Criminal Procedure AMP - Arrest, Search And Seizure Flashcards
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 in cases of arrest for felonies.
B If the arrest violates state law, the exception does not apply.
C The exception applies after any constitutional arrest.
D The exception applies only if the police fear for their safety.
C
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. QUESTION ID: R0045 Additional Learning
The exclusionary rule __________ when the police arrest or search someone __________.
A Does not apply; erroneously but in good faith
B Applies; erroneously but in good faith
C Does not apply; in bad faith
A
The exclusionary rule does not apply when the police arrest or search someone erroneously but in good faith, thinking that they are acting pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, search warrant, or law. The exclusionary rule is a judge-made doctrine that prohibits the introduction, at a criminal trial, of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment rights. The rationale for the exception is that one of the main purposes of the exclusionary rule is to deter improper police conduct, and this purpose cannot be served where police are acting in good faith. QUESTION ID: R0025B Additional Learning
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 Drug interdiction agents who have access to large quantities of illegal drugs.
C Politicians running for public office.
D Public school students participating in extracurricular activities.
C
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. QUESTION ID: R0053 Additional Learning
Which of the following statements is true about the ability of the police to stop an automobile without reasonable suspicion?
A Such stops are valid only if every automobile is stopped
B Such stops are invalid regardless of the method of choosing the cars to be stopped
C Such stops must be made on a neutral, articulable basis
D Such stops are invalid unless they are for informational purposes only
C
The police may stop automobiles without reasonable suspicion if they have a neutral, articulable basis to investigate a problem closely related to automobiles and their mobility. Generally, to make an investigatory stop of an automobile, the police must have at least reasonable suspicion that the driver or an occupant violated or was about to violate some law (i.e., the normal Terry standard). However, the Supreme Court has recognized that the mobility of automobiles can cause special problems. To address these problems, the Court allows the police to set up roadblocks to stop automobiles even without individualized suspicion to investigate these problems. A good example would be a roadblock that stops every car or every third car to determine whether the drivers are intoxicated. Based on the rules set out above, the choice indicating that such stops are invalid regardless of the method of choosing the cars to be stopped is incorrect. It is incorrect that such stops are valid only if every automobile is stopped. As indicated above the requirement is that automobiles be stopped on a neutral, articulable basis (e.g., every car or every third car). It also is incorrect that such stops are invalid unless they are for informational purposes only. They can be valid if they serve any problem closely related to automobiles and their mobility, such as a roadblock to look for drunk or drugged drivers. QUESTION ID: R0034B Additional Learning
Which of the following statements is true regarding warrantless arrests in public places?
A A police officer may make a warrantless misdemeanor arrest when she has reasonable grounds to believe that a misdemeanor has been committed and that the person before her committed it.
B A police officer may make a warrantless felony arrest when she has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and that the person before her committed it.
C They are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
D A warrantless arrest may be made for a misdemeanor, but not for a felony.
B
A police officer may make a warrantless felony arrest in a public place when she has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and that the person before her committed it. This is a rule that must be committed to memory. Accordingly, the choices indicating that a warrantless arrest cannot be made for a felony and that all warrantless arrests are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment are untrue. Finally, it is untrue that a police officer may make a warrantless misdemeanor arrest when she has reasonable grounds to believe that a misdemeanor has been committed and that the person before her committed it. Rather, in most states, a police officer may make a misdemeanor arrest only if the misdemeanor is committed in her presence. QUESTION ID: R0029 Additional Learning
If a police officer submits an affidavit to a magistrate to obtain a search warrant, what must that affidavit include?
A The identity of any informer from whom the officer obtained information
B Facts about the reliability and credibility of the source from whom the officer obtained information
C Enough information to allow the magistrate to make a common sense determination of probable cause
C
The sufficiency of a police officer’s affidavit of probable cause is determined by the totality of the circumstances. The affidavit need not contain any particular fact about the informer, as long as it includes enough information to allow the magistrate to make a common sense evaluation of probable cause (i.e., that the information is trustworthy). In obtaining a search warrant, the police may use an informer without revealing his identity, although the identity may have to be revealed at or before trial if the informer is a material witness. Formerly, the affidavit had to include information regarding the reliability and credibility of the informer (e.g., she has given information five times in the past and it has been accurate) and her basis for the knowledge (e.g., she purchased cocaine from the house to be searched). These are still relevant factors, but are no longer prerequisites. QUESTION ID: R0042A Additional Learning
Under the exclusionary rule, if a search warrant was defective __________.
