CRJ 123 - Final Study Guide
Officer arrested Defendant on a charge of bank robbery and had him transported to the police station. Officer went to Defendant's two-bedroom home, which he owned, but which he shared with a roommate who paid him rent. Officer asked the roommate if Officer could search the home. The roommate agreed to the search. In a search of a box hidden in the back of the front hall closet that the roommates shared, Officer discovered the proceeds of the robbery and a handgun used in the robbery. Charged with armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?
Although the roommate lacked authority to consent, his apparent authority entitled the police to rely on the roommate's consent. The court should deny the motion.
Defendant operated a marijuana farm in a rural and mountainous area. Based on uncorroborated tip to that effect, Officer used a helicopter to get a view of Defendant's property. Officer's job was made difficult by the isolated nature of the property, but the Officer was able to secure a view of the property while the helicopter remained in lawful airspace often used by helicopters flown by fire, police and emergency personnel. They recognized Defendant's crop as marijuana. Officer secured a search warrant, which the Officer and other officers executed. They discovered close to a ton of marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?
As long as it is clear that the helicopter was in public airways at an altitude at which members of the public travel with sufficient regularity, the court should deny the motion because there would have been no violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Defendant boarded a bus in Florida. Aware that Florida was the entry point for illegal drugs, the local police department routinely had officers get on buses to see if they could locate narcotics. Consistent with departmental policy, Officer got on the bus in which Defendant was riding and felt luggage that passengers had placed in the overhead luggage rack. When Officer squeezed Defendant's bag, he recognized immediately, from his many years of experience in drug trafficking, the distinctive brick-like shape of packaged marijuana. A subsequent search confirmed that the brick was marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?
Because the squeezing of the luggage was a search without any justification, Officer's conduct was unlawful. The court should grant the motion.
Officer developed probable cause to arrest Defendant for child molestation. Officer observed Defendant and waited until Defendant got into his vehicle and began to drive away. After Officer secured Defendant into the back of Officer's police vehicle, Officer searched Defendant's vehicle. Under the front seat of the car, Officer found three DVDs that appeared to be child pornography. Charged with molestation and possession of child pornography, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?
Because this was not a lawful search incident to arrest, the court should grant the motion.
FBI Agent suspected Defendant of being connected to the Mob. Unable to get hard evidence against him, Agent arranged with a local restaurant to place a "bug" in a private dining room that Defendant reserved for a dinner with one of his associates. The bug allowed Agent to overhear and tape several incriminating conversations between Defendant and his associate. As a result, Agent was able to secure a warrant for the arrest of Defendant and a warrant to search his home. The evidence seized at his home allowed the government to indict Defendant for violations of the federal racketeering statute. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?
Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy that his private conversation would not be overheard. As a result, the use of the bug was an unreasonable search. The court should grant the motion.
Unable to determine whether Defendant was operating an illegal gambling operation, Officer asked one of his informants to get to know Defendant. Informant did so and told Officer that Defendant did maintain an apartment from which he conducted his activities as a bookie. Officer arranged to tape a phone conversation between Defendant and Informant. Informant called and placed a bet with Defendant. Charged with illegal gambling, Defendant has moved to suppress the conversation recorded by Informant on the grounds that the police conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation with a person who, as it turns out, is working with the police and was recording the conversation. The court should deny the motion.
Officer lacked probable cause to arrest Defendant for drug trafficking. Officer arranged for Informant to wear a wire to see if Defendant would sell Informant a sizeable amount of cocaine. Defendant and Informant first met in a restaurant but then when they began to discuss the sale of cocaine, Informant suggested that they go to Defendant's home to avoid public scrutiny. Defendant agreed. While in Defendant's home, Informant and Defendant discussed the terms of the sale, a conversation that was transmitted to Officer, who was located nearby. After Defendant made the sale, Officer secured arrest and search warrants for Defendant and his home. The search netted a large amount of cocaine. Charged with the sale of cocaine, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation with a person who, unbeknownst to him, happens to be transmitting the conversation to the police. The court should deny the motion.
Shipping Co. handles a large number of packages, including many shipped from areas where illegal drugs originate. Concerned about the spread of drugs, Shipping Co. management put in place a policy that required employees to hold suspicious packages for further inspection before delivering them. Employee detained a package addressed to Defendant when Employee noticed leaking talcum powder, often used to mask the smell of marijuana. Upon opening it, Employee discovered three pounds of marijuana. After several days, Employee contacted Officer, who arranged to do a controlled delivery of the package. After receiving the package, Defendant was arrested for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?
Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The court should deny the motion.
Officer received a tip that Juvenile was going to commit a violent assault at his school. A number of officers went to Juvenile's home to investigate the claim. No one responded when the police knocked on the door. Finally, Officer called the phone number listed for the family's residence. Defendant, Juvenile's mother, answered the phone. She agreed that she and Juvenile would come out to discuss the officers' concerns about her son but refused to let the police enter her home. After several minutes of discussions in front of the home, Officer asked if Juvenile had any weapons in the home. Defendant became agitated and ran into the home. Officer, fearing that Defendant was going inside to get a weapon, ran after her. Within the home, Officer saw a sizeable amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?
Given the fear that Defendant represented a threat to the police, Officer's conduct was justified and the evidence was in plain view. The court should deny the motion.
Officer observed Defendant in a high crime area and suspected Defendant was involved in drug trafficking. Unable to develop probable cause or even articulable suspicion, Officer waited until Defendant got in his vehicle and followed Defendant until he made an illegal turn. Officer pulled him over. During the time Officer was writing the ticket, Officer asked Defendant if he could search the vehicle. Defendant said yes. During the search, Officer found a locked brief case and forced open the locked case. Inside he found a substantial amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion in light of Supreme Court precedent?
It is not reasonable to believe that Defendant's consent to a search of his car included consent to force open his locked briefcase. The court should grant the motion.
Officer stopped Motorist observing that she was not wearing a seatbelt. While Officer could have given Motorist a citation, Officer arrested her instead. Officer also denied Motorist's request to drop her small children off with a neighbor even though Officer stopped her in her neighborhood. Officer handcuffed Motorist and drove her to the local police station where she was forced to remove her shoes, glasses, and jewelry, and placed in a jail cell until she could be taken before a magistrate. After being released on bond, she paid a fine for the seatbelt violation. She has sued the City and Officer for a violation of her constitutional right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure. Did Officer violate Motorist's Fourth Amendment rights?
No. Custodial arrests for minor offenses are not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment even if the state or local law does not authorize an arrest for such an offense.
Officer observed Defendant engage in a drug purchase of a small amount of heroin on a street corner where Officer was on a stakeout. Officer saw that Defendant had the heroin in a small brown paper bag and followed Defendant to her automobile and, as soon as she pulled away from the curb, Officer turned on his flashing lights and pulled Defendant over. Officer handcuffed Defendant and placed her in the back of his patrol car and went back to Defendant's vehicle to search for the drugs. After finding the small brown paper bag with the heroin on the front seat, Officer opened the trunk, where he located a larger quantity of heroin. Charged with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the heroin on the front seat and in the trunk. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?
Officer exceeded the scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest because Defendant was detained in the police vehicle when Officer searched in the trunk. But the search of the passenger compartment was lawful. The court should deny the motion as to the evidence found in the passenger compartment but grant the motion as to the evidence found in the trunk.
Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant was engaged in felony drug trafficking but had yet to secure an arrest warrant. While on patrol, she noticed Defendant standing directly in the doorway of his apartment. Officer approached Defendant in order to make an arrest. Seeing the officer approaching, Defendant ran into his apartment. Officer pursued and arrested Defendant in the living room of his apartment where Officer saw and seized a large amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?
Officer may arrest Defendant without a warrant because he began the arrest in public and, once begun, could pursue Defendant into his house. The court should deny the motion.
Officer had probable cause to believe that Defendant was transporting a large quantity of narcotics in his suitcase and was traveling on a bus from Florida to New York. When Officer met the bus at the bus terminal in New York, he approached Defendant and asked him to consent to a search of his suitcase. Defendant refused to consent. When Defendant asked whether he was free to leave, Officer said yes, but that he was not free to take his suitcase. Defendant left immediately. Officer retrieved Defendant's suitcase and opened it immediately. Officer found a large amount of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?
Officer was entitled to detain the suitcase but needed to secure a warrant to open it. The court should grant the motion.
Officer observed Defendant driving a car that seemed out of place in the high crime neighborhood where Officer was working. Suspicious that Defendant was involved in illegal drug activity, Officer stopped Defendant when Defendant rolled through a stop sign in violation of a local traffic law. During the stop, Officer asked if Defendant would allow Officer to search the trunk of his car. Believing he could not refuse, Defendant said yes, that Officer could look in the trunk. There, Officer saw a paper sack. Upon opening it, Officer found a large quantity of cocaine. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?
