Quiz Q’s Flashcards
Officers Click and Clack were part of a drug detection unit assigned to the bus depot in Daytona Beach, Florida. As busses stopped to pick up new passengers and give on-board passengers a chance to stretch their legs, Click and Clack would enter the bus, identify themselves as drug interdiction officers, and politely ask passengers if they would be willing to allow their bags to be searched. On one such one occasion, Huey Louie Dewey, a passenger on the bus, stood up and screamed to the other passengers, “I’m a lawyer. They have no right to do this. Tell them where to go! Just say no!” Officer Click went to the back of the bus, took Dewey by the arm and escorted him off the bus. Clack continued to ask the other passengers for consent to search their luggage. Finally, there was one black duffel bag that none of the remaining passengers claimed. Clack manipulated the outside of the bag until he felt what seemed to be a small brick. Based on his experience, he knew this was the way drugs are packaged. The bag had a luggage tag that read: “Property of Huey Louie Dewey.” Clack seized the bag and used this information to obtain a warrant to search it. The search revealed cocaine. Dewey was charged with possession of cocaine. In response to his motion to suppress the evidence seized from the duffel bag, the court should:
A: Suppress the evidence because Clack searched the bag without a warrant.
B: Suppress the evidence because Clack seized the bag without a warrant.
C: Admit the evidence Dewey had voluntarily exposed the bag to the public.
D: Admit the evidence because before opening the bag, Clack obtained a warrant.
A: Suppress the evidence because Clack searched the bag without a warrant.
A Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) suspects that Jones is growing marijuana on his property. Jones’ 1-acre property is completely surrounded by a 6-foot-high privacy fence. One night, LEO climbed a ladder to a point where he had an unobstructed view of Jones’ property. He could see Jones’ house about 20 yards away. About 50 feet behind Jones’ house he saw a green house. Using night vision binoculars he looked through the window of the green house and inside he saw hundreds of marijuana plants. LEO used his observations to obtain a warrant to search the green house and seize the marijuana plants. As a result, Jones is being prosecuted in federal court for growing marijuana. If Jones moves to suppress the marijuana, the judge should:
A: Grant the motion because LEO trespassed on Jones’ property with the intent to obtain evidence.
B: Grant the motion because the green house was inside the privacy fence.
C: Deny the motion because night vision binoculars are available to the general public.
D: Deny the motion because the green house was too far from Jones’ house to be within the curtilage.
C: Deny the motion because night vision binoculars are available to the general public.
Danny was walking through the Miami bus station carrying a small brown leather bag. Officer LEO saw him and recognized him as a local drug dealer. He approached Danny and said, “Can I ask you a few questions?” When Danny said he was in a hurry and he didn’t want to miss the bus, LEO said this will only take a minute. Danny sighed and said, “OK.” When LEO asked him for identification, Danny showed him his driver’s license. LEO then asked to see his ticket. Danny showed him a ticket for Orlando. When Danny said, “I’ve really got to go,” LEO asked if he could look inside his bag. When Danny said, “No way, man!”, picked up the bag and started to walk away, LEO stopped him and used his radio to call a fellow officer who arrived within 40 minutes with her drug detection dog. The dog walked around the bag and alerted to the presence of drugs. LEO used the evidence that the dog had alerted to the presence of drugs to obtain a warrant to search the bag. The search revealed cocaine. Danny was charged with possession of cocaine. If Danny moves to suppress the cocaine, the court should:
A: Deny the motion because travelers in public places like bus stations do not have an expectation of privacy in their luggage.
B: Deny the motion because using a drug sniffing dog is not a search.
C: Grant the motion because LEO used the drug sniffing to determine the contents of the bag.
D: Grant the motion because Danny was seized without probable cause when he was detained for 40 minutes waiting for the drug dog to arrive.
D: Grant the motion because Danny was seized without probable cause when he was detained for 40 minutes waiting for the drug dog to arrive.
Gaggle is the largest internet search engine. It makes money by selling data regarding its users. Gaggle also sells Mongoloid, the most widely used cell phone operating system, to cell phone manufacturers. In order to operate a cell phone with the Mongoloid operating system, users must agree to share data about their movements gathered automatically by Mongoloid and transmitted to Gaggle whenever a user access the internet. The data shows the location of any user carrying the phone, including addresses visited and the amount of time spent in those locations.
