MBE CRIM PRO FLASH CARDS

One evening, a man was arrested for robbery. From jail, he called his sister and told her that he had been arrested, but made no mention of hiring a lawyer. The sister nevertheless employed a lawyer to represent the man. The lawyer contacted the police, told them that she represented the man, and requested to be present when the man was questioned. The police lied to the lawyer, telling her that the man had fallen asleep and would not be questioned that night. Instead, after giving the man his Miranda warnings, the police questioned the man for two hours before he voluntarily confessed to the crime. Although the man did not request a lawyer during his interrogation, the police did not tell him that his sister had secured one for him or that his lawyer had asked to be present during any interrogation. The next morning at his arraignment, the man was formally charged with robbery. Should the man's confession be excluded as a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel?Answers:No, because he had not yet been arraigned when he confessed.No, because he waived this right by voluntarily confessing after receiving Miranda warnings.Yes, because a lawyer had been employed to represent the man before he confessed.Yes, because the police lied to the man's lawyer and failed to inform the man that his lawyer had requested to be present during his interrogation.

Answer choice A is correct. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies at all critical stages of a prosecution, after formal proceedings have begun. The right automatically attaches when formal judicial proceedings have begun, whether at a post-arrest initial appearance before a judicial officer, or by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. In this case, formal judicial proceedings began when the man was arraigned for robbery the morning after he voluntarily confessed. Because he confessed to this crime before his arraignment, his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not yet attached and therefore was not violated by the police. Answer choice B is incorrect. After receiving Miranda warnings, a defendant may waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as well as his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. In this case, however, the man's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached. Accordingly, he could not prevent the introduction of his confession into evidence based on his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Thus, any waiver of that right is not relevant to the admissibility of the confession under these facts. Answer choice C is incorrect because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach upon a defendant's employment of a lawyer, but only upon the beginning of formal judicial proceedings. Answer choice D is incorrect. The police are under no obligation to inform a suspect that an attorney has been trying to reach him, and may even withhold that information intentionally, so long as the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has not yet attached.

Question 431A police officer suspected that an individual purchased child pornography in violation of the law. The officer sought and secured a facially valid warrant to search the home of the individual for items of child pornography. To obtain the warrant, the officer, in her affidavit, asserted as factual, information received from an informant. The officer executed the warrant and seized as evidence the items specified in the warrant. The prosecution seeks to introduce such evidence against the individual. The individual petitioned the court for a hearing to void the warrant and suppress the evidence seized pursuant to it. The court granted a hearing. At the hearing, the individual established by a preponderance of the evidence that information contained in the affidavit was false, that the officer negligently failed to verify the truthfulness of the information, and that the information was necessary to a finding of probable cause by the magistrate who issued the warrant. Should the court grant the individual's petition?Answers:No, because the warrant was facially valid.No, because the inclusion of the false information in the affidavit was due to the police officer's negligence.Yes, because the information was necessary to a finding of probable cause by the magistrate.Yes, because the police officer included false information in the affidavit.

Answer choice B is correct. A defendant may go beyond the face of a warrant and challenge its validity due to the inclusion of false information in the affidavit. However, the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the false information was knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for its truthfulness included by the affiant in the affidavit and that the information was necessary to a finding of probable cause by the magistrate. Answer choice A is incorrect because a search warrant that is facially valid will be held invalid under the circumstances discussed. Answer choice D is incorrect because it does not specify that the false statements must be made knowingly, intentionally, or with disregard for the truth. Answer choice C is incorrect for the same reaso

Question 6993While sitting together at a bar, a friend confessed to the defendant that he had secretly dated the defendant's wife during college, at the same time that the defendant and his wife had also been dating. Enraged, the defendant punched the friend in the face, causing him to fall off the barstool and break his nose. A police officer across the bar heard the altercation and restrained the defendant to prevent any further harm to the friend. While physically restraining the defendant, the police officer asked the defendant why he broke the friend's nose. The defendant said he had done so because the friend had an affair with his wife. The defendant was subsequently arrested, informed of his Miranda rights, and charged with battery. At trial, is the defendant's statement to the officer admissible?Answers:No, because the defendant made the incriminating statement before he was read his Miranda rights.No, because the defendant responded to a custodial interrogation before he was read his Miranda rights.Yes, because the defendant voluntarily admitted that he had broken the man's nose to the police officer.Yes, because the defendant did not make the statement in response to a custodial interrogation.

Answer choice B is correct. Any incriminating statement obtained as the result of custodial interrogation may not be used against the suspect at a subsequent trial unless the police provided procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. A person is in custody when he is not free to leave or is otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way. The test is whether a reasonable person, under the totality of the circumstances, would believe that he is not free to leave. An interrogation refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions that the police know or should know are likely to elicit an incriminating response. Here, the police officer obtained the defendant's incriminating statement while physically restraining him and asking why he broke the man's nose. The defendant was clearly not free to leave, and this express questioning was likely to elicit an incriminating response. For this reason, the defendant's incriminating statement is probably not admissible. Answer choice A is incorrect because not every incriminating statement made before the defendant is read his Miranda rights is inadmissible. The determining factor is whether the statement was made in response to custodial interrogation. Answer choice C is incorrect because this statement was not voluntary. The defendant's statements were elicited during a custodial interrogation. Answer choice D is incorrect because there is no requirement that the interrogation take place in a police station to be deemed custodial. As discussed above, the circumstances in this fact pattern constituted a custodial interrogation.

After an arson suspect was indicted and awaiting trial, the police found a potential eyewitness to the crime. Through an acquaintance, the suspect learned that the witness was being brought to the police station for a photo array. The suspect did not tell his attorney or object to the photo array. The eyewitness identified the suspect in the photo array, and the prosecution plans to use the identification at trial. Defense counsel objects, on the grounds that he should have been present during the identification. Did the post-indictment photo array violate the suspect's constitutional rights?Answers:No, because the suspect did not request that his attorney be present.No, because the photo array was not an in-person identification.Yes, it was a violation of the suspect's Fifth Amendment rights.Yes, it was a violation of the suspect's Sixth Amendment rights.

Answer choice B is correct. The Sixth Amendment protects an accused's right to "the assistance of counsel for his defense." The Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies at all critical stages of a prosecution, after formal proceedings have begun. The right automatically attaches when formal judicial proceedings have begun, whether that be at a post-arrest initial appearance before a judicial officer, or by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. However, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel generally does not apply to certain "noncritical stages," such as photo identifications. Because the defendant is not present at a photo identification, the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee counsel at such a noncritical stage. Answer choice A is incorrect because there is no need to invoke the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. It automatically attaches upon an indictment or formal charge and applies at all critical stages of a prosecution. However, it does not apply to a photo identification, which is considered a noncritical stage. Answer choice C is incorrect because the Fifth Amendment right to counsel must be invoked and is only applicable to custodial interrogations. Answer choice D is incorrect because, as explained above, photo identifications are not considered critical stages to which the Sixth Amendment attaches, even if they are conducted post-indictment.

Under the laws of a state, driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of more than 0.08% is per se illegal. In addition, a state statute provides that an individual who drives on the state's roads impliedly consents to a BAC test if the individual is arrested or otherwise suspected of a drunk-driving offense. The statute further provides that an individual who refuses to consent is not only subject to the loss of his driving privileges but also is guilty of a misdemeanor. An individual who had been arrested for a drunk-driving offense refused to consent to a blood test. Which of the following exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment provides the best support for compelling the individual to undergo a warrantless blood test?Answers:Consent.Exigent circumstances.Search incident to arrest.Automobile exception.

Answer choice B is correct. While generally the Fourth Amendment mandates that police officers obtain a warrant before a blood sample can be drawn, a warrantless search is permitted in exigent circumstances when they cannot reasonably do so without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while a driver can impliedly consent to the loss of his license for refusing to take a test to determine his BAC, inferring a driver's consent in the face of a criminal penalty is unreasonable. Answer choice C is incorrect. A blood test is significantly more intrusive than a breath test and consequently requires a case-by-case analysis of the reasonableness of administering the test. Since a search incident to an arrest applies a categorical rule rather than a case-by-case approach to such searches, a blood test may not be administered as a search incident to an arrest for drunk driving. Answer choice D is incorrect because under the automobile exception, police do not have to obtain a warrant to search a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or evidence of a criminal activity. Consequently, it is not applicable to the question of whether the driver of an automobile can be compelled to submit to a warrantless blood test.

