"Ouch"
Which of the following is NOT one of the three recognized triggers for exigent circumstances?
A. Immediate Flight of Suspect
B. Imminent Destruction of Evidence
C. Danger to Officers or Others
D. Reasonable Suspicion of a Misdemeanor
D. Reasonable Suspicion of a Misdemeanor
Which statement best describes how emergency aid differs from exigent circumstances generally?
A. Emergency aid requires probable cause; exigent circumstances require reasonable suspicion
B. Emergency aid requires only reasonable suspicion and applies to non-criminal emergencies; exigent circumstances require probable cause
C. Emergency aid is limited to criminal emergencies; exigent circumstances apply to non-criminal situations
D. There is no meaningful legal distinction between the two
B. Emergency aid requires only reasonable suspicion and applies to non-criminal emergencies; exigent circumstances require probable cause
Which of the following CANNOT qualify as a "special needs" exception to the warrant and probable cause requirements?
A. DWI checkpoints on public roads
B. Administrative inspections of junkyards
C. Drug testing of student athletes
D. Narcotics interdiction checkpoints targeting drug couriers
D. Narcotics interdiction checkpoints targeting drug couriers
Under Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, which balancing test applies to DWI sobriety checkpoints?
A. Terry balancing: reasonable suspicion vs. government interest
B. Brown v. Texas: state interest in preventing accidents, effectiveness of checkpoints, and level of intrusion on individual privacy
C. Probable cause plus exigency
D. Per se validity for all traffic checkpoints
B. Brown v. Texas: state interest in preventing accidents, effectiveness of checkpoints, and level of intrusion on individual privacy
Which of the following correctly describes the "temporal exigency" concept?
A. Police have an unlimited amount of time to seek a warrant before exigency expires
B. The nature of the situation makes it uniquely impractical to go through the time-consuming process of obtaining a warrant
C. Exigency only applies during nighttime hours when courts are unavailable
D. Police must wait at least one hour before acting without a warrant
B. The nature of the situation makes it uniquely impractical to go through the time-consuming process of obtaining a warrant
Exigent circumstances only excuse which requirement?
A. The probable cause requirement
B. The warrant requirement
C. Both
D. Neither
B. The warrant requirement
Under Kentucky v. King, police may NOT rely on destruction of evidence as an exigent circumstance when:
A. The offense is only a misdemeanor
B. The exigency was created by an actual or threatened Fourth Amendment violation by the police
C. Officers announced their presence before entry
D. The evidence could theoretically be destroyed within an hour
B. The exigency was created by an actual or threatened Fourth Amendment violation by the police
Under New York v. Burger, a warrantless administrative inspection of a closely regulated business is reasonable ONLY if which three criteria are met?
A. Substantial government interest; inspections necessary to further that interest; statute must define scope like a warrant
B. Probable cause of a violation; officer supervisor approval; on-site documentation
C. Reasonable suspicion; neutral and detached magistrate approval; limited duration
D. Emergency need; unavailability of a warrant; inspection limited to public areas
A. Substantial government interest; inspections necessary to further that interest; statute must define scope like a warrant
A police department sets up a checkpoint where officers can stop any car and search the trunk for drugs if they "feel like it." Is this constitutional?
A. Yes, because checkpoints are a recognized exception to the warrant requirement
B. No, because narcotics checkpoints are not a valid special need, and officer discretion is unconstrained
C. Yes, because drug trafficking is a serious enough interest to justify any checkpoint
D. No, because checkpoints can only be used for DWI enforcement
B. No, because narcotics checkpoints are not a valid special need, and officer discretion is unconstrained
Officers are conducting a valid DWI checkpoint. As a driver rolls through, an officer notices an open bag of marijuana on the passenger seat in plain view. The officer asks to search the trunk. Is the trunk search permissible as part of the checkpoint?
A. Yes, because the driver is already lawfully stopped
B. Yes, but only if the officer has probable cause that there is more contraband in the trunk
C. No, because checkpoint searches are limited to the scope rationally related to the checkpoint's purpose — DWI detection
D. No, because plain view never applies during a checkpoint stop
B. Yes, but only if the officer has probable cause that there is more contraband in the trunk
Under Warden v. Hayden, when evaluating whether a warrantless search in hot pursuit was valid, courts apply what standard?