A evidence obtained from executing the search warrant will not be suppressed unless the executing officers submitted the underlying affidavit of probable cause
B all evidence obtained from executing the search warrant, and evidence derived from that evidence, will be suppressed
C evidence obtained from executing the search warrant will not be suppressed if the police exercise their right to cure the defect
D evidence obtained from executing the warrant will not be suppressed if the police acted in good faith and reasonably relied on the warrant
D
Evidence obtained from executing a defective search warrant will not be suppressed if the police acted in good faith and reasonably relied on the warrant. A finding that the warrant was invalid will not entitle a defendant to exclude the evidence obtained under the warrant. Evidence obtained by police in reasonable reliance on a facially valid warrant may be used by the prosecution. Hence, it is incorrect to state that all evidence obtained from executing the search warrant and evidence derived from that evidence, will be suppressed. The choice indicating that evidence will not be suppressed unless the executing officers submitted the underlying affidavit is not true. As indicated above, the evidence will be suppressed unless the police acted in good faith and reasonably relied on the warrant. It does not matter whether the officers who executed the warrant were the ones who submitted the affidavit. The choice indicating that evidence will not be suppressed if the police exercise their right to cure the defect is incorrect because there is no right to cure a defective search warrant. QUESTION ID: R0043 Additional Learning
When is a warrantless arrest in an arrestee’s home valid?
A Never, a warrant always is required to arrest a person in a home
B If the police have probable cause to believe that the arrestee committed a felony and may be found in the home
C If the government can show exigent circumstances justifying the in-home warrantless arrest
C
All warrantless arrests in the arrestee’s home are presumed invalid, but the presumption may be rebutted. For example, an arrest made in the arrestee’s home is valid if the government can show exigent circumstances that justify the warrantless in-home arrest (e.g., they entered the home while it was on fire to look for people in need of help, they were in hot pursuit of the defendant when he entered the home, etc.) The rationale for the general rule is that under the Fourth Amendment all searches must be reasonable, and it generally is unreasonable for the police to barge into a person’s home without a warrant. It is not true that a warrantless arrest may be made in a person’s home if the police have probable cause to believe that the arrestee committed a felony and may be found in the home. Generally, mere probable cause is not enough; usually the police must obtain a warrant to make an in-home arrest. The choice indicating that warrantless arrests in a home are never valid is too broad to be true. As discussed above, an arrest made in the arrestee’s home is valid if the government can show exigent circumstances that justify the warrantless in-home arrest. Also, if the arrest was made in the home of a third party, the arrestee might not even have a privacy interest in the home and so would lack standing to challenge the in-home arrest. (Of course, the owner of the home could challenge any seizure of incriminating evidence usable against the owner based on the warrantless entry.) QUESTION ID: R0030B Additional Learning
If a police officer makes a traffic stop as a pretext to investigate some other crime for which the officer lacks probable cause:
A The stop will be valid because people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their automobiles
B The stop will be valid if the officer had probable cause to make the traffic stop
C The stop will be invalid as the fruit of the poisonous tree
D The stop will be invalid because the officer lacked the good faith necessary to make a warrantless search
B
The stop will be valid if the officer had probable cause to make the traffic stop. A police officer may stop an automobile if the officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic law has been broken. The fact that the officer’s underlying goal is to investigate another crime for which the officer lacks probable cause to investigate does not matter. The officer may make the traffic stop, and if the officer sees anything that gives rise to reasonable suspicion for the other crime, the officer then may investigate that crime. The Supreme Court has not found such pretextual stops to be unconstitutional. It is incorrect to state that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in an automobile. The Fourth Amendment protects people rather than places, and the courts have held that people do have a privacy interest (albeit a diminished one) when in their automobiles. It also is incorrect to state that the stop will be invalid as the fruit of the poisonous tree. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule. Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained by the police in violation of a person’s Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment rights may be suppressed. QUESTION ID: R0036B Additional Learning
Assume that an officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop. Under what circumstances may the officer also frisk the person he has stopped?
