Fourth Amendment Flashcards
- Two federal agents have been investigating Thomas and have reasonable suspicion to believe that he is selling false identification documents out of the trunk of his vehicle. Upon seeing him parked in a public parking lot, they approach him, identify themselves as federal agents, and ask him to place his hands on top of the vehicle. During the frisk that follows, one of the officers feels what he reasonably believes is a handgun. He retrieves the item and confirms that the object is a .22 caliber pistol. Knowing that Thomas was previously convicted of a felony (theft), the agent places him under arrest for being a felon-in-possession. A search of the vehicle incident to the arrest turns up a bag of false identification documents under the back seat of Thomas’ vehicle. At his trial on weapons and false identification documents, Thomas makes a motion to suppress all of the evidence recovered by the agents. According to the law:
a. The pistol will be admitted, but the false identification documents will be suppressed.
b. The pistol will be suppressed, but the false identification documents will be admitted.
c. All of the evidence will be admitted.
d. None of the evidence will be admitted.
d. None of the evidence will be admitted.
- A law enforcement officer has a hunch that Roberts is trafficking narcotics. After observing Roberts speed through a stop sign, the law enforcement officer decided to pull Roberts over for the traffic violation, so that he could try to discover evidence of narcotics in the vehicle. The officer turned on his overhead lights and performed a traffic stop. Once Roberts’ car stopped, the officer approached the car and instructed Roberts to roll down his window. As Roberts did so, the officer was faced with the overwhelming odor of raw marijuana emanating from the car. The officer requested Robert’s identification and registration, and Roberts complied. After checking the identification through dispatch, the officer wrote out a citation, had Roberts sign it, and returned the identification and registration documents to Roberts. Before Roberts could leave, however, the officer ordered him to step out of the vehicle. Roberts complied, and the officer began to search various areas within the car. In the trunk of the vehicle, under the spare wheel, the officer discovered what later turned out to be 10 kilos of marijuana. At his trial, Roberts filed a motion to suppress the evidence because of an illegal search of the vehicle. According to the law, this motion will be:
a. Granted, because, while the officer could detain Roberts as long as reasonably necessary to check his identification and issue a warning or citation to him, once those purposes were accomplished, the officer was required to let Roberts go.
b. Granted, because the officer’s initial traffic stop was simply a pretext used to investigate for narcotics.
c. Denied, because the officer had the ability to perform a Terry frisk for weapons that could have been located in the vehicle.
d. Denied, because the marijuana was found during a valid search of the vehicle’s trunk.
d. Denied, because the marijuana was found during a valid search of the vehicle’s trunk.
CORRECT: The odor of raw marijuana emanating from the vehicle gave the officer probable cause to search the vehicle without a warrant pursuant to the Carroll doctrine. When performing a Carroll search, an officer may look anywhere within the vehicle where what he is seeking could be hidden, which in this case includes the trunk.
- A federal agent is having dinner in a restaurant located in a federal park (an area of exclusive jurisdiction), when the manager, whom the agent knows, approaches him. The manager states that two young men have just left the restaurant without paying for their dinners (a federal misdemeanor), and asks the agent to arrest them before they can escape. The agent quickly leaves the restaurant and, based upon a detailed physical description given by the manager, is able to locate the two suspects walking down the sidewalk approximately two blocks from the restaurant. To arrest the suspects, an arrest warrant is:
a. required, because the offense did not occur in the agent’s presence.
b. required, because a misdemeanor arrest may never be made in a public place without first obtaining an arrest warrant.
c. not required, because based on the statements from the manager of the restaurant, the agent had probable cause to make the arrest.
d. not required, because a misdemeanor arrest may always be made in a public place without first obtaining an arrest warrant.
a. required, because the offense did not occur in the agent’s presence.
CORRECT: Under federal law, warrantless misdemeanor arrests may be made in a public place if the crime was committed in the presence of the arresting officer. If the crime was not committed in the presence of the arresting officer, an arrest warrant must be obtained.
