Criminal Law And Procedure Learning Questions - Set 6 Flashcards
Which of the following is most likely to be found to be a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment?
A
A police officer approaches a suspect, orders the suspect to stop, and the suspect runs.
B
A police officer approaches a suspect and draws her revolver, orders the suspect to stop, and the suspect complies.
C
A police officer turns on his squad car’s overhead lights as the squad approaches a suspect, and the suspect runs.
D
A police officer boards a bus, asks a suspect for identification and consent to search his luggage, and the suspect agrees.
B
If a police officer approaches a suspect and draws her revolver, orders the suspect to stop, and the suspect complies, this will most likely be found to constitute a seizure. For purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a seizure occurs when a reasonable person would believe that he is not free to leave. The courts consider the totality of the circumstances in making this determination.
If a police officer turns on his squad car’s overhead lights as the squad approaches a suspect and the suspect runs, a court will not likely find that there was a seizure. A seizure requires a physical application of force (e.g., handcuffing or otherwise subduing a person) or submission to an officer’s show of force.
If a police officer approaches a suspect, orders the suspect to stop, and the suspect runs, there is no application of force and no submission to the show of force, which would require, at the least, stopping in response to the officer’s order. Therefore, it is unlikely that a court would find a seizure under the Fourth Amendment in these circumstances.
If a police officer boards a bus, asks a suspect for identification and consent to search his luggage, and the suspect agrees, a court would not likely find a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes. Police officers may ask people for permission to search and for identification; such requests do not involve the physical application of force or submission to a show of force.
For Fourth Amendment purposes, which of the following people is least likely to be found to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched?
A
A person who lives in the premises that were searched but does not own it.
B
A person who came to the premises that were searched to buy illegal drugs.
C
A person who owns the premises that were searched but does not live there.
D
A person who was an overnight guest at the place searched.
B
The Supreme Court has held that a person who was on the premises that were searched to buy illegal drugs does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises. A claim that a search violated the Fourth Amendment can be raised only by a person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched.
The Supreme Court has held that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy any time she owns the place that was searched or has a right to possession of it; whether or not she lives there would not affect this interest.
The Court has also held that if the place searched is the person’s home, then she has a reasonable expectation of privacy, regardless if she owned or had a right to possess it.
Finally, the Supreme Court has held that an overnight guest at the place searched also has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises for Fourth Amendment purposes.
Which of the following statements is true with regard to the execution of a search warrant?
A
A third party may never accompany the police when executing the warrant in a home.
B
The police need not always knock and announce their presence before entering a home.
C
Private citizens may execute the warrant.
D
Any items seized must be specified in the warrant.
B
When executing a warrant, the police do not need to always knock and announce their presence before entering a home. Usually, the police must knock and announce their authority and purpose and await admittance for a reasonable time or be refused admittance before using force to enter. However, no announcement needs to be made if the police reasonably suspect that knocking and announcing would be dangerous or futile or inhibit the investigation.
Private citizens may NOT execute a warrant. Only the police may execute a warrant.
A third party MAY be permitted to accompany the police when executing a warrant in a home. Typically the police may not be accompanied by the media or a third party. However, a third party may accompany the police if the third party is there to aid in executing the warrant, for example to identify stolen property that might be found in the home.
It is not true that any items seized must be specified in the warrant. When executing a warrant, the police may seize any contraband or fruits or instrumentalities of a crime that they discover, regardless of whether they are specified in the warrant.
Acting on a hunch, a police officer went to a young woman’s apartment, broke in, and searched it. The officer found exactly what she was looking for under the woman’s bed: a sack filled with jewels. The attached note read, “Sweetheart, here are the goods from the estate heist. Your loving boyfriend.” It was well known in the community that the woman’s boyfriend was a jewel thief. The officer also knew that the estate of a local socialite had been burglarized three days ago. Just as the officer finished reading the note, the woman returned. The officer immediately placed the woman under arrest as an accessory to the estate burglary. Based on the evidence obtained from the woman’s apartment, a search warrant was issued for her boyfriend’s apartment. The search yielded burglar tools and more jewels from the estate. The boyfriend was immediately arrested and charged with the estate burglary. At the boyfriend’s trial for the estate burglary, his attorney files a motion to suppress the evidence consisting of the bag of jewels and note, the tools, and the jewels from the boyfriend’s apartment.