The police suspect that Danny is a drug dealer and they want information regarding the places he visits on a daily basis to see if it correlates with locations where drugs are known to be sold. They plan to use this information as part of the evidence to establish probable cause to get a warrant to search Danny’s house. Using Danny’s mobile phone number as an identifier, the police subpoena Gaggle for all data relating to Danny’s locations during the month of April 2020. Gaggle turns over the data and the police use it, along with other evidence, to obtain a search warrant for Danny’s house. During the search, they discover a large quantity of drugs. Based on this evidence, Danny is indicted for narcotics trafficking. In ruling on a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search by applying the current caselaw of the U.S. Supreme Court, the court should:
A: Deny Danny’s motion because the data belonged to Gaggle.
B: Deny the motion because there was no government search when the data was gathered.
C: Grant the motion because Danny’s data was the modern-day equivalent of an “effect” which is constitutionally protected by the 4th Amendment.
D: Grant the motion because the police obtained the data without a search warrant.
D: Grant the motion because the police obtained the data without a search warrant.
Specific Motors (SM) is the world’s largest manufacturer of motor vehicles. A new federal government regulation requires all vehicle manufacturers to install a government approved GPS tracking device in all vehicles manufactured after January 1, 2019. The regulation also permits government access to real-time tracking information provided that it “relates to a criminal investigation.” Federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents have been investigating David who they believe is a drug dealer. David drives a 2020 Pronto, an SM SUV. The DEA agents submit a request to monitor David’s movements for the period from February 1 to February 3, 2021, certifying that this monitoring “relates to a criminal investigation.” With SM’s cooperation, DEA agents were able to monitor David’s movements in his Pronto for three days. The agents used this information and other evidence to obtain a search warrant for David’s apartment where they found drugs. David is charged in federal court with drug trafficking. Prior to trial David moves to suppress the evidence. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the best reason for the court to rule that the evidence should not be suppressed is:
A: David cannot have a privacy interest in movements he exposed to the public.
B: The agents did not need a warrant to search David’s apartment.
C: Members of the public reasonably expect that law enforcement could track their public movements for three days.
D: The federal regulation was public and defeated any privacy interest David may have had.
C: Members of the public reasonably expect that law enforcement could track their public movements for three days.
Danny was walking through the Miami bus station carrying a small brown bag. LEO, who was in uniform, approached Danny and said, “Can I ask you a few questions?” Danny responded, “Yes, but make it quick.” When Danny put his bag down, LEO radioed for a drug detection dog. The dog was already in the bus station and arrived within 30 seconds. The dog alerted for the presence of drugs when it sniffed the bag. It turned out that the substance in the bag was pseudoephedrine, a component used to manufacture methamphetamine. The drug dog had been trained to recognize methamphetamine, cocaine, marijuana, heroin and ecstasy. It had not been trained to alert to pseudoephedrine. Danny was charged with possession of pseudoephedrine for use in manufacturing methamphetamine. Danny’s motion to suppress evidence challenges the seizure of pseudoephedrine because the dog’s alert did not establish probable cause. At the hearing the State presented evidence that the dog had recently been trained and certified. The court should:
A: Grant the motion because the dog was not trained to identify pseudoephedrine.
B: Grant the motion because evidence of training and certification standing alone is never sufficient to prove the dog’s reliability.
C: Deny the motion because the evidence of training and certification was sufficient to establish the dog’s reliability for purposes of establishing probable cause.
D: Deny the motion because whether the dog was reliable is a question of fact for the jury.
C: Deny the motion because the evidence of training and certification was sufficient to establish the dog’s reliability for purposes of establishing probable cause.
Rat Fink was an informant for the Orange County police. He was paid small sums of money for his tips, which had always proved to be reliable. On April 13, 2018, Rat Fink told LEO that Suspect was selling drugs from the bedroom of his home. Rat Fink said that the day before, he was with Suspect when he made a drug sale, and he described the circumstances in full detail. Rat Fink also said that Suspect planned to sell more drugs the next day. Rat Fink gave LEO the names and descriptions of the two drug addicts who would be making the purchases. Officer went to Suspect’s house on April 14th and did, in fact, observe the described persons enter Suspect’s house and leave shortly thereafter carrying small packages. On December 2, 2018, LEO prepared an affidavit reciting everything Rat Fink had told him and his observations, although he did not identify the informant by name or mention his past record of reliability. A magistrate issued a warrant to search Suspect’s house. With warrant in hand, LEO went immediately to Suspect’s address. LEO knocked and announced his presence, and Suspect admitted him. LEO thoroughly searched the premises and found several bags of cocaine in a guitar case in Suspect’s bedroom closet. LEO then arrested Suspect. Suspect is charged with possession of cocaine. Prior to trial, he moved to exclude the cocaine found in his bedroom. Which of the following is Suspect’s best argument to support this motion?
A: LEO’s failure to recite the informant’s past reliability automatically rendered the warrant invalid for lack of probable cause.