Officer was reasonable in believing that Defendant's consent extended to the paper sack. The court should deny the motion.
Officer stopped Defendant, a motorist, for a traffic violation. In the course of the stop, Officer began to think that Defendant might be involved in illegal drug activity. Officer asked Defendant to consent to a search of his vehicle. Believing that a person cannot say no to an officer's request, Defendant gave Officer permission to search the vehicle. Officer found a sizeable amount of marijuana in the trunk of the vehicle. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?
Officer's conduct was lawful because Officer did not coerce Defendant into consenting. The court should deny the motion.
A school official called Officer because he was concerned about a motor home parked near the school. He told Officer that he had seen Defendant soliciting underage girls to enter the motor home and the official assumed that Defendant did so for sexual purposes. Officer found the motor home and noticed that it had a flat tire. Unable to see into the motor home because curtains covered the windows, Officer decided to wait to see if he could develop a case against Defendant. After waiting for an hour, he saw a girl exit the motor home and approached her. When Officer told the girl that she had to cooperate with his investigation, she admitted to being under age and to having engaged in an act of intercourse with Defendant. Officer immediately knocked on the door of the motor home and demanded that Defendant exit the motor home. Once Defendant was secured in the patrol car, Officer went back into the motor home to investigate. There, he found a box of condoms and explicit pictures of what appeared to be child pornography. Charged with several felonies arising from these facts, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following answers best describes how the court should rule on that motion?
Officer's observations gave him reason to believe that he would find evidence of the crime in the motor home and the motor home comes within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The court should deny the motion.
Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant was guilty of a recent bank robbery. As part of the investigation, Officer went to Defendant's home and knocked on the door. A woman responded to the knock. When Defendant appeared at the door to inquire what was going on, Officer asked him to come outside. Officer then put him under arrest. With Defendant in the patrol car, Officer went back to Defendant's house and asked the woman whether she would consent to a search of the apartment. She agreed. Officer found evidence linking Defendant to the robbery. Charged with armed robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?
On similar facts, the Court has held that the police do not need to ask a suspect for consent to search his premises as long as the person consenting has authority or apparent authority to grant the consent.
Postal Clerk became suspicious of a package that she received from a scruffy looking character. She noticed that package contained a return address that did not exist within that community. She called a Postal Inspector to report her suspicions. Inspector told her that he would pick up the package shortly. Inspector picked up the package later that day and the next day exposed it to a drug-sniffing dog, which signaled the presence of narcotics. Inspector then applied for a search warrant. The search found that the package contained a significant amount of cocaine and revealed Defendant's fingerprints on the interior of the package. Charged with the illegal distribution of cocaine, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?
The Court has held that a detention that does not significantly interfere with the owner's possessory interest is reasonable and that a dog-sniff is not a search. The court should deny the motion.
While Defendant was driving his car, he was broadsided by another motorist. Defendant's vehicle was totaled and Defendant was taken to the hospital. As Defendant was placed in an ambulance, Officer noticed that a pipe for smoking crack cocaine on the floor of the car and smelled the odor of crack on Defendant's clothing. After Defendant was removed from the scene and his car towed to Defendant's home, Officer conducted a search of the vehicle. In it, he found several packets of crack cocaine. Charged with possession of crack cocaine, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to dismiss?
The Court has held that police do not need a search warrant to search a vehicle when they have probable cause. The court should deny the motion.
Officer lacked probable cause to arrest Defendant for dealing in narcotics. When ordinary surveillance techniques failed to yield sufficient evidence of Defendant's drug activities, Officer learned that Defendant's late model vehicle was equipped with GPS technology. After Officer learned the monitoring code for Defendant's vehicle, Officer tracked Defendant over several weeks, eventually yielding enough information for Officer to secure a search warrant for Defendant's home. Officer seized large amounts of narcotics during the search. Charged with possession of narcotics with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?
The Court has left the particular question open, but at least five justices on the current Court suggested that such conduct may be a search. The court should grant the motion.
Officers received an emergency call from Defendant. When Officers arrived at the scene, Defendant was waiting outside a cabin in a state park that he and his wife were renting. He said that she was inside, seriously injured or dead; that she may need help; that they were attacked by a masked intruder; and that he had been injured as well. Officers entered the cabin and removed the wife's body. They asked Defendant whether he wanted medical care, and he said he did. They transported him to the hospital, and thereafter officers cordoned off the cabin and spent the next sixteen hours examining the area and the contents of the cabin. Eventually, officers found information in Defendant's open suitcase that implicated him in his wife's death. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following answers describes the best argument for the state to pursue?