How should the court rule on the motion?
A Grant the motion as to the bag of jewels and note, but deny it as to the evidence found in the boyfriend’s apartment.
B Grant the motion, because all of this evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree.
C Deny the motion, because the police would have caught the boyfriend with the goods eventually.
D Deny the motion, because the police had a warrant to search the boyfriend’s apartment.
D
The court should deny the motion to suppress because the police had a warrant to search the boyfriend’s home. The boyfriend’s expectation of privacy extended only to his own home, which was searched under a warrant. He does not have standing to assert a Fourth Amendment claim regarding the search of his girlfriend’s apartment because her apartment was not his home, and he did not own it or have a right to possession of it. Thus, (A) is incorrect. Because the boyfriend cannot object to the search that provided the probable cause for the search of his apartment, (B) is also incorrect. (C) is not a valid justification because there is nothing to indicate that the seizure would fall under the “inevitable discovery” exception to the exclusionary rule.
The police, suspecting that the defendant was dealing drugs, observed several people walk up to the defendant’s door, knock on his door, and then exchange cash for small packages that the police believed contained drugs. Two uniformed police officers then walked up to the door and knocked. The defendant answered the door, and one police officer asked if they could come in and take a look around. The defendant, believing that he had no other choice but to let the officers inside, agreed. Once inside, they discovered equipment used for making methamphetamine and several tablets of methamphetamine that were sitting on a table covered by a bed sheet. One officer promptly arrested and handcuffed the defendant while the other seized the equipment and tablets. Prior to his trial for the illegal manufacture and possession of methamphetamine, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence as having been illegally seized.
Should the motion be granted?
A No, because the defendant allowed the police officers to enter his home and look around.
B No, because exigent circumstances existed for the warrantless seizure of the evidence.
C Yes, because the police should have secured the area and obtained a warrant to seize the evidence.
D Yes, because the defendant’s consent was not voluntary.
A
The evidence should not be suppressed because the defendant consented. To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, most searches must be pursuant to a warrant. The warrant requirement serves as a check against unfettered police discretion by requiring the police to apply to a neutral magistrate for permission to conduct a search. A search conducted without a warrant will be invalid (and the evidence discovered during the search generally must be excluded from evidence) unless the search and seizure falls within an exception to the warrant requirement. One exception to the warrant requirement is when the police have valid consent to search the premises. The police may conduct a valid warrantless search when they have a voluntary consent to do so. Knowledge of the right to withhold consent, while a factor to be considered, is not a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary consent. In the instant case, there are no facts that indicate that the police put any undue pressure on the defendant to consent to the search. Although it is a factor to be considered in determining whether the consent was voluntary, the defendant’s subjective mistake about being able to withhold consent would probably not, by itself, be sufficient to deem the consent involuntary. As a result, (A) is the correct answer, and (D) is incorrect. (B) is incorrect. The Supreme Court has made it clear that there is no general “emergency” exception to the warrant requirement, although the police may seize “evanescent” evidence in certain circumstances. That said, there is no indication that evidence here would disappear, as it seems that the defendant’s operation was ongoing, thus giving the police time to get a warrant. (C) is incorrect because the police may conduct a warrantless search with the defendant’s permission, as they did in this question.
The police received information linking a man to drug trafficking and went to the man’s residence, where he lived with his mother. The police found the mother at home, and she told them that her son was not expected back until later. The police informed the mother that they suspected the man of selling drugs and asked if they could search his room. She replied, “I’m finished with that no-good bum; not only is he into drugs, but he has been stealing my money to pay for them, and all the time I’m making his bed and fixing his food. You can search his room. He likes to keep his private stuff under his pillow. I hope he goes to jail.” The police searched the man’s room and discovered a quantity of marijuana under the pillow of his bed.
If before trial the man’s attorney moves to suppress the marijuana on grounds that the search was invalid, should the court grant the motion?
A Yes, because the man had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched, and the police did not have a warrant.
B Yes, because the man’s mother’s consent was given at a time when police knew her interests were in conflict with the man’s.
C No, because the man’s mother had the authority to consent to the search of his room.
D No, because with the mother’s statement the police had probable cause to search the room.