A If the officer reasonably believes that the suspect is armed and dangerous
B Under any circumstances; reasonable suspicion for the stop also justifies the search
C If the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous
A
When making a Terry stop, a police officer may conduct a pat down of the suspect’s outer clothing to search for weapons if the officer has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous. The rationale here, obviously, is to protect the police officer. The reasonable suspicion need not rise to the level of probable cause. This is an exception to the general rule under the Fourth Amendment that to be reasonable (and constitutional), most searches and seizures must be pursuant to a warrant issued on a showing of probable cause. It is incorrect that reasonable suspicion for the stop also justifies the search. An officer may perform a pat down only if the officer has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous. QUESTION ID: R0050A Additional Learning
The police may search without a warrant if they have proper consent to do so. For consent to be proper, it must be all of the following except __________.
A Given after notice of the right to refuse consent
B voluntary
C intelligent
D from one who has actual or apparent authority to give consent
A
A person does not need to be given notice of the right to refuse consent for consent to be valid. The police may conduct a valid warrantless search if they have a voluntary and intelligent 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 and intelligent consent. Any person with an actual or apparent equal right to use or occupy the property may consent to a search, and any evidence found may be used against the other owners or occupants. The search is valid even if it turns out that the person consenting to the search did not actually have such right, as long as the police reasonably believed that the person had authority to consent. QUESTION ID: R0049 Additional Learning
Before executing a search warrant at a private residence, the police must __________ knock and announce their presence.
response - correct
A Never
B Ordinarily
C Always
B
When executing a warrant, the police do not need to always knock and announce their presence before entering a home. Ordinarily, 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. QUESTION ID: R0044C Additional Learning
Is either of the following scenarios likely to be considered a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes?
Scenario A: A police officer turns on his squad car’s overhead lights as the squad approaches a suspect, and the suspect runs.
Scenario B: A police officer approaches a suspect and draws her revolver, orders the suspect to stop, and the suspect complies.
A Yes as to both A and B
B Yes, A only
C Yes, B only
D No as to both A and B
C
Only B is likely to be considered 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. Submission to an officer’s show of force is sufficient. If a police officer approaches a suspect, draws her revolver, and orders the suspect to stop, and the suspect complies, a court would likely find a seizure. Answer choice A is likely not a seizure. 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. QUESTION ID: R0027A Additional Learning
If the police have probable cause to search an automobile, they __________ search the __________ belongings as well.
A May not; driver’s or passenger’s
B May; driver’s, but not passenger’s
C May; driver’s or passenger’s
C
As an exception to the search warrant requirement, if the police have probable cause to search an automobile for contraband, they may search the passenger’s belongings as well those of the driver. They may search anywhere in the automobile in which items for which they have probable cause to search may be hidden. The rationale for this rule is that a passenger, like the driver, has a reduced expectation of privacy in an automobile. If the police have probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains contraband or fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime, they do not need to obtain a search warrant. The rationale for this exception is that automobiles are mobile, so they will not likely be available for a search by the time an officer returns with a warrant. QUESTION ID: R0047B Additional Learning
In which of the following situations is a police officer’s reliance on a defective search warrant most likely to be found to be in good faith?
response - incorrect
A If a court later finds that the officer who obtained the warrant lied to or misled the magistrate
B If a court later finds that, while there was some evidence of probable cause, on balance, there wasn’t quite enough to justify issuance by the magistrate
C If a court later finds that the warrant was defective on its face, despite the magistrate’s issuance of the warrant
D If a court later finds that the warrant was obviously lacking in probable cause, despite the magistrate’s issuance of the warrant
B
Of the scenarios presented, a court is most likely to find good faith and not apply the exclusionary rule if court later finds that, while there was some evidence of probable cause, on balance, there wasn’t quite enough to justify issuance by the magistrate. The exclusionary rule is a judge-made rule providing that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment generally may not be admitted into evidence at trial. An exception is available in cases in which evidence was obtained by executing a defective search warrant if the police officers relied on the defective search warrant in good faith. This is most likely the case if a court later finds, on balance, that there was not quite enough showing of probable cause to justify issuance of the warrant by the magistrate. If a court later finds that the warrant was obviously lacking in probable cause, it becomes hard to believe that the officer was acting in good faith. Therefore, the court will not apply the good faith exception. Similarly, if a court later finds that the warrant was defective on its face, it again is hard to believe that the officer executing the warrant was acting in good faith. So again, the court will not apply the exception in such a case. Finally, if a court later finds that the officer who obtained the warrant lied to or misled the issuing magistrate, the exception will not be applied for lack of good faith from the start. QUESTION ID: R0025A Additional Learning
The police suspect that Defendant is involved in dealing illegal drugs.
