CRM 210 CH. 7 Assessments
Which scenario is most likely to include an unconstitutional suspicionless search?
David, a police officer, conducts a thorough search of all participants attending a national seminar on police brutality.
An emergency warrantless search of an individual falls under which exception to the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment?
Exigent circumstances
Marc was tried and acquitted of murdering his wife. However, José, the prosecutor in the case, has uncovered new evidence and proposes to retry Marc. Which Constitutional Amendment protects Marc in this situation?
Fifth Amendment
In which of the following police searches will the evidence obtained be excluded from trial based on the exclusionary rule?
Frank is suspected of murder. Naomi enters his house while he is at work and collects incriminating evidence. She does not have a warrant.
What is a legal principle that excludes from introduction at trial any evidence derived from a prior illegal search or seizure?
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
Do you agree more with the pro position or the con position on this issue? Provide at least two reasons.
I agree more with the con position on this issue. The reason why I agree more with the con position is because a citizen should support the police, but they have no obligation to offer themselves up and allow the police to search them. This factors in to why the police are searching or want to search an individual in the first place. If I were stopped on the street and asked to be searched, I would wonder why. I have no obligation to help the police find anyone/thing or crime commited in an area. Also, searching random takes away from the task at hand. It is a distraction. Suppose the police were to search someone random in searching for someone else. In this search they would find drugs or a concealed weapon. Now the attention is on the individual who had nothing to do with the intial problem and is a distraction to the original task.
Do you agree more with the pro position or the con position on this issue? Provide at least two reasons.
I agree more with the pro position of the issue because as the speaker said, if there were no rule, the law enforcement would not feel obligated to respect the constitutional amendments. If they were allowed to take, find, plant evidence in any means possible to convict someone, then it would be done all the time and people's rights would be ignored. The amendment was created for a reason, and should be respected. In this, when someone's right are violated, the officer could get reprimanded, and the violation could be tried and found guilty. This is not fair.
Do you agree more with the pro position or the con position on this issue? Provide at least two reasons.
I agree more with the pro position of this issue regarding the miranda warnings because the warnings protect individuals from incorrect police procedures. Rights are recognized and people are able to protect themselves. This also shows the public that the police and law enforcement are continuing to practice law efficiently. It is not a technicality because it is a basic rule in an arrest. You allow people to know their rights. If someone is not read their rights then they should be released. To me, that is a basic concept that should not be forgotten or ignored.
Do you agree more with the pro position or the con position on this issue? Provide at least two reasons.
I agree more with the pro positon on this issue because I believe that being protected from the police in unlawful and unreasonable searches and seizures is important in protecting one's rights. The fourth amendment is important in our individual freedoms. Rules and regulations are put in place to ensure that information and evidence is correctly found and collected in order to ensure that criminals end up where they deserve. This amendment is in place to protect the criminal, but leave no room for discussion when evidence is found and collected correctly.
Do you agree more with the pro position or the con position on this issue? Provide at least two reasons.
I agree with the PATRIOT act because as the speaker mentioned, our lives have been changed very little in providing more infomation in return of stopping terrorist plots and keeping ourselves safe. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, I believe anyone would sacrifice in order to make sure an event such as that would not happen in our country again.
The exclusionary rule excludes evidence that was illegally obtained and could result in the guilty escaping punishment because of the police's illegal behavior. Which do you consider more important: ensuring that an individual's due process rights are not violated, or protecting society by ensuring that guilty individuals are punished? Explain and support your opinion. What alternative to the present system might ensure that guilty offenders don't go free when the police don't follow due process rules?
I am on the side of ensuring that an individual's due process rights are not violated. The reason why the exclusionary rule is in place is to ensure that no one, even correctional officers, are above the law. In officer's obtaining evidence against and individual illegally, they too are breaking the law. In this, I see that two wrongs do not make a right. While there is a difference in the possible severity of the crime, evidence should be found and collected fairly and correctly. This ensures that the guilty will have no loopholes to escape through. I do not have an alternative to the present system that might ensure that guilty offenders do not go free when police do not follow the due process rule because the due process rule should have been followed in the first place.
Do you agree more with the pro position or the con position on this issue? Provide at least two reasons.
I cannot decide if I agree more with the pro or con position on this issue. I see both sides of how a stop and frisk is in violation of our rights and how it does allow law enforcement to correct criminal activity in the making. However, I believe reasonable suspicion is closely related to stereotypes and can fuel bias. I also see how reasonable suspicion can help in situations that are, of course, highly suspicious.