- Two federal officers develop reasonable suspicion that Smith is about to rob the Federal Credit Union. The officers approach Smith, identify themselves as federal officers, and instruct him to place his hands on the wall. One of the officers conducts a frisk of Smith, and, upon touching Smith’s right front pants pocket, discovers what is immediately apparent to him to be crack cocaine. The officer retrieves the cocaine and arrests Smith. At his trial for possession of narcotics, Smith files a motion to suppress all evidence obtained during the frisk. According to the law, this evidence will be:
a. Admissible, because the officer discovered the cocaine through the “plain touch” doctrine.
b. Admissible, because a frisk for evidence, including narcotics, may always be conducted following a valid Terry stop.
c. Suppressed, because a Terry frisk may only be utilized to discover readily accessible weapons that a suspect may use against an officer during an investigatory stop.
d. Suppressed, because the officer could not lawfully conduct a frisk of Smith.
a. Admissible, because the officer discovered the cocaine through the “plain touch” doctrine.
CORRECT: Three elements must be present before the “plain touch” doctrine will permit evidence to be seized during a Terry frisk: First, the frisk itself must be lawful; second, the incriminating nature of the item must be immediately apparent to the officer; and third, the discovery is limited to the initial touching, without further manipulation. All three elements are present in this scenario.
- Jones is a Park Ranger with the National Park Service. He sees Smith driving inside a national park. Based on reasonable suspicion that Smith has committed a federal felony (larceny), Jones gives chase and pulls Smith over. Jones directs Smith out of his car and after repeating the direction several times, Smith complies. Smith then is belligerent and argumentative, wanders about, keeps turning his side to Officer Jones and repeatedly reaches into the pocket that Jones can’t see even after being told to keep still and keep his hands out of his pocket. Jones then places Smith into handcuffs, frisks him, places Smith into the rear of the police car, and frisks the passenger compartment and trunk for weapons. In the trunk Jones finds drugs in plain view that are offered against Smith at trial. Will the drugs be admissible at trial?
a. Yes, because Smith’s actions permitted a frisk of the trunk.
b. Yes, because Smith may search a mobile conveyance without PC or a warrant.
c. No, because ordering Smith out of the car and handcuffing him was a 4th Amendment violation making the search also illegal.
d. No, because Jones could not frisk the trunk under the facts provided.
d. No, because Jones could not frisk the trunk under the facts provided.
CORRECT: A frisk of Jones for weapons is permissible because there is RS he is presently armed and dangerous based upon his belligerence, movements, non-compliance, and the way he kept reaching into his pockets and turning away. The vehicle can also be frisked but the trunk cannot. Also, Jones had only RS and there are no facts that give him PC to go into the trunk.
- An officer receives a report from the dispatcher about an armed robbery in the area, along with a description of the vehicle and the three men believed to have committed the crime. Spotting a vehicle matching the description, with three male occupants inside, the officer stops the vehicle to investigate. She directs the three occupants from the vehicle, and examines the vehicle for weapons. Under the front passenger seat, the officer finds a sawed-off shotgun and some ski masks. All three men are then arrested. At trial, the men file a motion to suppress the evidence found in the vehicle. According to the law, this motion should be:
a. Granted, because the officer did not frisk the occupants of the vehicle prior to frisking the actual vehicle.
b. Granted, because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to frisk the interior of the vehicle.
c. Denied, because the officer had obtained valid consent to search the interior of the vehicle.
d. Denied, because the officer was justified in looking under the front passenger seat for weapons.
d. Denied, because the officer was justified in looking under the front passenger seat for weapons.
CORRECT: The report, the description, and the fact the vehicle and occupants generally matching the description is RS criminal activity is afoot. Because the crime under suspicion is one in which a weapon is often used, there is also RS the occupants are presently armed and dangerous. This permits a Terry frisk of the occupants and under the seat (as well as the passenger compartment and unlocked containers therein) for weapons.
- Two officers develop reasonable suspicion that Smith is about to rob a convenience store. The officers approach Smith, place him under arrest, and search him. The officer conducting the search feels what is immediately apparent to him to be crack cocaine. The officer then retrieved the substance. At trial, Smith makes a motion to suppress the crack cocaine found during the search. According to the law, this motion should be:
a. Denied, based on the “plain touch” doctrine.
b. Denied, because the officers were justified in conducting a search on Smith.
c. Granted, because the officers acted illegally.
d. Granted, because an officer may lawfully retrieve only weapons during a frisk.
c. Granted, because the officers acted illegally.