Question 413A mechanic and his former employee were indicted for automobile theft. Unbeknownst to the mechanic, the former employee confessed to the crime and implicated his employer. In exchange for favorable treatment by the prosecutor, the former employee agreed to cooperate in the prosecution of the mechanic. The police were also investigating the mechanic for an alleged plan to kill another person who was to serve as a witness for the state at the mechanic's trial. The mechanic sought a meeting with the former employee. Upon learning of the proposed meeting, the police wired the former employee in order to record the conversation between the mechanic and the former employee. The police directed the former employee to encourage the mechanic to talk about his criminal activity. At the meeting the mechanic made incriminating statements about stealing automobiles. The mechanic's lawyer filed a pretrial motion to suppress these statements on the grounds that his client's right to counsel was violated. Should the court grant this motion?Answers:No, because the statements were obtained by police during an investigation of a possible crime, a plan to murder a witness, for which the right to counsel had not attached.No, because the mechanic initiated the meeting with his former employee.Yes, because the police knowingly used the former employee to elicit incriminating statements from the mechanic about the charged crime.Yes, because the police used a secret agent to obtain the incriminating statements.

Answer choice C is correct. Since the right to counsel attaches upon the initiation of formal proceedings against the accused, such as indictment, the police cannot seek to elicit incriminating statements from the accused about the crime without the presence of the accused's lawyer unless the accused waives his right to counsel. Seeking such information through a private person who acts as an agent of the police is also prohibited. Answer choice A is incorrect because the fact that the police were also investigating the accused in regard to an uncharged crime for which the right to counsel had not attached does not excuse or justify the police action in seeking to elicit incriminating statements about the charged crime. Answer choice B is incorrect because, even though the accused initiated contact with an unknown police informant, the accused does not waive his right to counsel simply by initiating such contact since the accused is not aware that the informant is acting on behalf of the police. Answer choice D is incorrect because the police are not prohibited from obtaining incriminating statements from the accused through the use of a secret agent so long as the agent does not actively solicit

A defendant owned a gun shop. Due to the recent local surge in gun-related crimes, there was an urgent, valid public interest to ensure that the gun shops were only selling guns to individuals with valid gun permits. In response to this public interest, the police department decided to visit all gun shops in the area to ensure they were following proper gun-sale procedures. Pursuant to this plan, but without a valid search warrant, the police entered defendant's gun shop during regular business hours and demanded to view his gun-sales logs in order to confirm that he sold guns only to individuals with valid gun permits. The police discovered that the defendant had sold numerous guns to individuals without valid gun permits, and arrested and charged the defendant for the illegal sale of guns. The defendant has moved to suppress evidence of the gun-sales logs. Should the court grant the defendant's motion?Answers:Yes, because the police engaged in an invalid warrantless search.Yes, because the police lacked probable cause to search the defendant's sales logs.No, because this search was valid without a warrant.No, because this invalid administrative search does not require suppression of the evidence.

Answer choice C is correct. The state may conduct warrantless searches of businesses in highly regulated industries due to an urgent public interest. Here, gun shops are a highly regulated industry, and the police had a reasonable plan supported by an urgent public interest to reduce the recent surge in gun violence. Therefore, this search was valid without a warrant. Answer choice A is incorrect because the search of a highly regulated industry due to an urgent public interest does not require a warrant to be valid. This is due to the theory that the business impliedly consented to warrantless searches by entering into a highly regulated industry. Answer choice B is incorrect. Evidence of an existing statutory or regulatory violation or a reasonable plan supported by a valid public interest will justify the issuance of a warrant for an administrative search, but neither the warrant nor probable cause is required for a search of a highly regulated industry due to an urgent public interest. Answer choice D is incorrect because this was not an invalid administrative search.

A defendant elected not to testify at his state-court trial for first-degree murder, a capital offense. The prosecutor, in her closing argument before the jury, accurately noted that the evidence presented at trial established that the defendant and victim were seen together shortly before the victim was murdered. The prosecutor then commented that, because the victim was dead and could not testify, the defendant was the only person with knowledge of what happened and he had chosen not to reveal that knowledge. Does the prosecutor's comment constitute a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights?Answers:No, because the prosecutor's comment is truthful.No, because the prosecutor's comment does not compel the defendant to testify.Yes, because the defendant is being tried for a capital offense.Yes, because the prosecutor has commented on the defendant's exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination.

Answer choice D is correct. A prosecutor may not comment on the defendant's exercise at trial of his privilege against self-incrimination. Such a comment constitutes an impermissible shifting of the burden of proof onto the defendant, due to his exercise of this privilege. Answer choice A is incorrect because, even though the prosecutor's comment is truthful, it nevertheless is constitutionally impermissible. Answer choice B is incorrect because, while the prosecutor's comment does not directly compel the defendant to testify, it does penalize the defendant for exercising this privilege by encouraging the jury to draw a negative inference from the defendant's silence. Answer choice C is incorrect because the prohibition on a prosecutor's commenting on the defendant's exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination is not limited to capital offenses, but applies to any criminal trial.

45. A corporation is being investigated for tax fraud and for several other offenses regarding insider trading. The prosecutor requested that the corporation turn over several types of corporate records, including emails from several of the corporation's officers and other business papers. The request was made of the corporation's Chief Operating Officer (COO), who acted as the custodian of the corporate records. The business papers would implicate several members of the corporation, including the COO, in criminal misconduct. Further, many of the emails written by the COO contained statements about the officers of some of the corporation's competitors; these statements were defamatory and would likely result in civil liability if they were released. The COO objects to producing this evidence, arguing that being forced to turn over these corporate records would violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court should:

Answer: Deny his motion as to both the emails and the business papers.

36. An accountant was the sole owner of a small firm that kept the books and financial records for small business owners and their businesses. The police properly obtained and served a warrant and seized the accountant's records for his own firm. Based on evidence discovered in the accountant's records, the accountant was charged with theft of internet services from a local internet service provider. The accountant challenged the admissibility of the evidence seized by police as a violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. How should the court rule on this challenge?

Answer: Deny it, because the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not protect an individual from seizure of incriminating documents pursuant to a warrant.

40. The defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute drugs for his alleged involvement in a major drug trafficking ring. The evidence tying the defendant to the drug trafficking ring was obtained from a warrantless search of the home of a business partner. The defendant had been living with his business partner, but recently moved out, leaving a bag filled with cocaine and his identification in the business partner's home. The bag was discovered by police during a search of the home with the business partner's consent. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the cocaine. How should the court rule on the defendant's motion to suppress?

Answer: Deny the motion, because the defendant does not have a privacy interest in the home.

24. Police in a rural community obtained an anonymous tip that a resident of the community was producing opium from poppies grown in flower beds immediately behind his house. Since police could not access or view the beds without trespassing on the resident's property, the police contacted a local crop duster who used a helicopter in his business. At the police's behest, the crop duster took an officer and flew his helicopter over the residence at a height of 500 feet, confirming that illegal poppies were growing in the flower beds behind the house. Based on the crop duster's affidavit, the police obtained a warrant to search the area directly behind the house and seized the illegal plants. If the resident moves to suppress this evidence as a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, how is the court likely to rule? Answers: Grant the motion, because the poppy plants were located within the curtilage of the residence. Grant the motion, because an anonymous tip cannot form the basis for probable cause to obtain a warrant. Deny the motion, because the warrant was based on a private citizen's affidavit. Deny the motion, because the inspection did not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Answer: Deny the motion, because the inspection did not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy. Statements taken in violation of Miranda may be used to impeach the credibility of the criminal defendant, if the defendant takes the witness stand and gives testimony at variance with previous admissions. Such statements may not be used as direct evidence, however. Here, the woman's statement came in response to custodial interrogation in which she had not been given her Miranda warnings. As a statement taken in violation of Miranda, the woman's statement may only be used for impeachment. Answer choice A is incorrect, as the impeaching admissions may not be used directly in deciding ultimate issues of guilt or innocence; they may only be used in determining the veracity of the defendant. Answer choice C is incorrect for the same reason. Answer choice D is incorrect, as the statement may be used for impeachment purposes, as stated under answer choice B.