C
The man’s motion to suppress should be denied because his mother had authority to consent to the search of his room. A search of a residence can be based on the voluntary consent of the occupant. Where a parent has general access to a room occupied by a son or daughter, the parent can give a valid consent to a general search of the room even if the son or daughter is an adult. The facts in the question indicate that the man’s mother had general access to his room (“and all the time I’m making his bed”). Therefore, her consent is valid and eliminates the need for probable cause and a warrant. (A) is wrong. The man had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched, but the consent of his mother eliminated the need for a warrant. (B) is wrong. At one time, some courts required an “amicable relationship” between the parties before the police could rely on a third party’s consent. The “amicable relationship requirement” is no longer recognized by the courts. (D) is not a good answer. It is true that with the mother’s statement the police had probable cause to search the man’s room. However, probable cause alone would not validate the search. The police would need probable cause plus a warrant or a valid consent. In this question the search would have to be based on consent.
A police officer learned from a reliable informant that a major drug deal was about to take place at a local restaurant. The officer obtained a search warrant for the restaurant and arrived with other uniformed officers to search the premises. While conducting the search, the officer searched several of the customers. While searching one of the restaurant’s regular customers, the officer felt an object in the customer’s pocket and pulled out a container filled with heroin. The customer was arrested and later convicted of possession of heroin. A state statute permits officers executing a search warrant to search persons on the premises if the officers reasonably expect danger to themselves or a risk of disposal or concealment of anything described in the warrant.
If the customer challenges his conviction on the ground that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated, will he be successful?
A Yes, because the statute is vague and overbroad.
B Yes, because his presence in the place to be searched by the police does not negate the requirement of probable cause.
C No, because the search was conducted pursuant to a valid search warrant.
D No, because the search was authorized by statute.
B
The customer will be successful. To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, most searches must be pursuant to a warrant. The warrant must describe with reasonable precision the place to be searched and the items to be seized. A search warrant does not authorize the police to search persons found on the premises who are not named in the warrant. In Ybarra v. Illinois (1979), a case based on similar facts, the Supreme Court held that “each patron of the tavern had an individual right to be free of unreasonable searches, and presence at a location subject to search does not negate the requirement of probable cause to search the person present.” (A) is incorrect because the validity of the statute is not the primary issue. Even in the absence of a statute, the search of the customer by the officer violated the customer’s Fourth Amendment rights. (C) is incorrect because, as discussed above, the search warrant did not override the customer’s Fourth Amendment rights. While the police would be able to search a person discovered on the premises for whom they had probable cause to arrest, because the search would be incident to a lawful arrest, here they searched the customer prior to an arrest and without probable cause. (D) is irrelevant; if a search is unconstitutional, it does not matter that it was authorized by statute. To the extent that the statute authorizes a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, it is unconstitutional.
The president of a private college received a report that there was a great deal of cocaine use occurring on the second floor of the dormitory. The president persuaded the school security officers to place several concealed microphones in the second-floor student lounge. Conversations occurring in the lounge were monitored by the security officers and they recorded a conversation in which a sophomore at the college offered to sell cocaine to a freshman. A tape of the conversation was taken to the local police, who played it for a local judge. The judge issued a warrant to search the sophomore’s room. While searching the room the police discovered a large amount of cocaine and the sophomore was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of narcotics. His attorney moved to prevent the introduction of the cocaine into evidence.
Will the motion most likely be granted?
A Yes, because the sophomore’s privacy was unreasonably invaded.
B Yes, because the electronic surveillance was “fundamentally unfair.”
C No, because the police properly obtained a search warrant.
D No, because the college president was acting on behalf of the college population in general.
C
The motion to suppress should be denied because a valid search warrant was obtained. A search warrant must be based on probable cause. Here, there was sufficient information for a judge to conclude that there was probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime would be found in the sophomore’s room. Thus, the warrant was properly obtained. (A) is wrong because the sophomore had only a limited expectation of privacy in a dormitory’s lounge. Also, even if his privacy had been invaded, any invasion here was done by private persons, not the state, and thus would not prevent introduction of the evidence. (B) is wrong because it is untrue as a matter of law. (D) is wrong because it is not a sufficient basis to deny the sophomore’s motion. It is irrelevant that the college president acted on behalf of the college population.
