Searches & Seizures
Police officers, acting without a warrant, peer through the window of a suspect’s home using binoculars and observe illegal drug activity. The suspect is arrested based on what they saw.
Was this a valid search under the Fourth Amendment?
A. Yes, because the officers did not physically enter the home
B. No, because the home receives the highest level of protection
C. Yes, if the officers were lawfully on public property
D. No, because a warrant is always required for home surveillance
✅ Correct Answer: C
💡 Explanation: There is no Fourth Amendment violation if officers observe from a lawful vantage point in public, even with optical aids.
After arresting a suspect for burglary, police immediately begin questioning him without giving Miranda warnings. He confesses.
Is the confession admissible?
A. Yes, because it was voluntary
B. No, because Miranda warnings were not given before custodial interrogation
C. Yes, if the questioning was brief and not coercive
D. No, unless the suspect waived his rights in writing
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: Miranda requires warnings before custodial interrogation. Without them, statements are inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief.
After a defendant is formally charged with burglary, police approach him without counsel present and initiate questioning. He makes incriminating statements.
Are the statements admissible?
A. Yes, because the defendant was not in custody
B. No, because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached
C. Yes, if Miranda rights were given and waived
D. No, unless the defendant initiated the conversation
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at formal charging and is offense-specific. Police may not initiate questioning without counsel.
Police conduct a warrantless search of a home without exigent circumstances and seize evidence. The evidence leads to the discovery of other incriminating evidence.
What doctrine applies, and what is the likely result?
A. Good faith exception; all evidence is admissible
B. Attenuation doctrine; the original evidence is excluded, but the later discovery is not
C. Fruit of the poisonous tree; all derivative evidence is excluded
D. Independent source doctrine; both sets of evidence are admissible
✅ Correct Answer: C
💡 Explanation: Evidence derived from an illegal search is inadmissible under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine unless an exception applies.
A defendant is arrested but not brought before a magistrate for a probable cause determination until 72 hours later.
What is the constitutional issue?
A. None, because 72 hours is reasonable under the Due Process Clause
B. Violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial
C. Violation of the Fourth Amendment for unreasonable delay in a Gerstein hearing
D. None, if the delay was due to administrative necessity
✅ Correct Answer: C
💡 Explanation: Under County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, delay beyond 48 hours without justification in a probable cause hearing violates the Fourth Amendment.
An officer stops a man on the street because he “looked nervous” and was walking away from a known drug area. The officer finds drugs after a pat-down. The defendant moves to suppress.
What is the likely outcome?
A. Suppression is required because there was no probable cause
B. No suppression, because nervousness is enough for stop-and-frisk
C. Suppression, because nervousness and location alone are insufficient for reasonable suspicion
D. No suppression, because drug areas justify stops under the community caretaking doctrine
✅ Correct Answer: C
💡 Explanation: Reasonable suspicion requires more than mere nervousness and presence in a high-crime area. The stop was unconstitutional.
Police read a suspect his Miranda rights. He says he wants a lawyer. Ten minutes later, a different officer approaches him and begins questioning him about another crime.
What result?
A. The questioning is valid because it concerned a different offense
B. The questioning is invalid because police violated the suspect’s right to counsel
C. The questioning is valid if the suspect responded voluntarily
D. The questioning is valid only if a waiver was signed
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: Once the right to counsel is invoked, police must stop all questioning unless counsel is present or the suspect initiates further dialogue.
A defendant is charged with robbery and invokes his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Later, police question him about an unrelated murder.
Is this permissible?
A. No, because the right to counsel is not offense-specific
B. Yes, because the right only applies to custodial interrogation
C. No, because any questioning violates the Sixth Amendment after attachment
D. Yes, because the Sixth Amendment right is offense-specific
✅ Correct Answer: D
💡 Explanation: The Sixth Amendment right is offense-specific. Police may question a defendant about uncharged crimes if Miranda is satisfied.
Officers rely on a facially valid warrant later found to lack probable cause. They seize evidence.
Is the evidence admissible?
A. No, because the warrant was defective
B. Yes, under the good faith exception
C. No, because the exclusionary rule applies strictly
D. Yes, if exigent circumstances also existed
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: The good faith exception allows use of evidence seized under a warrant the police reasonably believed was valid.
At arraignment, a defendant pleads guilty without being told the nature of the charge or the maximum possible sentence.
Is the plea valid?
A. Yes, if the defendant signed a written plea agreement
B. No, because it was not knowing and voluntary
C. Yes, if the court later explained the charges
D. No, unless defense counsel was present
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: A guilty plea must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Failure to inform the defendant of critical information invalidates the plea.
Police install a GPS device on a suspect’s vehicle without a warrant and monitor its location for two weeks.
Does this constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment?
A. No, because vehicles have reduced expectations of privacy
B. Yes, because the prolonged tracking constituted an intrusion into privacy
C. No, because the car was on public roads
D. Yes, because any use of technology triggers strict scrutiny
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: As held in United States v. Jones, attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and tracking long-term is a search requiring a warrant.
A suspect is arrested, read Miranda rights, and agrees to talk. He later says, “I think I should get a lawyer,” but police continue questioning.
Are his later statements admissible?
A. Yes, because he didn’t clearly invoke the right to counsel
B. No, because any mention of a lawyer halts questioning
C. Yes, if the waiver was previously signed
D. No, unless a second waiver is obtained
✅ Correct Answer: A
💡 Explanation: An ambiguous reference to counsel (e.g., “maybe I should get a lawyer”) does not trigger the Edwards rule and does not require cessation of questioning.
A defendant, unrepresented at his arraignment, is offered a plea deal by the prosecutor. He accepts it and pleads guilty.
What is the constitutional issue, if any?