B: The magistrate did not have probable cause to issue the warrant because the evidence in the warrant affidavit was stale.
C: LEO went beyond the scope of a proper search since the warrant did not particularly identify the guitar case as an item to be searched.
D: LEO should have arrested Suspect before searching his house.
B: The magistrate did not have probable cause to issue the warrant because the evidence in the warrant affidavit was stale.
The police received an anonymous tip on Friday that on Monday morning a woman would leave her apartment carrying a Publix shopping bag which contained drugs. The tipster said the woman would deliver the drugs to the Bates motel and gave the woman’s address, which was an apartment building. The tip did not further identify the woman or provide the number of her apartment. On Monday morning, the police set up surveillance outside the apartment building. Sometime after 12 p.m., they saw a woman with Publix shopping bag get out of a Honda Civic and walk toward the apartment building. The police stopped the woman and seized and searched the shopping bag. It contained groceries. The woman has sued the police for violating her Constitutional rights when they stopped her and searched her shopping bag. If the police move to dismiss the lawsuit, the court should:
A: Grant the motion because the police had reasonable suspicion based on the anonymous tip.
B: Grant the motion because the police did not use excessive force when they stopped the woman and seized the Publix grocery bag.
C: Deny the motion because the police did not have reasonable suspicion based on the anonymous tip.
D: Deny the motion because reasonable suspicion cannot be based on an anonymous informant’s tip.
C: Deny the motion because the police did not have reasonable suspicion based on the anonymous tip.
LEOs were investigating Diane for selling narcotics because they had received an anonymous letter stating that Diane sold drugs out of her home. The letter writer stated that the drug buyers went into Diane’s home for a few minutes and emerged carrying paper bags containing the drugs. The letter also furnished Diane’s address and the make and model of the car she drove. LEOs conducted surveillance at the address provided in the letter. Over two days they saw five individuals admitted to the home by a female. On each occasion the visitor exited a few minutes later. All of them carried paper bags. They also confirmed that the car parked in front of the house, which was the same make and model as the one described in the letter, was registered to Diane. Based on this information, a magistrate signed a warrant authorizing the search of the house. The search disclosed a substantial quantity of narcotics and narcotics paraphernalia. Diane has been charged with narcotics trafficking. If she moves to suppress the evidence seized from her home, the trial court should:
A: Deny the motion because there was sufficient corroboration of the letter’s prediction that the drug buyers carried paper bags.
B: Deny the motion because anonymous tips are presumed to be reliable.
C: Grant the motion because the letter did not reveal the writer’s basis of knowledge.
D: Grant the motion because probable cause cannot be based on an anonymous tip.
A: Deny the motion because there was sufficient corroboration of the letter’s prediction that the drug buyers carried paper bags.
The police have a warrant to search Don’s house. As they arrive, they see Don get into his car and start to drive away. Before Don could pull away from the curb, the police surround his car and order him to get out. They handcuff him and take him into the house while they execute the search warrant. The police find the firearms listed in the search warrant and charge Don with unlawful possession of weapons by a previously convicted felon. If Don moves to suppress the firearms because the police acted unreasonably when they executed the warrant, the court should:
A: Deny the motion because the police have the absolute right to detain a homeowner while executing a warrant at his residence.
B: Deny the motion because the firearms were listed in the warrant.
C: Grant the motion because Don was in his car and ready to drive away when the police stopped him.
D: Grant the motion because handcuffs may never be used to restrain the target of a search.
A: Deny the motion because the police have the absolute right to detain a homeowner while executing a warrant at his residence.
The police had probable cause to arrest Donald for bank robbery. LEO, who was patrolling the mall alone and who had read the wanted bulletin, spotted Donald going into the GAP. He radioed for backup and waited for Donald to come out of the store. When Donald emerged carrying the familiar blue GAP bag, LEO arrested him. As LEO took out his handcuffs, Donald said, “I have a bad shoulder, please put the cuffs in front. In violation of department policy, LEO did so. Donald dropped the GAP bag on the floor. LEO searched Donald and found nothing. When LEO opened the GAP bag, he saw a pair of jeans and a roll of $20 bills. Some of the serial numbers on the bills matched the serial numbers of money stolen from the bank. If Donald moves to suppress the money, the trial court should:
A: Deny the motion because the money was seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest.
B: Deny the motion because the grabbing distance is always measured at the time of the arrest.
C: Grant the motion because LEO had no reason to believe there was evidence or a weapon in the GAP bag.
D: Grant the motion because, since Donald was handcuffed, the GAP bag was no longer in grabbing distance.