39. A security guard at a popular appliance store reported the theft of a number of the store's televisions to the police. The police requested that the security guard contact them if he learned anything new about the theft. On a hunch that an employee was involved in the theft, the security guard befriended the employee and asked to watch a major sports event on television with the employee at the employee's home. When the employee stepped out of the room during the sports event, the security guard located the serial number on the television and discovered it was one of the stolen televisions. The security guard provided the information to the police. The employee was charged with larceny based on the information provided by the security guard. If the employee files a motion to suppress, how should the court rule?

Answer: Deny the motion, because the security guard is not a state actor.

23. Two police officers detained a woman at the scene of the murder of a gas station attendant. They suspected her of committing the crime and brought her to the police station, over her strong objection, for questioning. After one question, asking why she had been present at the crime scene, the woman suddenly burst into tears and shouted out, "That liar cheated on me and I wanted him dead." One of the officers immediately interrupted the woman, realizing that they had forgotten to give her a Miranda warning at the scene of the crime because of the difficult time they had in detaining her. The officer then gave the woman a full Miranda warning and asked her if she wanted to continue with her statement. The woman then refused to talk any further and demanded to see her attorney. At trial, the woman took the stand in her own defense and testified that she did not know the gas station attendant and had no reason to kill him. If the court allows the prosecutor to use the statement the woman made to the officers during her interrogation, how may it be used? Answers: As direct evidence of the murder. For impeachment purposes only. Both as direct evidence of the murder and for impeachment purposes. None of the above.

Answer: For impeachment purposes only. Statements taken in violation of Miranda may be used to impeach the credibility of the criminal defendant, if the defendant takes the witness stand and gives testimony at variance with previous admissions. Such statements may not be used as direct evidence, however. Here, the woman's statement came in response to custodial interrogation in which she had not been given her Miranda warnings. As a statement taken in violation of Miranda, the woman's statement may only be used for impeachment. Answer choice A is incorrect, as the impeaching admissions may not be used directly in deciding ultimate issues of guilt or innocence; they may only be used in determining the veracity of the defendant. Answer choice C is incorrect for the same reason. Answer choice D is incorrect, as the statement may be used for impeachment purposes, as stated under answer choice B.

13. A police officer sought from an independent magistrate a warrant to search a liquor store owned by the defendant for evidence of a murder. The affidavit submitted by the officer specified the premises to be searched and the items to be seized, and established probable cause on the basis of a reliable informant's tip that such evidence would be found on those premises. The warrant issued by the magistrate set forth the premises to be searched, but neither identified the items to be seized nor made reference to the affidavit. Evidence seized by the officer during the search conformed to the evidence specified in the affidavit. The defendant was charged with murder. The defendant moved to suppress the items seized by the police officer on the grounds that the warrant was constitutionally defective. How should the court rule?

Answer: Grant the motion, because the warrant lacked the particularity required by the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment requires that a search warrant state with particularity the items to be seized. The warrant in this case failed to do so. Answer choice B is incorrect. Probable cause may be based on an informant's tip where the officer's affidavit also establishes the informant's reliability or other justification for relying on the tip. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although the magistrate was aware of the items to be seized at the time that the magistrate issued the warrant and the police officer only seized an item specified in the affidavit, the dictates of the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement were not satisfied. Consequently, the search was by definition unreasonable. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although a liquor store is a highly regulated business that may be subject to an administrative search without a warrant, a search of the store for criminal activity, such as a murder, is subject to the warrant requirement.

44. While on patrol one night, two officers noticed the car of a known drug dealer in the drive-through lane of a fast-food restaurant. Based on prior discussions with informants, the officers had probable cause to believe that the drug dealer regularly made drug deliveries from his car. Noticing that the drug dealer's headlight was out, the officers pulled him over once he left the restaurant and searched his car. The officers did not find any evidence of drugs, but they did find several illegal weapons in the trunk. Did the officers' seizure of the weapons violate the drug dealer's Fourth Amendment rights?

Answer: No, as a valid application of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

14. A convicted murderer was serving a life sentence in federal prison. He had kept in touch with some old associates who occasionally sent him contraband drugs. The murderer hid these drugs in his prison cell until he used them or sold them to other inmates. One afternoon, while the murderer was in the exercise yard, prison guards searched all of the cells in the murderer's cell block, without the permission of the inmates or a warrant. The prison guards found a bag of cocaine in the murderer's prison cell. The murderer was prosecuted for drug possession. At a hearing, he moved to suppress the cocaine found in his prison cell. Should the cocaine be suppressed?

Answer: No, because a prison inmate has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell. Although prison inmates possess many constitutional rights, the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is less stringent in the prison context. A pretrial detainee may have a limited expectation of privacy in his cell, but a convicted prison inmate has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell. The limitations on Fourth Amendment rights are justified by the need to maintain institutional security and preserve internal order and discipline. In this case, the murderer, a prison inmate, had no expectation of privacy in his cell and, accordingly, the cocaine found in the search by the prison guards should not be suppressed. Answer choice A is incorrect because prison inmates do possess constitutional rights. However, the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure does not apply to search of a prisoner's cell Answer choice C is incorrect because the prison guards did not need a warrant to search the prisoner's cell. Answer choice D is incorrect because a prison inmate does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell, and the guards did not need reasonable, individualized suspicion of a violation of the law to search the cell.

33. Federal agents had a hunch that a local man was engaged in illegal gambling activities. An agent decided to enter the man's house while he was not at home and see what he could find. The agent discovered an envelope containing $5,000 in cash and an executive's business card. Returning the envelope to its place, the agent located and interviewed the executive, who admitted that he had paid the man $5,000 to settle a gambling debt; the executive also disclosed that the man regularly took illegal bets from the executive and several of his acquaintances. The agent then interviewed the acquaintances, who confirmed what the executive had told him. The agent then arranged to be introduced to the man at a local bar. After a few drinks, the man, unaware of the agent's identity, boasted that he was one of the biggest bookmakers in the state. The agent testified to all of his investigation's discoveries before a grand jury, which returned an indictment against the man for illegal gambling activities, based solely on the agent's testimony. The man's attorney then filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, claiming that it rested on violations of the man's constitutional rights. Should the court grant the motion?

Answer: No, because dismissal of the indictment is not the appropriate remedy.

18. Police executed a valid warrant to search for heroin in the defendant's residence. Finding the defendant at home, the police detained him in handcuffs for the duration of the search. The police found a small amount of heroin in the defendant's bedroom during the search. Upon the completion of the search, the police arrested the defendant for possession of heroin. The police then searched the defendant's person and found a larger quantity of cocaine. At his trial for possession of cocaine, the defendant sought to suppress the cocaine as having been unconstitutionally seized from his person. Should the court suppress the cocaine?

Answer: No, because the cocaine was found pursuant to a search incident to a valid arrest.

26. A man was charged with murder. He consulted with the attorney who was appointed to represent him. Subsequently, while the man was imprisoned awaiting trial, the police placed an informant into the man's cell with instructions to simply "keep his ears open" for incriminating statements made by the man. Without prompting by the informant, the man confessed to committing the murder. As part of the discovery process, the prosecution listed the informant as a witness the prosecution intended to call in its case-in-chief. The defense attorney made a motion in limine to suppress the informant's testimony regarding the defendant's confession on the grounds that it was obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. Should the court grant this motion? Answers: Yes, because the confession was obtained in violation of the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Yes, because the confession was obtained in violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yes, because the confession was obtained in violation of the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to counsel. No, because the confession was not obtained in violation of the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Answer: No, because the confession was not obtained in violation of the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or Sixth Amendment right to counsel. A defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination applies to custodial police interrogations. Interrogation refers to express questioning, as well as words or actions the police know or should know are likely to elicit an incriminating response. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination does not apply to voluntary statements. Because the informant did not take any actions that were likely to elicit an incriminating response, there was no interrogation, and this was instead a voluntary statement. For these reasons, answer choices A and C are incorrect. A criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies once formal proceedings against the defendant with regard to a specific crime have been initiated. Once such proceedings have begun and the defendant has counsel, the police may not seek, either directly or through the use of an informant, to elicit incriminating information from the defendant about that crime without the presence of the defendant's attorney. As discussed above, however, the informant did not seek to elicit incriminating information from the defendant in this case. Accordingly, this confession was not obtained in violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and thus answer choices B and C are incorrect.