The Court has rejected a general crime scene exception to the warrant requirement. The prosecutor would be better off developing facts demonstrating that Defendant consented to the entry and search.
A supplier of a chemical compound used in processing methamphetamines contacted police about a large order of the chemical placed by Defendant. Aware that Defendant would be picking up several 50 gallons drums of the chemical in the near future, police brought the supplier a 50 gallon drum of the chemical that included a tracking device in a hidden compartment and the supplier gave this drum to Defendant. Over the next two days, Officer learned where Defendant went throughout the day and was able to set up surveillance at those locations. Defendant did not travel on private property during the period of surveillance. Based on those observations, Officer developed probable cause that Defendant was producing methamphetamine in a garage. Officer secured a search warrant for the garage. Thereafter, Officer conducted a search of the garage, resulting in the seizure of a large quantity of methamphetamines. Prior to his trial for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following answers best describes how the court should rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?
The Court has upheld similar police conduct on the ground that it does not amount to a search when the police use technology to discover what one knowingly exposes to the public. The court should deny the motion.
Officer had a few confrontations with Defendant in their community but had never been able to arrest Defendant for a crime, despite Officer's belief that Defendant was a criminal. While on traffic patrol, Officer noticed Defendant driving his vehicle on the public right of way. Officer followed Defendant with the expectation that Defendant would violate a traffic law, allowing Officer to arrest Defendant. Officer pulled Defendant over when Officer noticed that Defendant had removed his seatbelt while driving. When Officer confirmed that Defendant was not wearing his seatbelt in violation of state law, Officer made a custodial arrest. As an incident to that arrest, Officer did a full body search. In the course of that search, Officer found a sizeable packet of heroin on Defendant's person. On trial for possession of heroin with intent to deliver, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. He made the motion after he learned that state law allowed only a citation, not a custodial arrest, for a violation of the seatbelt law. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?
The arrest was lawful as long as Officer had probable cause that there was a violation of state law. As such, the subsequent arrest was not unlawful within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The court should deny the motion.
Aware that drug dealers were using private shipping companies to send drugs throughout the United States, the federal Drug Enforcement Agency developed a policy whereby agents sought help from those shipping companies. After being requested to do so by the DEA, Shipping Co. management agreed to hold suspicious packages for further inspection before delivering them. Employee detained a package addressed to Defendant when Employee noticed leaking talcum powder, often used to mask the smell of marijuana. Upon opening it, Employee discovered three pounds of marijuana. Employee contacted Officer, who arranged to do a controlled delivery of the package. After receiving the package, Defendant was arrested for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?
The cooperation between the private company and the DEA makes the Fourth Amendment applicable to this case. As a result, Employee's opening of the package was an illegal search because no warrant was obtained. The court should grant the motion.
Officer developed probable cause to arrest Defendant for the sale of cocaine. When Officer arrested Defendant, Officer searched Defendant and removed an envelope and a flip-phone. After handcuffing Defendant, Officer looked at the paper and flipped open the phone. The paper revealed the names of individuals to whom Defendant had sold drugs; the flip-phone showed phone numbers of individuals who called Defendant about purchasing drugs. Charged with the sale of cocaine, Defendant has moved to suppress the use of the evidence taken from Defendant. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?
The court should deny the motion as to the paper in light of cases upholding similar searches; but the court should grant the motion as to the flip phone because, in light of the extensive invasion of privacy, Officer needed to get a warrant to search the phone on these facts.
Victor, the victim of a robbery, reported to the police that the robber wrestled him to the ground and took only Victor's tuba, measuring about 4 feet in height. The robber did not display a weapon. Victor described the robber's vehicle in great detail, including the make, model and an almost complete license number. Later that day, Officer spotted Defendant's vehicle parked not far from the scene of the crime. The vehicle matched Victor's description. Officer conducted an immediate search, beginning with the interior of the vehicle. She located a handgun in the glove compartment. She then popped open the trunk but did not find the tuba. Subsequent investigation revealed that the weapon was one used in a recent homicide. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the handgun from evidence. Which of the following answers best describes how the court should rule on Defendant's motion to dismiss?
