Fourth Amendment Flashcards
Brown is suspected of being involved in a conspiracy to traffic narcotics. Agents learn that Brown has a houseboat docked at a lake 147 miles from his home. While Brown has not been on the boat for more than two years, he has kept up the mooring fees and registration of the vessel. The agents reasonably suspect that evidence of the narcotics conspiracy will be found on the boat. Once the boat is located, three agents board the boat to conduct a search. While no evidence of narcotics trafficking is found, the agents do find evidence of an unrelated murder in the cabin. At his trial for murder, Brown makes a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence found on the boat. According to the law, this evidence will be:
a. Admissible, because the warrantless search of a mobile conveyance is an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
b. Admissible, because Brown has, through his actions, given up any reasonable expectation of privacy in the boat.
c. Inadmissible, because the mobile conveyance exception to the warrant requirement does not apply in this case.
d. Inadmissible, because the agents primary motive in searching the boat was to discover evidence of narcotics trafficking.
c. Inadmissible, because the mobile conveyance exception to the warrant requirement does not apply in this case.
CORRECT: The mobile conveyance exception to the warrant requirement does not apply in this case because probable cause is not present. The mobile conveyance exception requires both probable cause and ready mobility before a warrantless search can be conducted.
- Federal agents are investigating Davis for wire and mail fraud. They arrange to interview Davis at his home about the allegations. During the course of the interview, the agents ask Davis if they could search his home office for various documents. When Davis stayed silent, one of the agents responds, “Listen, if you say no, we’re going to apply for a search warrant, and, if we get it, we’re going to come back and search then.” Davis then tells the agents they can search his home office. During the course of the search, documents are discovered linking Davis to the wire and mail fraud allegations. At his trial on these charges, Davis makes a motion to suppress the evidence found during the search of his office, claiming that his consent was not voluntarily given. According to the law, this motion will be:
a. Granted, because Davis’ consent was not voluntarily given, but was mere submission to the authority of the law enforcement agents.
b. Granted, because the agents did not notify Davis that he had the right to refuse to grant consent for the search.
c. Denied, because the agent’s statement regarding his intent to apply for a search warrant was permissible.
d. Denied, because when David stayed silent, probable cause arose to conduct the search either with or without a search warrant.
c. Denied, because the agent’s statement regarding his intent to apply for a search warrant was permissible. CORRECT: Submission by the individual to the authority of the law enforcement officer does not constitute consent. Consent is not voluntarily given in response to an officer’s statement that the officer has come to search with a warrant when, in fact, there is none, or they will get a warrant if consent is withheld. However, it is permissible for officers truthfully to advise a person that they will apply for a warrant if consent is refused.
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.
Federal agents suspect that Martin is dealing in narcotics from his home, a felony offense, but have not been able to obtain enough evidence to justify issuance of a search or arrest warrant. They take up surveillance from various positions around the neighborhood, while an undercover officer approaches the residence in an attempt to buy narcotics. As the agents observe, the undercover officer approaches Martin, who is sitting on his front porch, and engages in a lengthy discussion. When an object is transferred between Martin and the undercover officer, the officer gives the signal that narcotics have been exchanged. The agents, dressed in raid jackets and marked vehicles, descend on the house to arrest Martin for narcotics distribution. As Martin sees the agents approach, he turns, runs directly into his home, and slams the door behind him. One of the agents breaks through the door, and is able to catch Martin as he is trying to run through the kitchen. Martin has a bag of what appears to be cocaine in his hand when he is arrested, and various other drugs are found on a table next to where the arrest occurred. Did the officers violate 18 U.S.C. § 3109 (the Federal “knock and announce” statute)?
a. No, because an agent may always make a warrantless entry into a residence to make an arrest, so long as probable cause exists.
b. No, because the agents entered the house to make the arrest under exigent circumstances.
c. Yes, because the agents did not announce their identity and purpose.
d. Yes, because the statute must always be complied with whenever an officer desires to enter a private residence.
No, because the agents entered the house to make the arrest under exigent circumstances.
CORRECT: Based on the signal provided by the undercover officer, the agents had probable cause to make the arrest. When Martin turned and ran into the residence, the officers were in “hot pursuit.” They had probable cause to arrest for a felony, and a general and continuous knowledge (within reason) of the suspect’s whereabouts.