CORRECT: The officers arrested Smith when they only had R/S. PC is required to arrest and therefore the search of Smith was illegal.
- Police approach the home of Adams, whom they reasonably suspect is involved in a larceny. Adams is not there, but his wife is home. The officers explain they are looking for Adams and would like to talk to him about his clothing he was wearing the day before. Adams’ wife states, “Those things are right here. I took them out of his duffel bag. Here they are” and hands them to the officer. The officers accepted the items. At trial, this evidence should be -
a. Suppressed, as they were obtained illegally without either a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement.
b. Suppressed, because the officers had no probable cause to seek the items.
c. Admitted, because the officers could have gotten a search warrant to obtain these items.
d. Admitted, as the items were procured through private action, and thus, were not a search under the 4th Amendment.
d. Admitted, as the items were procured through private action, and thus, were not a search under the 4th Amendment.
CORRECT: This answer correctly states the applicable principle.
4th Amendment Practice Exam
6
6. Perry is a paid police informant and has provided reliable information to officers on seven out of seven occasions. On January 7, 2000, Perry personally witnessed four personal-use drug transactions take place in Joe Clark’s apartment. On November 28, 2000, Perry tells the officer about these observations. The officer applies for a search warrant for drugs based solely on this information. The request for the search warrant should be -
a. Denied, because the officer did not corroborated the information provided by Perry.
b. Denied, because the information provided by Perry is inadequate to establish probable cause.
c. Granted, because the officer has demonstrated probable cause.
d. Granted, because Perry meets the standards of Aguilar.
b. Denied, because the information provided by Perry is inadequate to establish probable cause. CORRECT: The information is stale because almost eleven months has passed since the drugs were seen in Clark’s apartment and therefore there is no PC there are drugs there NOW.
- Marsh checked a suitcase at the airline counter and got onto an airplane. Before the suitcase was placed on the airplane, it was sniffed by a drug detection dog. The dog indicated that drugs were located inside which established probable cause to search the suitcase. With this knowledge, two DEA agents entered the airplane, approached Marsh, identified themselves, and asked him if they could look in the suitcase he had checked at the counter. Marsh stated, “I’m not traveling with a suitcase.” Because the plane wasn’t scheduled to take off for an hour (and Marsh didn’t think he would miss the plane), Marsh voluntarily agreed to accompany the agents to the suitcase, was shown the suitcase, and was asked again if they could open it. Again, Marsh denied ever seeing the suitcase. The agents opened the suitcase and discovered contraband inside. At trial, the contraband should be -
a. Admitted, because the officers had probable cause to search the suitcase.
b. Admitted, because Marsh abandoned the suitcase.
c. Suppressed, because the officers violated Marsh’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
d. Suppressed, because the officers did not get a valid consent.
b. Admitted, because Marsh abandoned the suitcase.
CORRECT: By denying the suitcase was his, Marsh abandoned any REP he had in the suitcase and therefore, there was no 4th Amendment intrusion.
- An officer is walking down a public sidewalk in the early evening hours, just after dark. Glancing in the direction of Sweeney’s home, the officer notices that, while Sweeney has drawn the curtains in the front window, there is a gap through which the officer sees what he knows to be a large marijuana plant. The following morning, based solely upon this information, the officer seeks a search warrant for Sweeney’s home. The request for a search warrant will be -
a. Granted, because the officer could have entered the home the previous evening under the “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement, and seeking a warrant is nothing more than a court order of the “exigent circumstances” exception.
b. Granted, because the officer did not violate Sweeney’s reasonable expectation of privacy in making the observation on which the search warrant will be based.
c. Denied, because the officer’s view into Sweeney’s home amounted to an intrusion into a location where Sweeney had a reasonable expectation of privacy without either a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement.
d. Denied, because the officer had no reason to look into Sweeney’s home; the observation alone did not amount to probable cause; and the officer did not enter the home at the moment she made the observation.
b. Granted, because the officer did not violate Sweeney’s reasonable expectation of privacy in making the observation on which the search warrant will be based.