The court should grant the motion because Officer lacked probable cause to look in the glove compartment.
Defendant lived in a rural area at the end of a country road. He installed a chain link fence around the property; he planted bushes along the fence and obscured the view from the roadway; and he placed "No Trespassing" signs on the fence. Inside the fenced area, in the middle of a field not far from his house, Defendant grew a sizeable amount of marijuana. Based on an uncorroborated tip that Defendant was growing marijuana, Officer drove to the edge of Defendant's property and entered the property. Once on the property, he noticed the marijuana plants. Thereafter, Officer secured a search warrant for Defendant's property. During the execution of the warrant, Officer and fellow officers seized the marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion in light of Supreme Court precedent?
The marijuana was not in an area associated with the intimate activities of the home. As a result, entry onto the property was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court should deny the motion.
Defendant arrived at the Newark Airport on a flight from Miami. While she awaited her luggage, Officer approached her and asked for identification and asked her a few questions about her trip. She appeared to get more nervous and Officer was suspicious that her increased nervousness and her coming from a source city for drugs meant she was a drug courier. Officer's suspicions were confirmed when her luggage arrived and she refused to allow him to search her bag. Officer explained that she was free to go but that he was detaining her luggage and that it would be 90 minutes before the police could bring a drug sniffing dog from another place to the airport. An hour and a half later the dog arrived and Officer exposed Defendant's luggage to the drug-sniffing dog, which indicated the presence of narcotics. Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?
The officer did not have the reasonable articulable suspicion required to detain Defendant's luggage. The court should grant the motion.
Officer suspected Defendant of conducting an illegal marijuana operation in his suburban home. Absent probable cause to secure a warrant, Officer and another officer, a member of the K-9 unit, brought a drug sniffing dog up to the front door of Defendant's home. After the dog signaled the presence of marijuana, Officer filled out a search warrant application and got it approved by a magistrate. Pursuant to the warrant, Officer searched Defendant's home, where Officer found a large stash of marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?
The officers' conduct in bringing a drug-sniffing dog onto the curtilage of the home amounted to a trespass, rendering their conduct a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court should grant the motion.
Defendant arrived at the Miami Greyhound Bus Terminal. While Defendant was waiting to retrieve his luggage, Officer noticed Defendant and believed that he was acting suspiciously. Officer along with his trained drug-sniffing dog approached Defendant and Officer asked if Defendant would consent to a search of his luggage. Defendant refused. Officer explained that he was going to expose the luggage to his dog. The dog immediately signaled the presence of narcotics. Officer seized Defendant's luggage long enough to obtain a search warrant for the luggage. The subsequent search revealed three pounds of marijuana. On trial for possession of marijuana, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence alleging the dog used is not reliable. How should the court respond to Defendant's motion?
The past performance of a dog is one factor relevant to probable cause, so if raised as an issue, the court should hold a hearing to determine whether probable cause existed.
Police suspected Defendant of being involved in drug-trafficking but could not develop probable cause to secure a search or arrest warrant. After learning that Defendant's late model vehicle was equipped with Global Position Satellite technology, over a two-day period, the police tracked Defendant's movements while he travelled in public. They quickly learned where Defendant travelled and were able to set up a surveillance of his activities. Officer observed him make a drug transaction on one corner in an area known for drug trafficking. Based on the information secured via the GPS and Officer's surveillance, Officer secured a search warrant for Defendant's home and located a large quantity of narcotics. Charged with possession of narcotics with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?
The police did not violate Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights on these facts. The court should deny the motion.
Detective was working on a case nicknamed the "Lone Ranger." The Lone Ranger wore a mask similar to the movie character the Lone Ranger and committed a series of armed robberies on his own. Detective developed probable cause that Defendant was the Lone Ranger and secured a warrant for Defendant's arrest. Learning that Defendant was at home, Detective and other police officers went to Defendant's home and, after Defendant did not respond to their announced presence, the police entered forcibly. Police spread out through the house until Detective located Defendant in his bedroom. After Defendant's arrest, Officer noticed a cellar door ajar. After Officer called down the stairs to demand anyone else in the home to come out, Officer went into the cellar where he found the Lone Ranger mask. Charged with multiple counts of armed robbery, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?
The police may conduct a protective sweep of areas of the home beyond the immediate area of the suspect's arrest if they have articulable suspicion that someone else may present a risk of harm. But on these facts, the police lacked articulable suspicion that anyone else was in the home. The court should grant the motion.