Which of the following police actions most likely constitutes a search for Fourth Amendment purposes?
A Use of a thermal imager to photograph the inside of Defendant’s home
B A search of a garbage bag left by Defendant on the curb for garbage pick up
C A dog sniff of Defendant’s car during a traffic stop
A
The use of a thermal imager to take photographs of the inside 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 bag 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. QUESTION ID: R0040A Additional Learning
There is a catch-all category of permissible warrantless searches for situations in which there is no time to obtain a warrant because quick action is needed. Which of the following is not included in this exception?
A Emergencies that threaten health or safety.
B Evanescent evidence, such as scrapings of tissues from under a suspect’s fingernails.
C Investigating a murder scene.
D Hot pursuit of a fleeing felon.
C
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 a 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. QUESTION ID: R0051 Additional Learning
The __________ provides that not only must unconstitutionally obtained evidence be excluded at trial, but also all evidence obtained or derived from exploitation of that evidence.
A Exclusionary rule
B Probable cause requirement
C Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
C
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine provides that not only must unconstitutionally obtained evidence be excluded at trial, but also all evidence obtained or derived from exploitation of that evidence. There are exceptions to the rule (e.g., when officers rely in good faith on a facially valid search warrant; when seeking to impeach trial testimony), and the rule generally applies only at criminal trials (i.e., it does not apply at civil proceedings or parole proceedings); neither does it apply to violations of agency rules or state laws. The exclusionary rule is the parent of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. It is a judge-made rule providing that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment generally may not be admitted into evidence at trial. The probable cause requirement goes to the evidence/suspicion needed to obtain a warrant or to arrest someone. Probable cause exists when there are sufficient trustworthy facts to lead a reasonably prudent person to believe that the thing in question (when related to arrest—that the person has committed a crime; when related to a search—that evidence or contraband may be found). QUESTION ID: R0023B Additional Learning
Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained from executing a defective search warrant:
A Will be suppressed even if the police acted in good faith in relying on the warrant
B Will not be suppressed unless the officers executing the warrant were also the ones who submitted the affidavit of probable cause
C Will not be suppressed if the police acted in good faith in relying on the warrant
C
Evidence obtained from executing a defective search warrant will not be suppressed if the police acted in good faith and reasonably relied on the warrant. A finding that the warrant was invalid will not entitle a defendant to exclude the evidence obtained under the warrant. Evidence obtained by police in reasonable reliance on a facially valid warrant may be used by the prosecution. Hence, it is incorrect to state that all evidence obtained from executing the search warrant will be suppressed regardless of whether the officers acted in good faith. The choice indicating that evidence will not be suppressed unless the executing officers submitted the underlying affidavit is not true. As indicated above, the evidence will be suppressed unless the police acted in good faith and reasonably relied on the warrant. It does not matter whether the officers who executed the warrant were the ones who submitted the affidavit. QUESTION ID: R0043A Additional Learning
A police officer may not stop a person for investigatory purposes unless the officer has:
A At least a scintilla of suspicion
B Probable cause to investigate
C At least reasonable suspicion to investigate based on articulable facts
D Probable cause to arrest
C
The statement that the police may not stop a person for investigatory purposes unless they have at least reasonable suspicion to investigate based on articulable facts reflects the correct standard for making an investigatory stop, also known as a Terry stop. Such stops should be brief and for no longer than necessary to verify or refute the officer’s suspicion. Reasonable suspicion requires less than probable cause, but more than a vague notion or gut feeling. The suspicion can be based on personal observation, reliable tips, police flyers, a bulletin, or the like. Whether the standard is met is judged under the totality of the circumstances. The choices indicating that the police may not stop a person for investigatory purposes absent probable cause are both incorrect, because, as indicated above, probable cause is not required. Reasonable suspicion is sufficient. Moreover, the choice requiring probable cause to arrest also is incorrect because a stop can be made for suspicion of criminal activity; investigatory stops are not limited to cases where the police already believe an arrest is warranted. It is not correct that the police may stop a person for investigatory purposes as long as they have at least a scintilla of suspicion, because a scintilla is a very small amount. The scintilla of proof standard is too little suspicion to satisfy the Fourth Amendment requirement that searches and seizures be reasonable. It is sometimes used as the standard for determining whether a case may be taken from a jury and decided on a motion for summary judgment (i.e., if there is a scintilla of evidence regarding a material issue, the case should not be taken from the jury). QUESTION ID: R0032A Additional Learning
If the police make an unlawful arrest, __________.