A. None, because pleas may be taken without counsel
B. The plea is valid because the defendant did not request a lawyer
C. There is a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel
D. No violation if the plea was knowing and voluntary
✅ Correct Answer: C
💡 Explanation: Critical stages like arraignment and plea bargaining require counsel. A guilty plea without counsel violates the Sixth Amendment.
After an illegal arrest, police wait 48 hours and then obtain a confession.
What will determine whether the confession is admissible?
A. Whether the confession was voluntary
B. Whether Miranda was re-administered
C. Whether the confession was the product of a free will, considering the attenuation factors
D. Whether the confession occurred in a different location
✅ Correct Answer: C
💡 Explanation: The confession may be admissible if intervening circumstances break the causal chain, as analyzed under the attenuation doctrine (Brown v. Illinois factors).
A judge bars the defense from cross-examining a prosecution witness about prior inconsistent statements.
What constitutional right is implicated?
A. The Due Process Clause
B. The right to compulsory process
C. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment
D. The Equal Protection Clause
✅ Correct Answer: C
💡 Explanation: The Confrontation Clause guarantees the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. Improper limits may violate this right.
Officers enter a home without a warrant after hearing screams and seeing someone collapse through a window. They discover illegal weapons.
Is the seizure of the weapons constitutional?
A. Yes, because the plain view doctrine applies
B. No, because warrantless entries are per se unreasonable
C. Yes, under the exigent circumstances doctrine
D. No, unless they obtained retroactive judicial approval
✅ Correct Answer: C
💡 Explanation: Emergencies like danger to life or safety justify warrantless entries and searches under the exigent circumstances doctrine.
Police arrest a suspect for assault and provide Miranda warnings. He waives and confesses. Days later, they approach him again without re-warning, and he confesses again.
Is the second confession admissible?
A. No, because new warnings are always required
B. Yes, because once Miranda is waived, it remains waived
C. No, unless the waiver was reaffirmed in writing
D. Yes, if the suspect was not in continuous custody
✅ Correct Answer: D
💡 Explanation: If there is a break in custody (typically 14 days or more), police must re-administer Miranda before questioning. Otherwise, waiver may carry over.
After indictment, police place an undercover informant in the defendant’s jail cell, who deliberately elicits incriminating statements.
Is this a Sixth Amendment violation?
A. No, because there was no interrogation
B. Yes, because government agents may not elicit information post-indictment
C. No, because the statements were voluntary
D. Yes, unless the informant recorded the conversation
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: Once the Sixth Amendment attaches, government agents (including undercover) may not deliberately elicit information without counsel.
An officer makes an unconstitutional stop but discovers that the suspect had an outstanding arrest warrant. The suspect is then lawfully arrested and searched.
Is the evidence found during the search admissible?
A. No, because the initial stop was illegal
B. Yes, under the inevitable discovery doctrine
C. Yes, under the attenuated connection exception
D. No, unless the suspect waived his rights
✅ Correct Answer: C
💡 Explanation: If an independent intervening circumstance (like an outstanding warrant) breaks the causal chain, evidence may be admissible.
During voir dire, the prosecutor uses peremptory challenges to strike all jurors of a particular race.
What must the defense show to make a Batson challenge?
A. That the strikes were based on racial bias
B. A prima facie showing of discrimination, shifting the burden to the prosecution
C. That no race-neutral reasons were offered
D. That the jury was actually biased
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: Under Batson v. Kentucky, the defense must first show a prima facie case of racial discrimination. The burden then shifts to the prosecution to offer a race-neutral reason.
Police suspect a man of robbery but lack a warrant. They arrest him in his home after tricking him into opening the door by posing as utility workers.
Was the arrest valid under the Fourth Amendment?
A. Yes, because deception is allowed during investigations
B. No, because warrantless arrests inside the home are generally unconstitutional
C. Yes, because there was probable cause
D. No, unless consent was obtained
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: Under Payton v. New York, a warrant is required for arrests in a suspect’s home unless exigent circumstances or valid consent exist.
Police question a suspect in a station without Miranda warnings. He confesses. Later, they give Miranda warnings and get a second confession.
What doctrine applies, and what is the likely outcome?
A. Public safety exception; both confessions are admissible
B. Fruit of the poisonous tree; both are inadmissible
C. Two-step interrogation; second confession likely inadmissible unless proper curative steps taken
D. Inevitable discovery; second confession is admissible
✅ Correct Answer: C
💡 Explanation: In Missouri v. Seibert, a deliberate two-step interrogation strategy renders the second statement inadmissible unless police took curative measures (e.g., time lapse, clarification that prior statement was inadmissible).
A defendant proceeds to trial without a lawyer after the judge rules that he waived his right by disruptive behavior. He is convicted and appeals.
Is the conviction valid?
A. Yes, if the waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent
B. No, because all defendants must have counsel at trial
C. Yes, unless the defendant requested standby counsel
D. No, unless the judge re-offered counsel mid-trial
✅ Correct Answer: A
💡 Explanation: A defendant may forfeit the right to counsel through disruptive behavior. Waiver must still be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
An officer conducts a warrantless search based on a statute later ruled unconstitutional.
Will the exclusionary rule bar the evidence?
A. Yes, because the statute was invalid
B. No, under the good faith exception
C. Yes, unless probable cause existed independently
D. No, because police acted without malice
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: Evidence is admissible if the police relied in good faith on a statute later declared unconstitutional (Illinois v. Krull).
A defendant is convicted at trial but argues on appeal that key evidence was admitted in violation of the Constitution. The appellate court agrees but finds that the error was harmless.
What is the result?
A. The conviction is reversed automatically
B. The conviction stands, because the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
C. The defendant must be granted a new trial
D. The appellate court must remand for a hearing on prejudice
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: Constitutional errors may be deemed harmless if the prosecution can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the outcome.