Suspecting but needing proof that Defendant was involved in the drug trade, Officer attached a tracking device to the underside of Defendant's vehicle. Over the next two days, Officer learned where Defendant went throughout the day and was able to set up surveillance at those locations. Based on those observations, Officer developed probable cause that Defendant had a large amount of heroin in his car. Officer called for a backup team and arrested Defendant. Thereafter, Officer conducted a search of Defendant's vehicle, resulting in the seizure of a large quantity of heroin. Prior to his trial for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following answers best describes how the court should rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?
The police trespassed in placing the tracking device on the car and then using it to learn Defendant's movements. A warrant was required to justify the placement, so the court should grant the motion.
Officer developed probable cause to believe that Defendant was engaged in a "fencing" operation and had recently received a small shipment of very desirable computer games that he could sell for a great deal. Officer obtained a search warrant for Defendant's home on January 1. The warrant ordered the warrant to be executed within 10 days. Because of other pressing business, Officer did not execute the warrant until February 1. In the interim, Officer learned that Defendant would be receiving another shipment of computer games in the near future. When Officer and other officers executed the warrant, they found the computer games that Defendant received both before and after the warrant application on January 1. Charged with receiving stolen property Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following answers is most accurate?
The probable cause in the January 1 warrant became stale. As a result, the search was unconstitutional.
Officer received a phone call from Son, who lived out-of-state and expressed concern that he had not heard from his parents in some time. Son asked if Officer could check on his parents. Because this was a small town and because Officer knew the family, Officer agreed to do so. Arriving at the parents' home, Officer noticed a strange odor emanating from the house. Calling for back up, Officer entered the home through an unlocked door. There, he saw a woman's body, badly beaten. Officer rushed through the house to determine whether there were other victims in the home. He quickly realized that the house was otherwise empty. When backup officers arrived, Officer explained the scene and indicated that from his familiarity with the family, Defendant, the woman's husband, was a prime suspect. Several officers went through the house and did a detailed search, locating a good bit of incriminating evidence against Defendant, including letters from another woman with whom he appeared to be having an affair. On trial for murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?
The search exceeded the initial justification for the entry. The court should grant the motion.
Officer stopped Defendant on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. After determining that Defendant was intoxicated and smelling alcohol in the car, Officer placed Defendant in the back of his patrol car and returned to Defendant's vehicle. He searched in the closed glove compartment and in the trunk. In the glove compartment, he found a small wallet and in the trunk, he found a backpack., He opened the wallet and found that it contained a small amount of cocaine. He also opened the backpack and found a large amount of marijuana. Charged with possession of narcotics with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?
The search exceeded the scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest and was not justified under the automobile exception.
Officer and fellow officers saw a suspect run from a robbery scene and enter an apartment building. They followed. Once inside the building, they heard screams from an apartment. They knocked on the door, which was answered by a woman who was bleeding from her mouth. Officer asked the woman to step outside so that officers could do a protective sweep. Defendant came into the room and objected to the police's entry. Suspecting that Defendant had assaulted the woman, Officer removed him from the apartment and arrested him. Officer also realized Defendant was the robbery suspect. Officer took Defendant to the police station. Officer then returned to the apartment and asked the woman whether she would consent to a search of the apartment. She agreed. Officer found evidence linking Defendant to the robbery. Charged with robbery, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?
The woman's consent at the time of the search made the search lawful. The court should deny the motion.
FBI agents suspected Defendant of conducting an interstate gambling operation and learned that he used a particular cell phone to make his calls. After arresting one of Defendant's regular gambling customers, Customer agreed to allow agents to listen in on conversations between him and Defendant by using the speaker device on the phone so that Customer and agents could hear Defendant's voice. Based on those phone conversations, the government secured Defendant's indictment for interstate gambling. Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?
While the Court has used different theories over time to justify participant monitoring, it has upheld the practice consistently. Because Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy on these facts, the court should deny the motion.
Victor, the victim of an armed robbery, reported to the police that the suspect left the scene of the crime in a late model Ford Escort and headed north on Main Street. Several hours later, the police spotted a six year old Ford Escort, legally parked in a rundown part of town. Using a flashlight, Officer looked into the vehicle and spotted items that Victor reported were taken during the robbery. Officer is uncertain how to proceed. Which of the following answers provides Officer with the best advice?
You have probable cause that evidence of the crime is located in the vehicle at this point. You may conduct a lawful search of the vehicle.