Federal agents have an arrest warrant for Moore for failure to appear. At approximately 12:00 a.m. one night, the agents approach Moore’s home, reasonably believing that he is inside. As they open the unlocked door and enter, all of the agents clearly announce, “Federal agents!” Immediately inside the door, Moore is found sitting on a sofa in the living room. On coffee table in front of him, the agents see a white powdery substance (later determined to be cocaine), scales, small baggies, and other pieces of drug paraphernalia. Moore is arrested, and is charged with possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. Which of the following statements is correct?
a. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3109 was NOT violated because it applies only to the execution of search warrants, not arrest warrants.
b. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3109 was NOT violated because entering through an unlocked door does not qualify as “break[ing] open any outer or inner door” of a house, as required by Title 18 U.S.C. § 3109.
c. The agents executed the warrant outside of the time limit prescribed by statute, specifically, between 6:00
a. m. and 10:00 p.m.
d. The agents were required to comply with Title 18 U.S.C. § 3109 (knock and announce) and failed to do so.
d. The agents were required to comply with Title 18 U.S.C. § 3109 (knock and announce) and failed to do so. CORRECT: The agents in this case failed to comply with Title 18 U.S.C. § 3109. Specifically, the agents failed to announce their authority and purpose. Merely stating “Federal agents” is insufficient. The agents must also state their purpose (e.g., “Federal agents with a search warrant”). Additionally, the agents in this case impermissibly used force to enter prior to being refused admittance. The term “refused admittance” means that an agent must wait a reasonable length of time before forcing entry, unless exigent circumstances exist.
Federal agents develop probable cause that Gibson’s garage contains a large quantity of counterfeit social security checks. They also have reason to suspect that, earlier in the morning, their confidential informant told Gibson that they were about to apply for a search warrant, and that Gibson indicated he would destroy the evidence after he returns home from an out-of-town visit. The agents approach Gibson’s home and are certain he has not yet arrived and no one is at home. After discussing their options, the agents force their way through the garage door and into the home. During the subsequent search, they seize hundreds of counterfeit social security checks. Approximately ninety minutes later, Gibson returns home and is placed under arrest. At his trial, he makes a motion to suppress the evidence discovered during the warrantless search of his home. According to the law, this evidence will be:
a. Admitted, because the agents would have inevitably discovered the evidence once they applied for a search warrant.
b. Admitted, because the agents entered the home due to exigent circumstances (destruction of evidence).
c. Suppressed, because the agents did not have probable cause to arrest Gibson at the time of the search.
d. Suppressed, because the agents had time to apply for a telephonic warrant.
d. Suppressed, because the agents had time to apply for a telephonic warrant.
CORRECT: Occasionally, law enforcement officers are confronted with a situation in which they do not have time to obtain a warrant in the traditional manner due to the impending destruction or removal of evidence.
Rule 41(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for a search warrant based on oral testimony, such as communicated by telephone or facsimile machine. This procedure may drastically reduce the time it takes to obtain a search warrant. Thus, if law enforcement officers have time to attempt to secure a telephonic search warrant before the removal or destruction becomes imminent, the officers should attempt to do so.
Failure to attempt to secure a telephonic search warrant, if the opportunity was available, may be considered in an unfavorable manner by a reviewing court.
Federal agents obtain a valid premises search warrant to look for pornographic materials in Black’s home. When the warrant is executed, the agents properly knock, announce their identity and purpose, and demand admittance. Black opens the door and the agents enter. Immediately, the agents notice that four other people are inside the house. One of the individuals is recognized as Black’s live-in girlfriend, Courtney. The other three persons are unknown. Without hesitating, the agents order all five people to stand and face the wall, where a frisk is conducted for the safety of the officers. During the frisk of Courtney, one agent discovers what is immediately apparent to him to be crack cocaine. He reaches in, retrieves the item, and confirms that it is cocaine. Courtney is arrested. At her trial for narcotics possession, Courtney makes a motion to suppress the cocaine. According to the law, this motion will be:
a. Granted, because, pursuant to the premises search warrant, the agents could not conduct a frisk of Courtney.
b. Granted, because, pursuant to the premises search warrant, the agents could only frisk Black, the owner of the property.
c. Denied, because the agents had a valid search warrant for the premises, and were allowed to search any occupants of the premises pursuant to that warrant.
d. Denied, because the agents had a valid search warrant for the premises, and were allowed to frisk any occupants of the premises pursuant to that warrant.
