4A Practice Problems Flashcards
Megan Hotwheels, on Fourth Amendment grounds, moves to suppress the discovery of her car’s vehicle identification number and other evidence acquired as the fruits of that discovery. The undisputed evidence is that an officer, on routine night patrol, indiscriminately shined his flashlight through the windshields of parked cars in order to view the vehicle identification numbers and compare them to a list of such numbers of stolen cars. The car driven by Hotwheels produced a match with this list.
The motion is:
(A) denied because no Fourth Amendment search took place,
(B) denied because no warrant is required to search a car,
(C) granted because the officer lacked the required probable cause, or
(D) granted because the officer lacked the required reasonable suspicion.
(A) denied because no Fourth Amendment search took place,
§ No REOP in VIN from lawful vantage point
Speedy was observed driving above the speed limit by Officer Radar and was pulled over. Radar took Speedy’s license and registration and went back to her cruiser to run a routine computer check, which revealed that there was an outstanding warrant for Speedy’s arrest for burglary. Radar informed Speedy that he was under arrest, handcuffed him, and placed him in the backseat of the cruiser. The officer then returned to Speedy’s vehicle and searched the entire passenger compartment. She found burglary tools in a closed brown paper bag in the back seat, opened the glove compartment and found a pistol, and then searched the trunk and discovered an assault rifle. Which, if any, of these items were lawfully seized? What if the assault rifle had been found in the car’s hatchback instead of the trunk?
a. Under Gant - because speedy was placed in the back of the squad car before searching the various compartments of the vehicle is unlawful, unless it was reasonable to believe there would evidence of the crime in the glove compartment. - if locked glove compartment that’s different
i. If this was a recent crime like early that day the burglary tools and pistol would be OK if there was RS
ii. If police believed the car was part of the crime then they can search the whole vehicle
1) PC can increase in course of encounter > so once burglary tools are found and pistol then can go to trunk
b. Hatchback treated like a passenger compartment
Officer Karen Russell receives an anonymous tip that, the following day, a large quantity of cocaine will be located in locker number 39 at the municipal bus terminal. Russell knows that drug traffickers have several times in the past used these lockers to transfer drugs. Russell, with the aid of a prosecutor, completes an affidavit in support of a search warrant for locker number 39 of the municipal bus terminal for cocaine. A magistrate reviews the affidavit and issues the search warrant. Russell executes the search warrant, discovers the promised cocaine inside the designated locker, waits nearby, sees a person later identified as Bart Douglas open the locker, and arrests Douglas. Douglas is charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Douglas moves to suppress the cocaine.
Should the motion be granted or denied? Please explain briefly (3-4 sentences).
ID Key Issues and Run Analysis
Key Issues: i. Was there a search: Yes ii. Was there PC? 2 key issues: a) Anonymous tip/cooperation i) Gates - totality of the circumstances b) Good faith - OK here
Police know that Lefty Ullrich runs an illegal lottery and an arrest warrant for Ullrich has been issued. Officer January Pugh, determined to execute this arrest warrant, learns that Ullrich is having dinner in the home of his father, Andrew Chateau. Ullrich does not reside with Chateau. Pugh travels to the home of Chateau, knocks and announces her identity and purpose and, hearing no response, forcibly enters the house and arrests Ullrich. When Pugh enters, she sees in plain view Ullrich and Chateau sitting at a table, poring over numbers slips and other lottery paraphernalia. This evidence is seized and the government subsequently seeks to use it in a prosecution of both Ullrich and Chateau. Each defendant moves to suppress the evidence as the fruits of an illegal entry into Chateau’s home.
The judge rules that:
(A) both motions are denied because Pugh had an arrest warrant for Ullrich,
(B) both motions are granted because Pugh lacked a search warrant to enter Chateau’s home to arrest Ullrich,
(C) only Chateau’s motion is granted because only Chateau has a protected fourth amendment interest that was violated by the entry into Chateau’s home, or
(D) only Ullrich’s motion is granted because the evidence in Chateau’s home cannot be linked to Ullrich.
(C) only Chateau’s motion is granted because only Chateau has a protected fourth amendment interest that was violated by the entry into Chateau’s home
Peter Laval was a very successful mortgage broker whose lifestyle plummeted along with the economy. He had been trying to make do by serving as a middleman for a major drug dealer. Laval sold and delivered substantial quantities of drugs to mid-level sellers. Late one night Laval was driving along Interstate 95; he was listening to his music on his iPod. Traffic was very light at that hour and Laval was weaving all over the road. Suddenly, he saw a police car behind him signaling him to pull over. The officer observed Laval weaving and wanted to check him for drunk driving. He ordered Laval out of the car and ordered him to perform field sobriety tests. Laval was sober and had no trouble passing the tests. The officer prepared to write Laval a ticket and fed Laval’s information into the system. With all of his economic woes, Laval had forgotten to renew his driver’s license which had expired four months earlier. The officer arrested Laval for driving without a license, pursuant to state law that authorizes arrests in such cases. He handcuffed Laval and put him in the back of the police car. The officer then searched Laval’s automobile and found a large quantity of marijuana in the trunk of the vehicle. Laval had expected to deliver the marijuana that evening, but the first delivery took much longer than anticipated and Laval had postponed the second delivery until the following morning. The police officer seized the marijuana and charged Laval with possession for sale of a very large quantity of marijuana, a felony with a mandatory ten-year prison sentence. Laval’s lawyer moved to suppress the marijuana found in the trunk of the vehicle.