29. A man was charged with murder. An attorney was appointed due to the man's indigence. The man consulted with his attorney. Subsequently, while the man was imprisoned awaiting trial, the police placed an informant into the man's cell with instructions to elicit incriminating statements about the crime from the man. In response to the informant's prompting, the man confessed to killing the victim. At trial, the man testified that, while present at the scene of the murder, he did not participate in the killing. When the prosecution sought to call the informant as a witness to testify as to the man's prior contradictory confession, the defense attorney objected on the grounds that the confession had been obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. Should the court sustain this objection?

Answer: No, because the confession was to be used for impeachment purposes.

47. A defendant was arrested and charged with robbery. While he was awaiting trial, an inmate in the jail in which he was housed was assaulted, and the police suspected that the defendant was involved. They brought the defendant in for questioning about the assault and provided him with Miranda warnings. The defendant said that he was willing to talk, and did not ask for his attorney. He proceeded to tell the police that he had provided another inmate with information about how to obtain a weapon and believed that inmate had been involved in the assault. The defendant was later charged as a co-conspirator in the assault, and sought to suppress his statement to the police. He argued that his attorney should have been present during the interrogation. Is the defendant's statement likely to be suppressed?

Answer: No, because the defendant did not specifically invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel.

7. Police arrested the defendant at her home that she shared with her parents as an accomplice to a robbery. Before leaving the home, the police asked the defendant, who was 18 years old, whether she was at the place of the robbery at the time that it took place. She indicated in the affirmative. As the police were leaving the home with the defendant for the police station, the defendant's mother returned. After learning of the situation, the mother urged the defendant to "come clean to the police." At the station, after the defendant was given Miranda warnings and signed a Miranda waiver, she was questioned in a non-coercive manner by police. Feeling compelled to follow her mother's advice, the defendant confessed to her involvement in the robbery. The prosecution sought to introduce the defendant's confession at trial over the objection of her attorney. Will the court likely sustain the objection?

Answer: No, because the defendant waived her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

38. An undercover officer spread the word through a series of informants that he wanted to buy drugs. A well-known drug dealer called the officer, identified himself, and offered to sell drugs to the officer. The drug dealer was arrested, and the prosecutor sought to introduce the statements made by the drug dealer to the undercover officer at trial. The drug dealer's attorney objected that the statements should be suppressed on constitutional grounds. Should the statements be suppressed?

Answer: No, because the drug dealer was not in custody.

22. A reliable informant called police and told them that he had just witnessed a hit and run accident. The informant believed the driver was intoxicated based on her observation of the driver stumbling out of a bar, getting into a car, and subsequently crashing into another car in the parking lot and immediately driving away. When the police sent a cruiser to the location where the informant had placed the car, they saw a green compact car driving slowly on the shoulder of the road. The driver and vehicle matched the informant's description. A woman was riding in the back seat as a passenger. As the police watched, the car stopped and the woman got out and started walking along the shoulder. The car pulled away, weaving slowly, and the woman raised her arm to hail a taxi. The police stopped the green car and searched the driver's person and the car. They then approached the woman, demanded that she hand over her backpack, and searched it without her consent. In the backpack, they found a small bag of cocaine. The police arrested the woman for drug possession. At the woman's trial, should the judge allow the prosecution to introduce evidence of the cocaine? Answers: No, because the fact that she had been in the car is not enough to support the search. No, because the police should have obtained a warrant to search the backpack after seizing it. Yes, because she was riding in the car, and the informant's report constituted probable cause. Yes, because the fact that she may have left the scene constituted an emergency for police.

Answer: No, because the fact that she had been in the car is not enough to support the search. A search or seizure is constitutional if it is pursuant to a warrant based on probable cause or if it falls under an exception to the warrant requirement. In this case, the police had no warrant to search the woman. They also had no probable cause to arrest her and search her incident to that arrest because there is no evidence that she was involved in the hit and run. Furthermore, no exception to the warrant requirement applies. Answer choice B is incorrect because it presumes that the seizure of the backpack was permissible. Because the police lacked probable cause to seize the backpack, the police could not have obtained a warrant. Answer choice C is incorrect. Although the police did have probable cause to search the green car, the woman was not in the green car at the time she was searched. Answer choice D is incorrect because the police lacked probable cause to believe that the woman was involved in any illegal conduct or that her departure would endanger the public or lead to the destruction or loss of evidence. Therefore, the risk of her leaving the scene did not constitute an emergency that justified the search.

32. A woman had previously been suspected of breaking into a museum, stealing a famous painting, and replacing it with a forgery she had created. The woman was never charged with any crime because there was not enough evidence to prove that the woman had committed the theft and forgery. Recently, a person broke into the same museum, stole a famous painting, and replaced it with a forgery. A judge would not grant a warrant to search the woman's paint studio following the recent crime because probable cause could not be established at that time. Nonetheless, the police searched the woman's studio and found the stolen painting. The prosecution intended to introduce the painting at the grand jury proceeding. Upon learning of this, the woman's lawyer immediately moved to suppress introduction of the painting on the grounds that it was obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure. Should the painting be suppressed?

Answer: No, because the grand jury may consider illegally obtained evidence in determining whether to indict.

21. A school district had a strict policy that prohibited the non-medical possession, use, sale or other distribution of any drug on school grounds. Administrators at a local middle school in the district were informed by a student that other students had talked about bringing prescription medications from home to school to take at lunch time for recreational use. One day the following week, the same student gave a school administrator a pill, which the school nurse determined contained prescription strength medication. The student stated that he had been given the pill by another student that morning. Ignoring safety issues, what standard does the administrator need to satisfy in order to conduct a strip search of the other student for possession of prescription medications?

Answer: Reasonable suspicion that the student being searched is hiding prescription medicine in his underwear.

20. A mother hired a babysitter to watch her two children one evening, but returned home much later than expected. Because the bus route the babysitter needed to take home was no longer running, the mother let her stay the night in the guest room. In the morning, while the babysitter made the children breakfast, the mother discovered that a very small and valuable sculpture was missing from the guest room. The mother called the police, who immediately came to the home. The mother let them into the house and brought them to the kitchen, where the babysitter had finished breakfast. The police asked the babysitter for her identification, and when they ran her information through the police database, they discovered that there was a warrant for her arrest for robbery of a gas station. The police arrested the babysitter and searched her. They did not find the sculpture, but did discover an unlicensed gun strapped to her leg that matched the description of the gun used to rob the gas station. At trial for robbery of the gas station, the babysitter moved to suppress evidence of the gun. Should the court grant her motion? Answers: Yes, because the police violated the babysitter's reasonable expectation of privacy as an overnight guest. Yes, because the police made an invalid warrantless search of the babysitter. No, because the mother gave the police permission to enter her home. No, because the babysitter was only an overnight guest in the home.

Answer: No, because the mother gave the police permission to enter her home. To prove a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights, a defendant must have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises searched. A warrantless search is valid if it is reasonable in scope and if it is made incident to a lawful arrest. In situations in which a felony has been committed outside the presence of the one making the arrest, a police officer may arrest anyone whom he has probable cause to believe has committed a felony, even without a warrant. Police also can require that the detained person identify herself. A police officer may not arrest a person in another person's home without a search warrant, absent exigent circumstances or valid consent. Here, the mother consented to the officer's presence in her home, making the arrest valid. Because the gun was found during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the search is valid. Answer choice A is incorrect. Although an overnight guest generally has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place where she stayed, in this case the babysitter's right would only apply to the guest room where she slept. The mother could still consent to a search of the community areas of the premises. For this reason, the fact that the police did not have probable cause to search the babysitter until they ran her identification through the police database is not a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. Answer choice B is incorrect because the police found the gun in a valid search incident to a valid arrest. Answer choice D is incorrect because the fact that the babysitter was an overnight guest is not determinative of the validity of a search incident to a lawful arrest. A police officer may not arrest a person in another person's home without a search warrant, absent exigent circumstances or valid consent, but the mother consented to the officer's presence in her home, making the arrest valid.