CORRECT: The officer was in a public place (where he had the right to be) and the open curtain exposed the inside of the house to the public. The homeowner had no REP in what he exposed to the street outside.
Accordingly, what the officer saw in the window was lawfully obtained and can establish information that may be used in the warrant.
4th Amendment Practice Exam
3
3. Johnson is arrested for drunk driving and failing to pay child support. He agrees to share information with the police to avoid prosecution. Having been personally involved in every aspect of an ongoing stolen paycheck operation, Johnson explained the intimate details to the police of what he saw and did with Fred, a co-criminal. Based on his statements alone, the officers seek a search warrant for the co-criminal’s premises where Johnson stated he saw many of the stolen checks the day before. Can Johnson’s statement alone establish Probable Cause to support a warrant application?
a. Yes, because Johnson’s statements amount to probable cause under a totality of the circumstances using the Illinois v. Gates test.
b. Yes, because Johnson has never provided false information to the officers in the past.
c. No, because the officers did not corroborate Johnson’s statements.
d. No, because statements alone can never establish probable cause.
a. Yes, because Johnson’s statements amount to probable cause under a totality of the circumstances using the Illinois v. Gates test.
CORRECT: The information known to the officers show both that Johnson was reliable and had a basis of knowledge in what he told the officers. Furthermore, because he is a co-criminal, the information he provided is presumed reliable. Under a totality of the circumstances this is enough to establish probable cause.
- Agents develop reasonable suspicion that Wooster is operating a stolen credit card ring. Upon seeing Wooster driving in his car one afternoon, the agents follow him. When he arrives at a shopping mall, the agents approach him, identify themselves, and tell him to put his hands on his automobile. One of the agents frisks him and, in the upper left hand pocket, feels what is immediately apparent to him as a stack of credit cards bound by a rubber band. The agent removes the credit cards and, ultimately, determines that they are stolen. Wooster’s motion to suppress the credit cards will be -
a. Denied, because the agents had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
b. Denied, because the agents had probable cause to remove the cards from his pocket under the “plain touch” doctrine.
c. Granted, because the agents performed an illegal “frisk” of Wooster.
d. Granted, because a “frisk” may result only in the discovery of weapons on a suspect.
c. Granted, because the agents performed an illegal “frisk” of Wooster.
CORRECT: The officers only had reasonable suspicion criminal activity was afoot which would allow them to make a Terry stop and direct Wooster out of his car. The officers did not have reasonable suspicion that Wooster was presently armed and dangerous making the Terry frisk illegal. Remember: just because you have a Terry Stop doesn’t mean you automatically get a Terry Frisk! In order to lawfully do a Terry Frisk on a detained person you have to articulate facts to establish a reasonable suspicion that the person is presently armed in dangerous.
- Thompson is suspected of running a counterfeiting operation out of his garage. The garage is attached to the dwelling. Without a warrant, three officers step onto his curtilage, shine a flashlight into the garage, and take a quick look. They observe a number of what appear to be $100 bills hanging from a clothesline. Was the observation into the garage lawful?
a. No, because the officers physically intruded on a constitutionally protect location without either a warrant or an exception to the 4th Amendment.
b. No, because the use of a flashlight violated Thompson’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
c. Yes, because the garage does not have curtilage because it is not a dwelling.
d. Yes, because the garage itself was not within the curtilage of Thompson’s dwelling.
a. No, because the officers physically intruded on a constitutionally protect location without either a warrant or an exception to the 4th Amendment.
CORRECT: The root of the question says that the officers were on Thompson’s curtilage. The officers did not have a warrant to be there and there is no 4th Amendment exception. Accordingly, the observation was unlawful and the information they obtained cannot be lawfully used to obtain a warrant.
What are some examples of Gov’t Actors?
1.LEO
2.Public school admin
3.Health inspectors
4.TSA
5.Zoning officials
Postal employees
Examples of non Gov’t Actors
- Geek Squad
- Private Security
- FedEx/UPS