Which scenario illustrates a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
Matthew, who was convicted of a misdemeanor, is sentenced to 6 months in county jail. While in jail, one of the jailors beats him for spitting on the floor.
Jake and Mary are married and own their home. The police come to the house without a warrant and ask for permission to search the house for drugs. Jake consents to the search, but Mary refuses because she has hidden some drugs in the kitchen. The police enter and search the house, despite Mary's refusal, because Jake consented, and they find Mary's drugs. Can the drugs be used at Mary's trial, and why or why not?
No, the drugs cannot be used at Mary's trial because she did not consent to the search.
In which situation is issuing a Miranda warning mandatory?
Patrick, a detective, arrests a suspect in a murder case and initiates interrogation.
What is the necessary minimum level of belief required for the police to arrest individuals and conduct full searches of dwellings, vehicles, and possessions?
Probable cause
In the U.S. system of government, individuals can appeal to the criminal courts to resolve disputes with government agencies. What are these appeals generally based on?
Procedural issues
Taylor, a police officer, gets a tip that a robbery suspect has hidden stolen items in a nearby house. Taylor wants to search the house but also wants to be certain that anything he finds will be admissible in court. Which statement is true in this case?
Taylor should submit a written affidavit to a magistrate demonstrating probable cause to conduct a search of the house.
Stephen, a police officer, arrests a suspect without a warrant and conducts a "sneak and peek" search of the suspect's dwelling. Which of the following acts gives the authority for Stephen's action and issuance of a "sneak and peek" warrant?
The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
Police dispatchers receive calls reporting gunfire at the house of Bill, a suspected drug dealer. The responding officers enter Bill's house without a warrant. While securing the house, they observe and seize evidence of drug trafficking, which is later used to convict him. Bill appeals on the grounds that the search was illegal because the police did not have a warrant to enter his house. What should be the appellate court's decision, and why?
The court should deny Bill's appeal, based on the emergency search exception to the exclusionary rule.
Jan, a patrol officer, stops a car for speeding and notices blood stains on the driver's side door. She examines the exterior of the car and discovers evidence of a hit-and-run case. Which of the following applies in this case to ensure that the evidence is admissible during trial?
The plain-view doctrine
Which scenario illustrates the legal collection of evidence during an emergency search?
The police storm into a terrorist's hideout to release hostages and find a cache of weapons hidden among the hostages.
Natalie, a federal postal inspector investigating an interstate child pornography ring, requests a warrant to search Jack's residence. Natalie states that the warrant will not be executed until a parcel of CDs containing child pornography is delivered to Jack's house. After being convicted, Jack appeals on the grounds that the warrant is invalid. What is the court most likely to decide?
The warrant is valid because anticipatory warrants may be issued based on probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime, while not currently at the location described, will likely be there when the warrant is executed.
In the case of Illinois v. Gates, the U.S. Supreme Court established the ______ test for determining whether information provided by an informant can establish probable cause for issuing a warrant.
Totality-of-circumstances
What is the initial point when a suspect should consider himself or herself under arrest by a police officer, according to the Supreme Court?
When a suspect believes that he or she is not free to leave the custody of a police officer
The Supreme Court has held that officers conducing warrantless suspicionless sweeps of buses, trains, planes, etc., do not have to tell passengers that they are free to leave or that they have the right to deny officers the opportunity to search. According to the Court, any reasonable person should feel free to deny the police request to search. Do you agree with this ruling? Explain and support your opinion.
Yes, I agree with the ruling of allowing a reasonable person to feel free to deny being searched by the police in a suspicionless sweep. First, if an officer is asking to search you, that means they have suspicions about you. So the name "suspicionless" seems a little counterintuitive. I believe that suspicionless searches should be conducted in areas such as buses, trains, and planes, especially when there can be a threat to travel or harm others, but a person should be able to deny, for example, if they are not in one of these circumstances. I see how "suspicionless" could also mean having no exact suspicion, but checking on the safety of the public.
The "Christian burial speech" eventually led to the creation of the ______ exception to Miranda.
inevitable-discovery
In 2013, U.S. law enforcement officials announced that they would question 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving Boston Marathon bombing suspect, before reading him his Miranda rights, based on the ______ exception to Miranda.
public-safety