A they must release the arrestee
B the invalid arrest can be used as a defense to the charges asserted
C the arrestee has no remedy
D generally they cannot use evidence at trial that was discovered during the arrest
D
If the police make an unlawful arrest, generally they cannot use evidence at trial that was discovered during the arrest. This is an application of the exclusionary rule, which prohibits introduction into evidence at trial items that were unlawfully seized or that are derived from an unlawful search or seizure. The police need not release the arrestee who was unlawfully arrested. If the police have probable cause to detain the arrestee, the fact that the arrest was made in an unlawful manner is not grounds for releasing the defendant. Nor can the invalid arrest be used as a defense to the charges asserted, for reasons similar to those above. Generally, an unlawful arrest itself has no impact on the prosecution. The statement that the arrestee has no remedy is too broad to be true. The arrestee can move to suppress any evidence derived from the unlawful arrest, as discussed above. The defendant might also be able to bring a “section 1983 action”—a constitutional tort action available when a person is deprived of a constitutional right under color of law. QUESTION ID: R0031 Additional Learning
The standard of suspicion needed for searching students in public schools is __________ the ordinary probable cause standard.
A Greater than
B Lesser than
C Equal to
B
The standard of suspicion is lesser for searches of public school students by school officials; the searches need not be based on probable cause. The Supreme Court has relaxed the search standard for schools because of the nature of the environment. QUESTION ID: R0052B Additional Learning
Under what circumstances is a police officer permitted to search the inside of a vehicle after arresting an occupant of the vehicle?
A If the arrestee is not secured or the police officer has reason to believe that the vehicle harbors evidence related to the crime of arrest
B Only if the officer has a warrant to search the vehicle
C Under any circumstances, as long as the search is limited to the interior of the vehicle
D Only if the officer fears for his safety
A
A search of the interior of an automobile incident to arrest may be performed only if the arrestee is not secured or if the police have reason to believe that the automobile harbors evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made. 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 in the place to be searched. Searches incident to arrest are an exception to the general rule. They are allowed without a warrant. However, when the person arrested was in a vehicle, a search of the vehicle is limited to situations where (i) the arrestee (or more likely arrestees) is (are) unsecured, or (ii) police have reason to believe that the automobile harbors evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made. Based on the above, the choice indicating that the search may be conducted under any circumstances, as long as the search is limited to the interior of the vehicle is incorrect. Although the exception is based on safety concerns, the Supreme Court has held that it is not necessary that the police fear for their safety for a warrantless search to be conducted following an arrest. The search may be conducted incident to arrest in any case, as long as it is conducted contemporaneously with the arrest. As long as one of the two exceptions justifying the search exists, the officer need not obtain a warrant before searching the vehicle. QUESTION ID: R0046A Additional Learning
Which of the following is most likely to be found to be a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment?
A A police officer boards a bus, asks a suspect for identification and consent to search his luggage, and the suspect agrees.
B A police officer turns on his squad car’s overhead lights as the squad approaches a suspect, and the suspect runs.
C A police officer approaches a suspect, orders the suspect to stop, and the suspect runs.
D A police officer approaches a suspect and draws her revolver, orders the suspect to stop, and the suspect complies.
D
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. QUESTION ID: R0027 Additional Learning
A police officer can make a Terry stop based on an informer’s tip as long as the tip is accompanied by:
A Indicia of reliability
B Probable cause
C The informer revealing his identity
A
A police officer may make a Terry stop based on an informer’s tip if the tip was accompanied by indicia of reliability. Reliability can come from the fact that the informer is known by the police officer and has provided reliable tips in the past. An anonymous tip can also be reliable, but it generally must include more information than can be seen by a casual observer. Courts often require predictive information (e.g., “The suspect will get into a green car and head to a hotel on 6th street”). It is not required that the informer reveal his identity for the tip to be relied on. As discussed above, an anonymous informer’s tip can be the basis of reasonable suspicion if it has sufficient indicia of reliability, such as accurate predictive information. Probable cause is not the standard for a Terry stop. To make a Terry stop, a police officer need only have reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime is occurring, is about to occur, or has just occurred and that the person stopped is involved or might have evidence relating to the crime. QUESTION ID: R0033B Additional Learning