34. The police, in conducting a search of a murder victim's home, found an unsigned handwritten note that contained a threat against the victim's life. The defendant was indicted for the murder and an attorney was appointed to represent the defendant. Several days later, in the early evening, a police officer knocked on the front door of the defendant's residence and demanded that the defendant provide the police with a handwriting exemplar, the text of which was based on the contents of the note found in the victim's home. Although the officer did not have a warrant, the defendant complied, feeling that he had no choice but to obey the officer. Prior to trial, the defendant's attorney filed a motion to prevent the prosecution's introduction of the exemplar as evidence at the trial because the taking of the exemplar violated the defendant's constitutional rights. Should the court grant this motion?

Answer: No, because the officer's taking of the exemplar did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights.

41. Two officers went to a man's home to serve an arrest warrant, but no one answered the door. As they walked around the man's house, the officers looked into his next door neighbor's window and saw the man inside the neighbor's kitchen drinking coffee. The officers knocked on the neighbor's door, and when the neighbor answered, the officers informed the neighbor that they had a warrant to arrest the man. The officers pushed past the neighbor into the kitchen and arrested the man. While they were in the kitchen, the officers saw a bag of marijuana on the neighbor's counter. The officers arrested the neighbor, and he was subsequently charged with possession of narcotics. The neighbor moved to suppress evidence of the drugs, and the prosecution argued that the evidence was admissible under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. Are the drugs seized in the neighbor's kitchen likely to be admitted against the neighbor?

Answer: No, because the officers could not lawfully enter the neighbor's home without his consent.

3. A suspect was arrested for kidnapping a child, read his Miranda rights, and placed in the back of a police car. The suspect immediately requested an attorney. While transporting the suspect to the police station, the two officers had a brief discussion between themselves on the immorality of hurting a child. Despite the fact that their conversation was unlikely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect, after listening to the officers' conversation, the suspect admitted that he had kidnapped the child. At trial, the suspect moved to suppress his confession. Should the court grant the motion to suppress?

Answer: No, because the officers' conversation was unlikely to elicit an incriminating response.

28. A brutal murder occurred at a roadside rest area. Unable to determine the identity of the killer, the police set up a checkpoint on the highway near the rest area several days later at approximately the same time of night as the murder occurred. The purpose of the checkpoint was to ask travelers for help in solving the murder. The police stopped every car and gave the driver a flyer with information about the murder. The officer then asked the driver if he had any relevant information he wanted to share with police. If the driver responded negatively, the driver was allowed to continue on his way. If the driver responded affirmatively, the car was directed to the shoulder of the road to talk with another officer. A driver who was stopped in this manner was smoking marijuana. The police officer, upon smelling the marijuana, directed the driver to the side of the road where the driver was arrested. At the driver's trial for driving under the influence, the driver moves to exclude the evidence of the marijuana from the trial on the grounds that the stop violated his constitutional rights. Should the court grant the driver's motion? Answers: Yes, because the arrest of the driver for a drug related offense occurred as a result of a checkpoint stop. Yes, because the stop was part of an ongoing criminal investigation. No, because the police had an information seeking purpose in stopping the driver. No, because the police's actions did not constitute a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment because the driver was not subject to an interrogation prior to his arrest.

Answer: No, because the police had an information seeking purpose in stopping the driver. Police may set up of checkpoint for the purpose of seeking information about a crime without violating the constitutional rights of a driver who is stopped, as long as (i) the checkpoint stop's primary law enforcement purpose is to elicit evidence to help them apprehend not the vehicle's occupants but other individuals; (ii) the stop advanced a public concern to a significant degree; and (iii) the police appropriately tailored their checkpoint stops to fit important criminal investigatory needs and to minimally interfere with liberties protected by the Fourth Amendment. The police need not have an individualized suspicion that a driver has committed a crime in order to stop the driver. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the operation of a checkpoint by the police for the purpose of finding drug-related crimes is not constitutionally permissible, that was not the purpose of this checkpoint. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although the stop was part of an ongoing criminal investigation, the purpose of the stop was not to directly catch the perpetrator of the murder, but simply to elicit the public's help in finding out who the killer was. Answer choice D is incorrect because an involuntary traffic stop does result in the seizure of the occupants of the car. There is no requirement that the police interrogate the driver or other occupants before the stop constitutes a seizure.

15. A lawful resident alien matched the description of a suspected bank robber. Two police officers brought him to the police station for questioning. The officers never officially placed the resident alien under arrest, but they never mentioned that he was free to go. Instead, they explained that they wanted to keep him at the station until they "cleared up the whole situation." Unfamiliar with the U.S. justice system, the resident alien did not know about the Fifth Amendment, he was never given any Miranda warnings, and it never occurred to him to ask whether he was free to go. After several hours with no contact with anyone except the police officers, the resident alien eventually made an incriminating statement. At the resident alien's subsequent trial, the prosecution intends to use the statement as evidence against him. Is the statement likely admissible at trial?

Answer: No, because the resident alien was not given his Fifth Amendment warnings. A suspect has a constitutional right not to be compelled to make incriminating statements about himself during a police interrogation. Any incriminating statement made as a result of such interrogation is inadmissible unless the police informed the suspect of his Miranda rights. In this case, the resident alien was likely in a custodial interrogation, and a reasonable person in his situation would not think that they could leave (e.g., the fact that he had no contact with anyone else for hours, that he was never told he was free to go, that he was told that the police wanted to keep him there until "they cleared up the whole situation"). Accordingly, he should have been given Miranda warnings, and anything he said in the absence of those warnings should not be admitted. Answer choice A is incorrect. First, interrogations do not have to be at a police station to be custodial. It is only required that a government agent perform the interrogating and that the person being interrogated does not believe that he is free to leave. Second, even statements made at a police station may be admissible, if proper warnings are given. Therefore, answer choice B is a better answer. Answer choice C is incorrect because the Fifth Amendment states that "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . . ." The right is not limited to U.S. citizens, but it extends to lawful resident aliens. Answer choice D is incorrect because the defendant need not affirmatively assert his rights before he is entitled to the Miranda warnings. Rather, once a custodial interrogation begins, anything the defendant says is inadmissible until the defendant is informed of his Miranda rights and he waives those rights.

35. A woman was suspected of murder in the shooting death of her husband and was taken into custody. Two officers brought her to an interview room and told her another officer would arrive to conduct her interrogation shortly. They did not read the woman her Miranda rights, but instead waited quietly in the room with her for the other officer to arrive. After thirty minutes of waiting, the woman became extremely agitated and blurted out, "I did it! I killed him, and I threw the gun into the river!" The police dragged the river and recovered a gun, and ballistics tests confirmed that the gun was the murder weapon. At trial, the woman's attorney moved to suppress introduction of both the confession and the gun as evidence. How should the court rule?

Answer: Suppress neither the confession nor the gun.

19. A liquor store was robbed, and the robber made off with cash and a fifth of a particular, popular brand of whiskey. After the robbery, the liquor store clerk called the police. The clerk identified a frequent customer as the robber. The clerk described the shirt the robber was wearing as a red and white plaid shirt. The clerk also identified the type of weapon used by the robber as a pistol. The police obtained a valid warrant to search the customer's apartment. The search warrant, in describing the items to be seized, listed only "a pistol used in the robbery as well as other fruits and instrumentalities of that crime." The officer who applied for the warrant, although aware of the plaid shirt, made a conscious decision to not list it on the warrant due to other pressing matters. Two police officers executed the search warrant. The officer who had interviewed the store clerk spotted a red and white plaid shirt in plain view on a table in the customer's apartment and seized it. The police officers did not find the pistol or any other fruits or instrumentalities of the robbery. The customer was charged with robbery. He moved to suppress the use of the plaid shirt as evidence. Should the court grant the motion to suppress the plaid shirt?