A: Deny the motion because the money was seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest.
LEO pulled David’s car over because he thought it had an expired license plate. LEO asked for David’s license and registration. The registration was up-to-date. LEO told David to get out of the car. When David got out of the car, LEO noticed a bulge in his right, front pants pocket. LEO turned David around, placed his hands on the top of the car and patted him down. When LEO felt the bulge, he thought it might contain drugs, though he could not tell for sure. LEO then searched David’s car where he found a bag containing white powder, which turned out to be cocaine, and a revolver with the serial numbers filed off. When LEO returned to his car, he arrested and searched David. The bulge in David’s pocket turned out to be Kleenex. Prior to his trial for drug and firearms possession, if David moves to suppress the cocaine and the revolver, the court should:
A: Grant the motion because, since the registration was up-to-date, the stop of David’s car was illegal.
B: Grant the motion because since David was pulled over for driving with expired plates, no evidence of that offense could be found in David’s car.
C: Grant the motion because LEO did not not probable cause to search the car .
D: Grant the motion because LEO had to arrest David before searching his car.
C: Grant the motion because LEO did not not probable cause to search the car .
Dylan was arrested for reckless driving. In the search incident to arrest, LEO found a small quantity of marijuana in a plastic bag inside Dylan’s wallet. LEO then searched the passenger compartment of Dylan’s car where, under the driver’s seat, she found a thumb drive. When LEO returned to her office, she plugged the thumb drive into her computer. It was not password protected. On the thumb drive were pornographic images of children. Dylan was charged with possession of child pornography. Prior to trial he moved to suppress the evidence found on thumb drive because it had been seized in violation of his 4th Amendment rights. Dylan’s strongest argument the evidence should be suppressed is:
A: Since he was arrested for reckless driving, LEO could not have had reason to believe that she would find evidence of the offense of arrest in his car.
B: LEO did not have a search warrant before looking at the files on the thumb drive.
C: LEO should not have seized the thumb drive because it was mere evidence
D: The seizure of the marijuana was illegal because, although LEO could seize Dylan’s wallet during a search incident to arrest, she should have gotten a warrant before she opened it.
B: LEO did not have a search warrant before looking at the files on the thumb drive.
The police stopped a car containing four occupants almost immediately after receiving a report from a parking lot attendant that he had been robbed by two men in a car who were carrying handguns. The car matched the victim’s description, and the description of the robbers matched the driver and the front seat passenger. The police pulled the car over and arrested the occupants, who were handcuffed and placed in a patrol car. The officers then towed the car to the police impound lot where they searched it. They found the proceeds of the robbery under the front seat and two handguns in the locked trunk.
If the defendants challenge the legality of the search of the car, the court should find that:
A: the search was illegal because the parking lot attendant had described only two individuals who had robbed him.
B: the search was illegal because the police had already impounded the car.
C: the search was legal because there was probable cause to search the car.
D: the serach was legal because it was reasonable for the officers to conclude that all four of the occupants were participants in the robbery.
C: the search was legal because there was probable cause to search the car.
A LEO task force had been investigating Daniel for drug trafficking for weeks. They followed him until they established his pattern. He would leave his house in the morning with a large box he placed in the back of a Ford Explorer. After that he drove around town dropping off shoe box size packages at a number of different locations. One day, they saw someone exit a location where Daniel had just dropped off a package. Two LEO’s stopped the man and asked him what was in the package. He said, “cocaine.” They arrested him and when they searched the box, they found 100 small plastic bags each of which contained 10 grams of cocaine. The next day, when they returned to surveil Daniel’s house, the LEO’s saw him leave the house carrying a shoe box size package, exactly like the one they had seized and searched the day before. They saw Daniel open the tailgate of a Cadillac, a vehicle they had never seen before. Daniel put the package inside the trunk, closed it, and started to get into the car. At that point, two LEO’s arrested Daniel and searched the Cadillac. First, they searched the passenger compartment, where they found $15,000 in cash in the glove compartment. Then in the trunk where Daniel had placed the box, they found the box which they opened. It contained drugs. If D moves to suppress the drugs and the money, the court should:
A: Deny the motion because there was probable cause to search the car and therefore the seizure of the money and the drugs was lawful.
B: Deny the motion because there was probable cause that the box contained drugs and that was sufficient to allow them to search the car.
C: Grant the motion as to the money and the drugs because there was not probable cause to search the car.
D: Grant the motion as to the money because there was not probable cause to search the car and deny the motion as to the drugs because there was probable cause to search for the box.
D: Grant the motion as to the money because there was not probable cause to search the car and deny the motion as to the drugs because there was probable cause to search for the box.
