Criminal Law And Procedure Learning Questions - Set 5 Flashcards
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court has held that only a person with a reasonable expectation of privacy in a place searched or an item seized can challenge a search or seizure on Fourth Amendment grounds to bar the use of the fruits of the search as evidence at trial. An intrusion into a place or thing in which the defendant does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy is not considered a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.
Which of the following is most likely to be found to constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment?
A
A search of a garbage can placed on a curb for collection.
B
Use of a thermal imager to photograph the interior of a home.
C
A dog sniff of a car during a traffic stop.
D
Low altitude aerial photographing of a home using a telephoto lens.
B
The use of a thermal imager to take photographs of the interior of a home most likely constitutes a search. The Supreme Court has held that there is a strong expectation of privacy within one’s home, so obtaining information about the interior of a home through sense-enhancing technology that could not otherwise have been obtained without a physical intrusion constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment, absent a warrant.
In contrast, the Supreme Court has held that one does not have an expectation of privacy in the smell of one’s auto. Thus, a dog sniff of a car during a traffic stop does not constitute a search or implicate the Fourth Amendment, as long as the police lawfully stopped the car and the stop does not extend beyond the time necessary to issue a ticket and conduct ordinary inquiries.
A warrantless search of a garbage can placed on a curb for collection also does not constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Under the Supreme Court’s “open fields” doctrine, areas outside the curtilage (dwelling house and outbuildings) are subject to police entry and search, because they are held to be open to the public and thus unprotected by the Fourth Amendment.
Lastly, the Supreme Court has held that one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those areas of one’s yard that can be viewed from public airspace, so the police may take aerial photographs of a suspect’s house and yard, even at low altitude and with a telephoto lens and not implicate the Fourth Amendment, at least as long as the police are within legal airspace and the lens is in general public use.
The following are all exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, allowing for warrantless searches in situations where quick action is needed:
A
Evanescent evidence; emergencies that threaten health or safety; investigation of a murder scene
B
Hot pursuit of a fleeing felon; evanescent evidence; emergencies that threaten health or safety
C
Hot pursuit of a fleeing felon; emergencies that threaten health or safety; investigation of a murder scene
D
Hot pursuit of a fleeing felon; evanescent evidence; investigation of a murder scene
B
There is no exception to the warrant requirement based on the need to investigate a murder scene. Generally, if the owner of the location where the body was found objects, a warrant must be obtained.
There is an exception to the warrant requirement for hot pursuit of a fleeing felon. Police officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon may make a warrantless search and seizure. They may even pursue the suspect into private dwellings.
There also is an exception to the warrant requirement for evanescent evidence, such as scrapings of tissues from under a suspect’s fingernails, which could be washed away. Whether such a warrantless search is reasonable is judged by the totality of the circumstances. If by its nature the evidence is likely to disappear before a warrant may be obtained, the evanescent evidence exception applies.
Finally, there is an exception to the warrant requirement when the police are acting in emergency situations threatening immediate health or safety. This includes situations where the police see someone injured or threatened with injury. For example, if a police officer is answering a public disturbance call and sees someone being beaten within the premises when the officer arrives, the officer can go in without a warrant to help the victim of the beating. This is often referred to as the community caretaker exception.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, for a search to be valid, it must be pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate and based on probable cause to believe that seizable evidence or fruits of a crime will be found on the premises to be searched. However, the Supreme Court has carved out a number of exceptions to this rule.
Under the exception to the warrant requirement for searches incident to arrest, which of the following statements is true?
A
The exception applies only if the police fear for their safety.
B
The exception applies after any constitutional arrest.
C
If the arrest violates state law, the exception does not apply.
D
The exception applies only in cases of arrest for felonies.
B
The police may conduct a search incident to arrest after any constitutional arrest.
A warrantless search can be conducted following an arrest that violates state law. The police may conduct a search incident to an arrest whenever they arrest a person, even if the arrest is invalid under state law, as long as the arrest was constitutionally valid (e.g., reasonable and based on probable cause).
It is not necessary that the police fear for their safety for a warrantless search to be conducted following an arrest. The police need not actually fear for their safety or believe that they will find evidence of a crime as long as the suspect is placed under arrest.
It is not true that the exception applies only in the case of felony arrests. As discussed above, the exception applies after any lawful arrest.
Although government-required drug testing constitutes a search, the Supreme Court has upheld such testing without a warrant, probable cause, or even individualized suspicion when justified by “special needs” beyond a general interest of law enforcement.
In which of the following cases is a court least likely to find a special need justifying a warrantless drug test?
A
Railroad employees involved in accidents.
B
Politicians running for public office.
C
Public school students participating in extracurricular activities.
D
Drug interdiction agents who have access to large quantities of illegal drugs.
B
The Supreme Court found no special interest justifying the warrantless drug testing of politicians running for public office.
The Supreme Court has found a special interest justifying warrantless drug testing of public school students participating in extracurricular activities—the need being to assure the safety of students.
The Court has also found a special interest for warrantless drug testing of railroad employees involved in accidents—the strong interest of assuring public safety.
Finally, the Court has found a special interest justifying the warrantless drug testing of drug interdiction agents—their ready access to drugs.
Under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement, which of the following is not required?
A
The item must be evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of a crime.
B
The police must have inadvertently discovered the item.
C
The police must be legitimately on the premises where the item is found.
D
It must be immediately apparent that the item is evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of a crime.
B
For the warrantless seizure of an item under the plain view exception, it is not required that the item be inadvertently discovered. Formerly, this exception to the warrant requirement applied only if the item was inadvertently discovered. Inadvertence, however, is no longer a requirement.