Answer: No, because the shirt was lawfully seized under the "plain-view" doctrine. A search warrant must describe with particularity the objects to be seized. Here, the search warrant did not specifically describe the plaid shirt worn by the robber during the robbery as the item to be seized. The plaid shirt, mere evidence linking the customer to the robbery, did not fit within the general categories also mentioned in the warrant (i.e., fruits or instrumentalities of the robbery). However, because the search warrant was a valid warrant, the police officers were legally entitled to be in the customer's apartment. Because an officer saw the plaid shirt in plain view while searching the apartment for the gun as well fruits and instrumentalities of the robbery, the officer's seizure of this shirt was permitted under the "plain view" exception to the warrant requirement. Answer B is incorrect because the search warrant did not specifically authorize the police officers to seize the plaid shirt. The shirt was not the pistol used in the robbery, it was not a fruit of the robbery, as the cash or bottle of whiskey was, and it was not an instrumentality of the robbery, as the pistol was. Answer C is incorrect because, even though the shirt was mere evidence of the robbery, the police officers, in executing a valid search warrant, could seize evidence of the robbery under the plain view doctrine. Answer D is incorrect. The plain view doctrine is not limited to those items that the police could have listed on a valid search warrant but failed to do so; the discovery of the seized item need not be inadvertent.

17. An employee of a storage company informed police that the owner of the company was involved in a conspiracy to steal goods and then sell them. According to the employee, the owner permitted the storage of the stolen goods in his warehouse, typically only overnight, before the goods were transported elsewhere for resale. Acting on reliable information from the employee that the warehouse was due to receive a shipment of stolen goods that evening, a police officer immediately sought and obtained a warrant from a neutral and detached magistrate to search the warehouse upon the arrival of the stolen goods. The warrant failed to specify the condition that had to occur before the search was authorized by the warrant. Properly executing the warrant, the police seized the stolen goods. The warehouse owner was charged with conspiracy to commit larceny and possession of stolen goods. The owner sought to suppress the evidence of the stolen goods on the grounds that the seizure was unconstitutional. Should the court suppress this evidence? Answers: Yes, because an anticipatory warrant is per se unconstitutional. Yes because the failure to state the triggering condition in the warrant caused the warrant to fail for lack of particularity. No, because the warrant satisfied the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment. No, because a warrant is not needed to search business premises such as a warehouse.

Answer: No, because the warrant satisfied the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment. An anticipatory warrant is not unconstitutional simply because the items to be seized are not located on the premises to be searched at the time that the warrant is issued. The probable cause requirement is satisfied where, at the time that the warrant is issued, there is probable cause to believe that the triggering condition will occur and, if that condition does occur, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. For this reason, answer choice A is incorrect. Answer choice B is incorrect because a warrant need not state any condition that is precedent to its validity. Answer choice D is incorrect because the warrant requirement generally does apply to the search of a business, particularly where the search is made in regard to criminal activity rather than for administrative purposes.

4. A wife suspected her husband of selling drugs. Over a several-week period, she had observed him buying small plastic bags, scales, and brown paper bags. The husband kept a locked safe in the garage. One night, the wife overheard her husband give his friend the code to the safe over the phone in case the husband was unable to access it. While her husband was at work, the wife went to the garage, opened her husband's safe, and found $10,000 in small bills. She immediately notified the police. After a prompt investigation, the police later arrested the husband for distributing drugs. At trial, the husband moves to suppress the money found in the safe on the grounds that it was discovered through an illegal search. Will the court likely grant the husband's motion?

Answer: No, because the wife was not acting as an agent of the police.

6. A witness was subpoenaed to testify at a grand jury proceeding investigating allegations of a large-scale identity-theft operation. The witness was accompanied by his attorney, but the prosecutor refused to let the witness' attorney into the grand jury room. The witness also asked to call another individual as a witness to corroborate his alibi, but the prosecutor denied this request as well. After speaking with his attorney outside the grand jury room, the witness decided to testify. The witness was later indicted by the grand jury for identity theft. The witness has moved to dismiss the indictment as violating his Fifth Amendment right to counsel and his Sixth Amendment right to present witnesses. Should the court dismiss the indictment?

Answer: No, because the witness was not denied any constitutional rights.

16. A police officer obtained a valid warrant to arrest a woman for misdemeanor theft. Having probable cause to believe that the woman was spending the afternoon at a friend's house, the officer went to the friend's house to serve the warrant. No one responded to the officer's knocking or to his identification of himself as a police officer. The officer, finding the door unlocked, opened the door and entered the house. Once in the house, the officer found the woman hiding in a bedroom closet. The woman was properly charged with misdemeanor theft. She sought dismissal of the case against her due the manner of her arrest. Should the court dismiss the charges against the woman? Answers: A. No, because the officer arrested the woman pursuant to a valid arrest warrant. B. No, because the woman was properly charged with misdemeanor theft. C. Yes, because the officer's arrest of the woman at her friend's house was illegal. D. Yes, because the officer could not arrest the woman for a misdemeanor unless the misdemeanor occurred in the officer's presence.

Answer: No, because the woman was properly charged with misdemeanor theft. An illegal arrest does not prevent the subsequent prosecution of the person who is illegally arrested. While evidence seized as a consequence of an illegal arrest may be suppressed under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, and the charge may be thrown out if such evidence is necessary for conviction, that is not the case under these facts. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the woman was arrested pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, the arrest was illegally effected because the officer arrested the woman at the home of her friend. Since the officer did not have a warrant to search for the woman at her friend's home, his arrest of the woman there was illegal. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although the arrest was illegal as noted in answer choice B, the illegal arrest does not prevent the prosecution of the woman for misdemeanor theft. Answer choice D is incorrect because, since the officer had an arrest warrant, he could arrest the woman for a misdemeanor that did not occur in his presence.

27. A police officer's wife often worked late with her business partner. The officer suspected they were having an affair and decided to confront the partner. After putting on his patrol uniform and badge, the officer went to the partner's home and kicked open the front door. He found the partner in his kitchen putting cocaine into little bags. The officer immediately arrested the partner for possession of cocaine and informed him of his Miranda rights. The officer confronted the partner about the affair, and the partner confessed that he and the officer's wife spent late nights together selling cocaine. At the partner's subsequent trial for possession and distribution of cocaine, he moved to suppress evidence of his confession because it was involuntary. What is the strongest argument in support of the suppression of the confession? Answers: The confession was involuntary because the partner did not waive his Miranda rights. The confession was too closely tied to the unlawful arrest. The officer did not have probable cause to detain the partner. The partner made the confession after the police officer unlawfully arrested him.

Answer: The confession was too closely tied to the unlawful arrest. A voluntary confession made after an unlawful arrest will not automatically be suppressed. Note, however, that the unlawfulness of the arrest may be considered as a factor when determining whether a confession was truly voluntary. If the confession is too closely tied to the illegal arrest, it may be suppressed. Here, the partner's strongest argument is that the confession was too closely tied to the illegal arrest made by the officer. The officer illegally arrested the partner in his home without a warrant after breaking down his door in order to confront him about an alleged affair with his wife, and the confession was in response to his inquiries about the alleged affair. This makes the confession very closely tied to the unlawful arrest. Answer choice A is incorrect. A suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police. Here, although the officer was clearly angry about the alleged affair between his wife and the partner, there is no evidence that the partner did not understand his Miranda rights, or that the officer coerced him into admitting that he sold cocaine. Thus, this is not the strongest argument he can make. Answer choice C is incorrect. An unlawful arrest alone has no bearing on a subsequent criminal prosecution, and it is not a defense to the crime charged. If the police have probable cause to detain a suspect, they may do so even if they illegally arrested him (e.g., in his home without a warrant). Answer choice D is incorrect. As stated above, a voluntary confession made after an illegal arrest will not automatically be suppressed. It is not the illegal arrest, but the strong connection of the confession to the illegal arrest, that makes the confession inadmissible. Thus, answer choice B provides the strongest argument in support of suppressing the confession.

46. Following the armed robbery of a local bank, the police identified the defendant as a suspect and brought him to the police station for questioning. As soon as they sat down in the interrogation room, the police read the defendant his Miranda rights. The defendant noted that "this seems like the kind of thing where you should have a lawyer." The police responded that the defendant had that right. The defendant noted that he "didn't even know a good lawyer," and dropped the issue. In response to each question, the defendant simply repeated, "I don't know anything about it." Frustrated, the police discontinued questioning after an hour and left the defendant in the interrogation room alone. Three hours later, the police returned and, without repeating the Miranda warnings, told the defendant that his best friend, who was also a suspect, had already told them all about the robbery and the defendant's involvement. In fact, the police were searching for the defendant's best friend to bring him in for questioning but had not been able to locate him. The defendant immediately blurted out, "It was all his idea. I didn't even want to rob that bank." What is the defendant's best argument that his statement was taken in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights?

