the student was then called to the locker.Student was asked if anything in his locker would be a problem. Student said no but when locker was opened, he grabbed the coat and tried to flee. He was caught and held until the police arrived. Which of the following is an accurate statement of the law: I. Because school officials were not specifically looking for weapons, the pat-down of the student's jacket violated the 4th Amendment. II. Because there was no individualized suspicion for this search of the locker, it violated the 4th Amendment. III. Because school officials, not the police conducted the search of the locker, the 4th Amendment does not apply to these facts. IV. Because the primary purpose of this locker inspection was not for law enforcement purposes, it will satisfy the special needs requirement and is constitutional under the 4th Amendment. i only i and ii only i ii and iii only iv only none of the choices are correct statements of the law

none of the choices are correct statements of the law I is incorrect. This is a school context and we know from TLO school's have an interest in ensuring the safety of students and ensuring order within the school. The Court has recognized that the school setting may create a special need, and it is too broad a statement to say that the pat-down search in this context must be for weapons only. II is wrong. In the school special-needs context, individualized suspicion may not be required. III is wrong. In TLO the Court held that school officials do come under the purview of the 4th Amendment. IV is wrong. It is too broad of a statement. While the special needs doctrine MAY apply in this situation, there are some ways this case can be distinguished from TLO.