To make a warrantless seizure, the police (1) must be legitimately on the premises where the item is found; (2) the item must be evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of a crime; (3) the item must be in plain view; and (4) it must be immediately apparent (i.e., probable cause) that the item is evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of a crime.
While walking on patrol in a commercial district in the early evening, a police officer noticed that a light was on in the back window of a machine shop. Curious about what was going on inside, the officer went to the back of the building and tried to look through the window of the shop, but it had been painted on the inside so that only a strip about three inches at the top, eight feet above ground level, was still transparent. The officer quietly brought two trash cans from a neighboring business over to the window, stood on them and saw, through the strip of unpainted window, that the shop owner’s son was inside with a friend, sucking white powder into his nose through a rolled-up tube of paper from off a small mirror. Recognizing that the shop owner’s son was snorting cocaine, the officer knocked at the front door to the shop, and the son let him in. The officer immediately arrested the owner’s son and his friend. In the back room of the shop through whose window he had peered, the officer found and seized several grams of cocaine, a razor blade, and a mirror. In the subsequent prosecution of the shop owner’s son for possession of cocaine, the owner’s son seeks to bar introduction of the cocaine, mirror, and razor blade into evidence.
Will his motion be granted?
A Yes, because the officer could not have known that the owner’s son was snorting cocaine absent a chemical test of the substance being snorted.
B Yes, because the officer violated the owner’s son’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
C No, because the search was incident to a valid arrest.
D No, because the owner’s son consented to the officer’s entry into the shop.
B
The shop owner’s son had a reasonable expectation of privacy, as evidenced by the obscuring of the window so that neighbors could not see into the shop. Hence, the officer’s search would have to be based on a valid warrant or qualify under one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. Putting trash cans next to a back window to climb upon and peering into the window through a narrow opening eight feet above the ground would be considered a violation of the owner’s son’s Fourth Amendment rights and not a “plain view” of criminal activity. Because the seizure of the cocaine, mirror, and razor was based on the illegal search, the evidence could not be used by the state. (A) is wrong; absolute certainty of illegal activity is not required for a valid search. A reasonable belief is required. (C) is wrong. The arrest itself is probably invalid, and in any event a search of the next room would not be an area within the immediate control of the defendant. (D) is wrong. Consent to enter the shop is not a consent to search the back room.
A car was pulled over for speeding and the police officer ordered the driver to step out and move away from the car. The officer subsequently searched the glove compartment of the car and found an illegal handgun.
Which of the following would NOT be a valid basis for the search of the glove compartment?
A The officer had a reasonable suspicion that the driver was dangerous.
B The officer properly placed the driver under arrest and secured him in the back of the squad car before conducting the search.
C The officer properly placed the driver under arrest, impounded the vehicle, and then conducted a standard inventory search.
D The officer had probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained illegal narcotics.
B
The search of the glove compartment would not be valid if the officer had placed the driver under arrest and secured him in the back of the squad car. After arresting the occupant of a vehicle, the police may search the interior of the vehicle incident to the arrest if (i) the arrestee is unsecured and still may gain access to the interior of the vehicle, or (ii) the police reasonably believe that evidence of the offense for which the person was arrested may be found in the vehicle. Here, if the officer secured the arrested driver in the back of the squad car, the first basis for permitting the search incident to arrest no longer applies (and there are no facts to support the second basis). Hence, there would be no grounds under (B) to support the search of the glove compartment. (A) is incorrect because, under the stop and frisk exception, an officer may order the occupant of a vehicle out of the car and search the passenger compartment if the officer reasonably believes that the occupant may be dangerous. (C) is incorrect because once a vehicle has been impounded, the police may conduct an inventory search as part of standard procedure. (D) is incorrect because, under the automobile exception, the police may search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to do so, and they may seize any contraband that they find.
The police obtained a valid arrest warrant for a drug dealer. A reliable informant told the police that the drug dealer was staying at a friend’s house until “the heat was off.” Without having obtained a search warrant, the police went to the friend’s house, knocked on the door, and asked the friend if the drug dealer was there. The friend replied that the drug dealer had been staying at the house for a few days but had left a few hours ago. The police pushed open the door and began searching for the drug dealer. They found him hiding in a closet along with two five-pound bricks of marijuana. They arrested both the drug dealer and the friend. Before his trial for possession of marijuana, the friend moved to suppress the marijuana found in the closet.
Should the court grant the motion to suppress?
A Yes, because a search warrant was required.
B Yes, because the police may not execute an arrest warrant at the third party’s home.
C No, because the police had probable cause to believe that the drug dealer was staying at the friend’s home.
D No, because the police had a valid arrest warrant and the marijuana was found incident to the arrest.
A
The court should grant the motion to suppress because a search warrant was required. Absent exigent circumstances, the police executing an arrest warrant may not search for the subject of the warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a separate search warrant for the home. If the police do execute an arrest warrant at the home of a third party without obtaining a search warrant for the home, the arrest is still valid but evidence of any crime found in the home cannot be used against the owner of the home because it is the fruit of an unconstitutional search. Thus, (A) is correct and (D) is incorrect. (B) is incorrect because it is too broad. A person can be arrested at the home of a third party, but the police generally cannot enter the third party’s home without consent unless they have a search warrant for the home. (C) is incorrect because, as discussed above, a search warrant is required absent exigent circumstances, which are not present in this case. Here, the probable cause established by the informant’s disclosure would have enabled the police to obtain a search warrant.