Answer: The defendant did not receive fresh Miranda warnings after the break in questioning.

25. Police, who had probable cause to arrest a man for a series of armed robberies, obtained a warrant to arrest him. At 6 a.m. they surreptitiously entered the man's house and, with guns drawn, went to the man's bedroom, where they awakened him. Startled, the man asked, "What's going on?" and an officer replied, "We've got you now." Another officer immediately asked the man if he had committed a particular robbery, and the man said that he had. The police then informed him that he was under arrest and ordered him to get dressed. Charged with robbery, the man has moved to suppress the use of his statement as evidence. What is the man's best argument for granting his motion? Answers: The police did not give him the required Miranda warnings. The statement was not voluntary. He was not informed that he was under arrest until after he made the statement. The police did not have a search warrant authorizing entry into the house.

Answer: The police did not give him the required Miranda warnings. The man was very likely in custody, even though he was in his home, given the time and manner of the police entry. Accordingly, the police could not properly interrogate the man without first providing him with Miranda warnings. Answer choice B is incorrect. A challenge to the voluntariness of the statement would be much more difficult than a Miranda challenge, given that the man's statement was very likely the product of custodial interrogation. Answer choice C is incorrect because there is no requirement that a defendant be informed of an arrest or a warrant; what is required is that a person in custody not be subjected to interrogation without Miranda warnings. Answer choice D is incorrect because the arrest warrant sufficed to allow entry into the man's home.

31. The police obtained information on an upcoming drug shipment from a known informant who had provided reliable information in the past. Based solely on this information, the police obtained a warrant to search a known drug dealer's home on the following day, when the informant said the drugs would be delivered to the home. The warrant provided for the police to seize narcotics and related contraband, as well as "other fruits, instrumentalities and evidence of the crime at this time unknown." When they arrived at the drug dealer's home, rather than announcing their presence, the police promptly kicked down the door. They found the drug dealer and the defendant, whom they did not recognize, drinking coffee in the kitchen. One officer searched the drug dealer and the defendant, while the others searched the areas of the home specified in the warrant. The search of the defendant uncovered a handgun with an obliterated serial number, which the officer seized. It was later revealed that the handgun was stolen, that the defendant was a convicted felon, and that the gun was possessed illegally. The defendant was charged with crimes related to possession of the handgun. The defendant has moved to suppress evidence of the handgun, arguing that it was illegally seized. What is the defendant's best argument that the handgun should be suppressed?

Answer: The police did not have independent justification to search the defendant.

42. A police officer received an anonymous tip that the defendant was manufacturing methamphetamine in his basement. Based solely on the tip, the officer obtained a warrant to search the defendant's basement for drugs and related manufacturing equipment. The officer and his partner went to the defendant's home to execute the warrant. Believing the defendant was not home, the officers did not knock on the door, but simply opened the unlocked door. In searching the defendant's basement, the officers found large quantities of methamphetamine, related manufacturing equipment, and a notebook that said "Ledger" across the cover. The notebook contained a ledger, with the names of the defendant's clients and statements of their accounts. The officers seized all these items. The defendant seeks to suppress the evidence seized by the officers. What is the defendant's best argument in favor of suppressing the notebook?

Answer: The warrant was invalid.

10. The director of public parks was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury investigating an illegal kickback scheme involving governmental officials. Although the director was told of her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, she was not specifically warned that she was a target of the investigation or that she could be indicted. In her testimony before the grand jury, the director lied to the grand jury. The director was indicted by the grand jury for perjury and for crimes related to the illegal kickback scheme. In considering the director's involvement in the scheme, the grand jury heard and relied on hearsay testimony. The director has sought to quash the indictment for perjury because the director had not knowingly waived her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the indictments related to the kickback scheme because they were based on hearsay testimony. The court refused to quash any grand jury indictments. Was the court's refusal proper?

Answer: Yes, as to all of the indictments.

2. Two police officers responded to a call about a domestic disturbance. When they arrived at the home in question, they found a man and woman screaming at each other. One officer handcuffed the man and took him outside, while the other officer spoke with the woman inside the house. Without reading the man his Miranda rights, the officer asked the man to explain what happened. The man stated that the woman had tried to find the gun he had hidden in the bedroom closet. The officer retrieved the gun. The man, who was a convicted felon, was later charged with possession of a firearm as a felon. At trial, the man moved to suppress his statement about the gun and the gun itself, arguing that he did not receive Miranda warnings prior to being questioned by the officer. Is the defendant likely to succeed in having the evidence suppressed for Fifth Amendment reasons?

Answer: Yes, as to the statement only.

9. A man and a woman were leaders of a gang and drug dealers. Some rival gang leaders burned their house to the ground. The man and woman then checked into a motel. The police, who had been watching the couple, thought that they had probably taken any remaining drugs with them to the motel. The police went to the motel's front desk and asked the desk clerk, an employee of the business, to open the couple's room. When the desk clerk let the police into the couple's room, the police found bags of cocaine and heroin on the dresser and bed. The man and woman were arrested and charged with drug possession with the intent to distribute. The man moved to suppress the cocaine and heroin. Will his motion likely succeed?

Answer: Yes, because a guest has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a motel room.

11. An undercover officer infiltrated a gang by posing as a gang member. While he was working undercover, the officer heard that a member of the gang had shot and killed one of the leaders of a rival gang. The next time the officer and the gang member suspected of the murder were alone, the officer brought up the shooting, indicating that he was very impressed by whoever had the courage to commit such an act. The gang member, taking the bait, bragged that he had shot the rival gang leader, but told the officer to keep the information secret. The gang member was arrested for the murder and the prosecution sought to introduce the statement made to the undercover officer. Is the statement likely to be admitted?

Answer: Yes, because the gang member did not know that the undercover officer was a police officer. Miranda warnings are not required if the suspect being questioned is not aware that the interrogator is a police officer. Thus, an undercover officer may question a suspect without informing him of his rights, as was done in this case. Note, too, that Miranda warnings only apply to custodial interrogations, and in this case, the gang member was not in custody. Answer choice A is incorrect because the suspect did not know the undercover officer was a police officer, so Miranda warnings were not required. Answer choice B is incorrect because deceit or fraud by an interrogator (e.g., lying about a co-conspirator's confession) does not itself make a confession involuntary. In this case, the officer's deception regarding his identity did not make the confession involuntary. Answer choice D is incorrect because interrogation refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions that the police know or should know are likely to elicit an incriminating response. In this case, the officer made a statement that he knew was likely to elicit an incriminating response. While the statement was arguably an interrogation, it was not a custodial interrogation. Accordingly, answer choice C is a better answer.

12. An officer pulled over the defendant for speeding. When he ran the defendant's plates, the officer saw that there was an outstanding warrant for the defendant's arrest based on her failure to pay child support. The officer arrested the defendant and placed her in the backseat of his squad car. The officer then returned to the defendant's car and saw that her purse was sitting on the passenger seat. The officer searched the purse and found a small amount of marijuana. The defendant was later charged with drug possession. She has moved to suppress evidence of the marijuana. Is the defendant likely to succeed in having evidence of the marijuana suppressed?

Answer: Yes, because the officer did not have a reasonable belief that the passenger compartment of the vehicle contained evidence of the offense. In order to justify a warrantless search of an automobile incident to arrest, the Fourth Amendment requires that law enforcement demonstrate either (i) that the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search and, as a result, may pose an actual and continuing threat to the officer's safety or a need to preserve evidence from being tampered with by the arrestee or (ii) that it is reasonable that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle. In this case, the defendant was not within reaching distance of the passenger compartment of the car, and it was not reasonable that evidence of the violation of a child support order would be found in the car. Accordingly, the officer could not search the purse without a warrant. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although an officer may search an individual and containers "immediately associated" with the individual pursuant to a lawful arrest, in this case the purse was in the vehicle and not immediately associated with the defendant. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although the Belton rule previously provided that an officer could conduct a full search of a vehicle pursuant to a lawful arrest, the Supreme Court has since limited the parameters of such a search as previously described. Answer choice D is incorrect because an officer is not necessarily required to have probable cause to search a vehicle incident to a lawful arrest. Accordingly, answer choice C is a better answer. [Note: "Passenger compartment" is the phrase used by the U.S. Supreme Court to describe the area of a vehicle in which passengers ride, to be distinguished from the trunk, for example.]