Granted, because, pursuant to the premises search warrant, the agents could not conduct a frisk of Courtney. CORRECT: A premises search warrant does not allow law enforcement officers to either frisk or search persons who may be present on the premises at the time the warrant is executed. Instead, to frisk any individual present during the execution of a premises search warrant, agents need reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual is presently armed and dangerous. There are no facts present to support the belief that the persons in this scenario were either armed or dangerous.
An undercover officer purchased controlled substances from King yesterday and today a warrant was issued for King’s arrest. Officers spotted King in his usual place in a high crime area where he had been seen selling drugs the day before from his car. King was arrested on the warrant. After arresting King and placing him in handcuffs, the officer had him sit in the back of the officer’s vehicle. The officer then returned to King’s vehicle and began to search it. Under the front passenger seat, the officer found a bag containing cocaine. Under the back seat, the officer found rolling papers. The officer then opened the trunk of the vehicle and began to search it. Immediately, 6 bricks of marijuana were discovered. At his trial for possession of controlled substances, King makes a motion to suppress all of the evidence found in his vehicle. According to the law:
a. The cocaine and rolling papers will be admitted, while the 6 bricks of marijuana will be suppressed.
b. The cocaine and rolling papers will be suppressed, while the 6 bricks of marijuana will be admitted.
c. All of the evidence is admissible.
d. None of the evidence is admissible.
c. All of the evidence is admissible.
CORRECT: See justification a.
Law enforcement officers receive notice from their dispatcher that there has been a homicide at a local apartment building. Arriving at the designated apartment, the officers notice that the door to the apartment has what appear to be bullet holes in it, and that the lock on the door is broken. Without first obtaining a search warrant, the officers push open the door and enter the apartment. Inside, they find a deceased male and a female who is unconscious, but appears to have suffered a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest. Emergency personnel are called, and both bodies are removed from the scene of the crime. After securing the apartment, two of the officers begin to process the crime scene looking for evidence. In a trashcan near the kitchen, the officers find a crumpled note. Not sure if it’s evidence or not, the officers read the note and discover it was written by the woman. The note indicates that she had killed the man (her husband) because of an illicit affair he was having, and that she was going to kill herself. The woman recovers and is charged with her husband’s murder. At her trial, she makes a motion to suppress the note found in the trashcan. According to the law, this evidence will be:
a. Admitted, because the officers entered the apartment and conducted the warrantless search pursuant to the emergency scene exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
b. Admitted, because the note was found in plain view during the processing of the homicide scene.
c. Suppressed, because the officers were not authorized to enter the apartment without first obtaining a search warrant.
d. Suppressed, because the search by the officers was made without either a search warrant or an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
D.Suppressed, because the search by the officers was made without either a search warrant or an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
CORRECT: At the time the note was found, the officers were no longer lawfully on the premises. The exigency that justified their warrantless entry no longer existed, because the victim and suspect had been removed from the scene. To continue to search at this point, the officers needed to obtain a warrant.
Armed with an arrest warrant for Jones for mail fraud and false statements, federal agents approach Jones’ home. Surveillance has indicated that, in the previous 48 hours, no one other than Jones has entered or left the premises. The officers have no additional information that anyone other than Jones is located inside the two- story home. The agents knock on the door, announce their identity and purpose, and demand entry. When the agents hear footsteps running towards the rear of the residence, they use force to enter and make the arrest. Jones is arrested approximately ten feet from the back door of the residence. Two officers fan out to conduct a protective sweep of the home, and in the bathroom located on the second floor, discover marijuana shoved into the toilet tank. At his trial on possession charges, Jones files a motion to suppress the evidence found in the bathroom. According to the law, this motion will be:
a. Granted, because the agents had only an arrest warrant, and not a search warrant, they were not authorized to enter Jones’ home.
b. Granted, because the marijuana was found during a search that violated the Fourth Amendment.
c. Denied, because the agents discovered the marijuana during a lawful protective sweep of the residence.
d. Denied, because the arrest warrant authorized the agents to conduct a search of the entire home incident to Jones’ arrest.