Is the marijuana admissible at Laval’s trial?
(A) The marijuana is admissible because it was found incident to a lawful custodial arrest.
§ Grant - person is not unrestrained next to car so the compartments cant be search
(B) The marijuana is admissible because it was found during a search under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.
§ Acevedo - no PC for search
(C) The marijuana is inadmissible because the arrest of an unimpaired driver for a traffic offense is unlawful under the Fourth Amendment, and the subsequent search is tainted by the illegal arrest.
(D) The marijuana is inadmissible because the search of the trunk was unlawful.
(D) The marijuana is inadmissible because the search of the trunk was unlawful.
-Inevitable discovery or inventory search could get it in
After a series of devastating fires, police are desperate to find the culprit. They receive an anonymous phone call that someone on Highland Avenue started the fires. The police set up a roadblock on the street and stop suspicious-looking drivers. The police chief believes that young men (ages 18 to 25) are mostly likely to be arsonists so he directs his officers to target that group. For each car they stop, police quickly swab the driver’s hands to see if they have any chemical residue. Police dogs then sniff the car for explosives and narcotics.
• Roadblock not OK
○ Uses officer discretion to determine whose between the ages of 18-25 visually and to stop suspicious drivers - Prouse
○ Road safety is also not the purpose of the roadblock so its not ok - Sitz
§ Investigation wont pass, but safety will
• The residue search is ok because its not invasive
• Dog sniff is ok if the dog teams are already there
George’s car is stopped at the roadblock. The police swab shows some type of chemical residue on his hands. The dogs also alert to the back of his car. The officers then search the trunk of the car, where they find matches and empty gasoline containers. George is arrested and the officers immediately search through his cell phone where they find text messages from a contact named “Claire.” Claire’s messages, sent the day before each fire, include the addresses of each fire site. Police arrest Claire. George and Claire are charged with arson and conspiracy. George moves to suppress the evidence found on his person, in his car and in his phone. Claire also moves to suppress the text messages. Please discuss whether the motions should be granted.
• Dog sniff gives PC for the search ○ If not then fruits arguments • Cellphone ○ George § Search beyond scope of search incident to arrest □ suppress ○ Claire § Search □ Can't suppress because she doesn’t have an expectation of privacy in George's texts - no standing ® REOP in her texts from recipient? ◊ Go back to Hoffa
On March 31, the United States Border Patrol was operating a fixed checkpoint on a well-traveled California highway some eighty miles from the Mexican border. The purpose of the checkpoint was to look for undocumented aliens entering the United States. Border Patrol officers would stop every twentieth vehicle crossing the checkpoint, and wave it to a small parking area off the main roadway. At 6:57 pm, the twentieth vehicle past the checkpoint was a pickup truck pulling a small horse trailer. It was being driven by Abe Ben. Border Patrol officers waved it over.
- A Border Patrol officer asked Ben a few questions about his travels, which Ben answered. The officer then ordered Ben out of his vehicle. Ben refused. It is a misdemeanor violation of federal law to refuse a lawful order of any federal police official. Border Patrol officers placed Ben under arrest, and then searched his car. They found nothing. Nonetheless, Ben was charged with the misdemeanor of failing to obey a lawful order of a federal police official. Will he be convicted?
Yes
On March 31, the United States Border Patrol was operating a fixed checkpoint on a well-traveled California highway some eighty miles from the Mexican border. The purpose of the checkpoint was to look for undocumented aliens entering the United States. Border Patrol officers would stop every twentieth vehicle crossing the checkpoint, and wave it to a small parking area off the main roadway. At 6:57 pm, the twentieth vehicle past the checkpoint was a pickup truck pulling a small horse trailer. It was being driven by Abe Ben. Border Patrol officers waved it over.
- Same general facts as above, but when asked by USBP officers, Ben exits the car as requested. Rather than physically searching the car, however, the USBP officers utilize MicroCheck. MicroCheck is a new technology that enables agents to detect the presence of human beings by discerning vibrations that resonate through a vehicle as a result of a human heartbeat within. MicroCheck involves placing a small, sensitive monitor very near or up against a vehicle. Once the Border Patrol has the driver and any visible passengers step out of the vehicle, a MicroCheck operator can determine if any individual is secreted somewhere within the vehicle.
The use of MicroCheck reveals heartbeats in the horse trailer. USBP agents then search the horse trailer and find five undocumented aliens in it. Ben is charged with violating federal criminal immigration laws. The United States intends to make its case by introducing the presence of the five undocumented aliens. Ben moves to suppress. Result?
This is ok - even though the technology is far too advanced, you have a lower expectation of privacy in your vehicle than in your home so these methods do apply