37. Police officers were engaged in the investigation of a bank robbery. Based on the circumstances of the robbery, they believed that the robbery was an "inside job," and that a senior employee was likely involved in planning the robbery. They asked five of the bank's senior employees, including the bank's vice-president, to come to the police station the following day to answer some questions. Before any of the employees arrived, the investigating officers had a discussion in which they concluded that one of the five senior employees was likely involved in the robbery, and that they should attempt to elicit a confession since they had no evidence implicating any of them. The officers did not read the vice-president his Miranda rights when he arrived, but did indicate that he was free to leave at any time. A few minutes into the interview, the vice-president broke down and admitted that he was involved in the conspiracy. Following the confession, the officers informed the vice-president that he was under arrest, read him his Miranda rights, and asked if he would sign a written waiver of his rights and a written confession. The vice-president stated, "I already told you everything, so I might as well." He then signed both documents. Is the vice-president's written confession likely admissible at trial?

Answer: Yes, because the officers provided the vice-president with the required Miranda warnings.

30. A defendant was visiting his girlfriend's home. Before leaving, he hid a knife in the kitchen cabinet without her knowledge. Later that day, the police arrived at the girlfriend's house to question her about a recent stabbing in which the defendant was a suspect. The police believed the girlfriend was withholding information and threatened to arrest her for obstruction of justice if she did not allow them to search her home. The girlfriend consented, and the police discovered the knife in the kitchen. The knife was later identified as the weapon used in the stabbing, and the defendant was charged and tried for the crime. The defendant moved to suppress the knife, and the prosecution objected. Is the knife likely to be admitted against the defendant at trial? Answers: No, because the defendant did not specifically invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. No, because the defendant waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by failing to request his attorney. Yes, because the defendant did not waive his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. Yes, because the defendant did not provide a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Answer: Yes, because the search did not violate the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy. The right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment is not automatic. To invoke the right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment, the defendant must make a specific, unambiguous statement asserting his desire to have counsel present. In this case, the defendant did not request counsel, and thus did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. The police's actions therefore did not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to counsel. Additionally, as discussed further below, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is case-specific, so the fact that the defendant already had an attorney for his robbery case is irrelevant to the interrogation about the assault. Answer choice B is incorrect because the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached for purposes of the assault that was the subject of the interrogation. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel automatically attaches when the State initiates prosecution with an indictment or formal charge. Once the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is properly invoked, it applies only to the specific offense at issue in those proceedings. Under the Sixth Amendment standard, the requirement that counsel be present applies only to interrogations about the offense charged. In this case, the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached for purposes of the robbery, but not the assault. Answer choice C is incorrect because, under the Fifth Amendment, a defendant must specifically request counsel, and the defendant made no such request. Answer choice D is incorrect because the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached for purposes of the assault that was the subject of the interrogation.

8. The police had accumulated reliable information that a doctor was illegally dealing prescription drugs. One day, the police received a reliable tip that a stainless steel suitcase containing stolen prescription drugs would be delivered to the doctor's home the following afternoon. The police obtained a search warrant to search for and seize the suitcase when it arrived at the doctor's home the next day. The police immediately put the doctor's home under surveillance. About five minutes after a woman dropped off a stainless steel suitcase at the home, the police knocked on the doctor's door. The doctor was given the search warrant immediately upon opening the door, and the police found the suitcase unopened on the kitchen table. After confirming that the suitcase contained prescription drugs, they seized the suitcase and put handcuffs on the doctor. The police then fanned out through the house, looking in every room and closet. They found no one else, but one officer found an automatic weapon in a box on a closet shelf in the doctor's bedroom. In addition to charges relating to dealing prescription drugs, the doctor was charged with unlawful possession of weapons. The doctor moved to suppress the automatic weapon. Should the court grant the motion to suppress the automatic weapon?

Answer: Yes, because the search exceeded the authority granted by the warrant. Answer choice C is correct. The warrant was valid, but its validity was triggered by and limited to the delivered suitcase. Accordingly, once the only object of that search was discovered, the warrant did not authorize a further exploratory search of the house. Answer choice A is incorrect because probable cause is not a sufficient reason to conduct a warrantless search of the house beyond the authorized "protective sweep." Answer choice B is incorrect because officers may conduct a "protective sweep" of a home only if they have reason to believe that others inside the home may pose a danger to them. Even if the facts in this scenario justified such a protective sweep, such a sweep is limited to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding and would not have extended to the box on a closet shelf. Answer choice D is incorrect because the probable cause requirement of a warrant is satisfied when, at the time that the warrant is issued, there is probable cause to believe that the triggering condition will occur and, if that condition does occur, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.

43. Two undercover police officers, with probable cause to believe that the defendant was a drug dealer, entered the living room of the defendant's apartment, at the defendant's invitation, to buy cocaine. Before the transaction could take place, the defendant shot and killed one of the officers. After a brief struggle, the defendant was subdued by the other officer and placed under arrest for murder. Responding to the officer's request for assistance, uniformed police officers came to the apartment, conducted a protective sweep, and took the defendant to jail. Then the uniformed officers conducted a thorough warrantless search of the apartment, during which they uncovered a large quantity of cocaine in the mattress in the defendant's bedroom. Based on the amount of cocaine seized, the defendant was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deal in addition to murder. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the cocaine as having been unconstitutionally seized. Should the court grant this motion?

Answer: Yes, because the search was conducted without a warrant.

5. A police officer believed that a particular house was being used to conduct drug deals. He observed people coming and going at all hours, although he did not see any drugs change hands. One afternoon, the officer observed a person drop a small bag on the porch when he was leaving the house. The person picked it up, but the officer thought that perhaps some residue remained. The officer went to the police station, got a trained drug-detection dog, and went to the house. He went up onto the porch with the dog, and the dog alerted him to the presence of drugs. Based on the dog's reaction, a search warrant was issued for the house. A subsequent search led to the discovery of various kinds of drugs. The owner of the house was arrested and charged with drug possession and distribution. The owner moved to suppress the drugs found, claiming that the use of the trained drug-detection dog constituted an illegal search. Should the court grant the owner's motion to suppress?

Answer: Yes, because the use of a trained dog to sniff for the presence of drugs on the porch of a house constitutes a search.

1. Responding to a 911 call reporting an apparent drug deal, a uniformed police officer parked on the street in front of the defendant's home. As the officer got out of her car, the defendant and his wife were standing on the front porch of their home. The officer overheard the defendant say to his wife, "Go inside and hide the stash. They can't follow you without a warrant." The officer detained the defendant and his wife, preventing them from entering their house until backup arrived. At the defendant's subsequent trial for drug possession, is his statement constitutionally admissible? Answers: No, as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. No, as a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Yes, under an exception to the warrant requirement. Yes, because use of the statement does not violate the defendant's constitutional rights.

Answer: Yes, because use of the statement does not violate the defendant's constitutional rights. The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled self-incrimination. Here, the defendant voluntarily made the statement to his wife. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although a conversation may be protected from seizure by the police under the Fourth Amendment, the defendant cannot assert a reasonable expectation of privacy in a statement that can be heard by a police officer standing in the street in front of the defendant's home. Accordingly, the statement can be introduced without violating the defendant's constitutional rights. Answer choice A is incorrect because the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although a conversation may be protected from seizure by the police under the Fourth Amendment, the defendant cannot assert a reasonable expectation of privacy in a statement that can be heard by a police officer standing in the street in front of the defendant's home. Answer choice B is incorrect. The Fifth Amendment protects against compulsory self-incrimination. It does not protect against statements that were made voluntarily and outside of police custody. Accordingly, introduction of the statement would not violate the Fifth Amendment. Answer choice C is incorrect because there was no warrantless search in this case that would have required an applicable exception to be valid. The officer simply approached the house and heard a voluntary statement. In any event, none of the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement is applicable here.