B.Granted, because the marijuana was found during a search that violated the Fourth Amendment. CORRECT: There were two problems associated with the discovery of the marijuana in the scenario. First, an extended protective sweep requires reasonable suspicion to believe that an individual is in the home that could pose a danger to the agents. No facts exist in this question to justify the extended protective sweep in this case. Second, during a protective sweep, an agent may only look in those locations where a person could be hidden. In this case, looking into the toilet tank exceeded the lawful scope of a protective sweep.
Howard is arrested on a 6 year old warrant for income tax evasion as he is getting out of his car at his home. Howard has no other criminal history, and there is no reason to suspect that he has engaged in any other instance of income tax evasion or any other crime. As soon as he is handcuffed and his person searched, he is secured in the back of the patrol vehicle. Officers then search the passenger compartment of his car incident to arrest and find 10 ounces of marijuana in one ounce packages, scales, and baggies hidden in the glove compartment. The officers then decide to search the trunk of the car under the mobile conveyance exception and find 50 more ounces of marijuana hidden inside the spare tire. All the above evidence is seized and is offered as evidence at Howard’s trial for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Is the evidence admissible?
a. All the evidence is admissible.
b. None of the evidence is admissible.
c. The evidence found in the passenger compartment is admissible, but not the evidence in the trunk.
d. The evidence found in the trunk is admissible but not the evidence found in the passenger compartment because Howard was not an occupant of the vehicle at the time of the arrest.
b. None of the evidence is admissible.
CORRECT: The search incident to arrest of Howard’s person was lawful and performed contemporaneous with the arrest. The officers could therefore search his person, and containers on his person, for weapons, means of escape, and any evidence of any crime. The search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment was not lawful. To search the passenger compartment of a vehicle when arresting an occupant or recent occupant, officers must be able to articulate that Howard still had access to the passenger compartment at the time of the search, and that was not the case as Howard was secured in the patrol vehicle. Officers could also perform a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment if they had reason to believe that evidence of the crime of arrest was present. They had no such information. Had the search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment been lawful, the evidence found in the passenger compartment would have established probable cause there was evidence of crime in the trunk, and officers could have used the mobile conveyance exception to search there. Since the evidence found in the passenger compartment was unlawfully discovered, however, it cannot be used to establish probable cause for the mobile conveyance exception.
Morgan, a convicted felon, lived in a trailer owned by his girlfriend, Jones. Jones, anxious to defend herself against a charge, made by another woman, that she kept drugs at her home, invited two police officers to search the trailer. When the officers came in, Morgan was sitting in the living room. The officers explained to him that Jones had given consent for the search, and they then proceeded to make their search. In the bedroom shared by Jones and Morgan, the officers found a small bag with what appeared to be marijuana residue inside. Jones denied that the bag belonged to her, and told the officers that some of the items in the bedroom belonged to the defendant. On an upper shelf in the bedroom closet, in a jumble of boxes, tins, and bags belonging partly to Jones and partly to Morgan, the officers located a generic, unmarked tin box. In that box, they found what they believed to be a bomb made of dynamite, wires, and .9 mm. shells. During this time, Morgan remained in the living room and offered no objection to the search. Through questioning Jones, it was determined that the tin box belonged to Morgan, not her. Morgan was arrested and charged with being a felon in possession of explosives. At his trial, he made a motion to suppress the evidence found in the tin box. According to the law, the evidence will be:
a. Admitted, because Jones had apparent authority to consent to the search of the tin box.
b. Admitted, because Jones can consent to the search of any item within her residence, regardless of who the item actually belonged to.
c. Suppressed, because Jones did not have actual authority to consent to the search of the tin box.
d. Suppressed, because the officers exceeded the scope of the consent given them by Jones when they searched the tin box.
a. Admitted, because Jones had apparent authority to consent to the search of the tin box.
CORRECT: As the owner of the trailer, Jones freely gave consent to the search of the trailer, including the bedroom. The tin box was not identified in any way as belonging to Morgan, nor did Morgan attempt to limit Jones’ consent to her own personal property. It was reasonable, then, for the officers to think that the tin box was within the consent that Jones had given. It was also reasonable for the officers to think that Jones had authority not only over the premises, but also over all of their contents not obviously belonging to someone else.
After being issued a traffic citation, Morris decided to contest the ticket in court. On the day of his hearing, he approached the courthouse door and discovered that a magnetometer had been installed, with two security guards on either side of the device. As Morris got to the doorway, he was instructed by one of the guards that GSA regulations provided that anyone entering the courthouse would need to have their belongings searched and would need to step through the magnetometer. The purpose of these searches was to look for explosives or dangerous weapons. Morris refused to place his briefcase on the conveyor belt, stating that, because he had done nothing wrong, he did not feel it was proper to force him to endure this type of treatment. When notified that he would not be permitted to carry the briefcase into the courthouse without allowing the inspection, Morris grudgingly consented. When the briefcase was opened, one of the guards discovered a small bag containing marijuana in a side pocket. Was there a Fourth Amendment violation?
a. Yes, because the guards had no probable cause to believe that Morris had any explosives or dangerous weapons in his briefcase.
b. Yes, because the guards did not obtain a search warrant prior to searching Morris’ briefcase for any explosives or dangerous weapons.
c. No, because the fact Morris was appearing at the courthouse gave the security guards reasonable suspicion to frisk his belongings prior to allowing him to enter.
d. No, because the search was validly conducted pursuant to GSA regulations and in compliance with the Fourth Amendment.
d. No, because the search was validly conducted pursuant to GSA regulations and in compliance with the Fourth Amendment.
CORRECT: “Administrative inspections,” though warrantless, are permissible under the 4th Amendment. A limited warrantless search of people (and their belongings) wishing to enter sensitive facilities is permitted if the search is part of a general practice (i.e., a regulation authorizing the inspection exists) and not for the purpose of securing evidence for criminal investigations. Both of those requirements are met in this case.
Based on their investigation, federal agents obtained a search warrant to search Smith’s residence. The search warrant did not specifically list any vehicles to be searched, but rather authorized the search of the entire premises for methamphetamine. On the day the search was conducted, Smith’s vehicle was parked in the driveway of his residence. During the course of the search, agents discovered numerous items of evidence, including a briefcase containing a vast quantity of methamphetamine. The agents then decided to search the vehicle, although they weren’t sure any evidence was inside it. Inside the trunk of the vehicle, several kilos of cocaine were found. At his trial for drug trafficking, Smith made a motion to suppress the cocaine found in the vehicle’s trunk. Did the agents violate the Fourth Amendment?
a. No, because it was found during the lawful execution of a premises search warrant.
b. No, because the vehicle was searched pursuant to the “mobile conveyance” exception to the warrant requirement.
c. Yes, because the agents exceeded the lawful scope of the premises search warrant by searching the vehicle that was not listed in the warrant.
d. Yes, because the agents did not have probable cause to believe that evidence of drug trafficking was located in the vehicle.
a. No, because it was found during the execution of a valid premises search warrant.
CORRECT: A search warrant authorizing a search of a certain premises includes any vehicles owned or controlled by the owner of the premises searched and located within its curtilage if the objects of the search might be located in those vehicles. In essence, the vehicle is treated as if it were part of the premises covered by the warrant. It should be remembered, however, that if the owner of the premises has a vehicle that is parked off the curtilage, it cannot be searched pursuant to the premises search warrant.
Federal agents obtained an arrest warrant for Smith for bank fraud. Agents determine that Smith is single, lives alone, and is the only one at his residence. Agents lawfully enter Smith’s house. They find Smith standing in the first floor entryway. Agent Brown does a protective sweep of the entryway coat closet and sees a shotgun as he opens the closet door. He seizes the shotgun knowing that Smith is a previously convicted felon and possession of a firearm by him is a federal offense. Agent Rogers does a protective sweep of the back, second floor bedroom and sees and seizes a stack of child pornographic magazines lying openly on top of the bed. Concerning the admissibility of the evidence seized:
a. Both the shotgun and the magazines are admissible.
b. Neither the shotgun nor the magazines are admissible.
c. The magazines are admissible. The shotgun is not.
d. The shotgun is admissible; the magazines are not.
d. The shotgun is admissible; the magazines are not.
CORRECT: See justification a.