A. A subjective test asking what the officer actually believed.
B. An objective test asking what a reasonable officer would believe.
C. A totality of the circumstances test weighing all factors.
D. A per se rule that any pursuit justifies a warrantless search.
B. An objective test asking what a reasonable officer would believe.
If the ONLY exigency present is preservation of evidence, and the underlying offense is a minor misdemeanor, a warrantless home entry is:
A. Permissible because evidence preservation is always a compelling interest
B. Permissible only if two officers agree on the need
C. Not permissible — minor offenses cannot support warrantless home entry on preservation grounds alone
D. Permissible if the officer's supervisor approves
C. Not permissible — minor offenses cannot support warrantless home entry on preservation grounds alone
Under United States v. Lucas, who may validly authorize an administrative inspection warrant?
A. Only an Article III federal judge
B. Only a neutral and detached magistrate with probable cause
C. An official who is neutral and detached from the inspection itself, even if not a judicial officer
D. Only the officer's direct supervisor
C. An official who is neutral and detached from the inspection itself, even if not a judicial officer
Under New Jersey v. T.L.O., what standard applies to warrantless searches of students by school officials?
A. Probable cause
B. Reasonable suspicion
C. Preponderance of the evidence
D. No standard — school officials have plenary authority
B. Reasonable suspicion
Under New York v. Burger, which of the following would most likely DEFEAT the warrantless administrative inspection of a business?
A. The officer did not personally find any violations during the inspection
B. The scope of the inspection went beyond what the authorizing statute permitted
C. The business owner verbally objected to the inspection
D. The inspection occurred on a weekend
B. The scope of the inspection went beyond what the authorizing statute permitted
Officers receive a tip that armed robbery suspect Dana fled to her apartment two hours ago. No one has seen her leave. Officers enter without a warrant, citing hot pursuit. Is this valid?
A. Yes, because the suspect was still inside and armed.
B. Yes, because armed robbery is a serious felony.
C. No, because two hours undermines any claim of hot pursuit.
D. No, because tips alone never establish probable cause.
C. No, because two hours undermines any claim of hot pursuit.
Officers smell marijuana near an apartment door. They knock, announce "police," and hear shuffling. They kick the door in, citing destruction of evidence. Was this lawful under King?
A. Yes, because smelling marijuana establishes probable cause
B. Yes, because knocking and announcing is lawful police conduct, so the exigency is valid if other facts support it
C. No, because destruction of evidence can never justify warrantless entry into a home
D. No, because officers created the exigency by knocking
B. Yes, because knocking and announcing is lawful police conduct, so the exigency is valid if other facts support it
At a border crossing or port of entry, what level of suspicion is required for a routine search?
A. Probable cause
B. Reasonable suspicion
C. Reasonable articulable suspicion of a specific crime
D. No cause whatsoever
D. No cause whatsoever
In Safford Unified School District v. Redding, the Supreme Court held that a strip search of a 13-year-old student for ibuprofen was unconstitutional because:
A. School officials never have authority to search students' bodies
B. The content of the suspicion did not match the degree of intrusion required to search undergarments
C. No reasonable suspicion existed at all
D. The search was conducted without parental consent
B. The content of the suspicion did not match the degree of intrusion required to search undergarments
Border agents at a checkpoint 80 miles from the Mexican border stop a car and ask the driver for identification and to briefly answer questions. No cause exists. Is this stop permissible?
A. No, because the stop is 80 miles from the border and outside the border exception
B. No, because even at the border, reasonable suspicion is required for any stop
C. Yes, because inland fixed checkpoints up to 100 miles from the border fall within the border exception
D. Yes, but only if the agents have reasonable suspicion specific to this vehicle
C. Yes, because inland fixed checkpoints up to 100 miles from the border fall within the border exception
Under Michigan v. Fisher, what standard must officers meet to invoke the emergency aid exception?
A. Probable cause that a serious, life-threatening injury has occurred.
B. An objectively reasonable basis for believing a person inside needs immediate aid.
C. Reasonable suspicion a crime is occurring inside.
D. Actual knowledge of an ongoing emergency.
B. An objectively reasonable basis for believing a person inside needs immediate aid.
Officers have probable cause to believe meth is being made in an apartment. They smell chemicals but are unsure if it's meth. They don't hear any sounds of destruction. They kick the door in. Which argument BEST supports the warrantless entry?
A. Exigency based on officer safety — meth labs can explode, creating danger to officers and others
B. Exigency based on destruction of evidence — meth can always be flushed quickly
C. Emergency aid — the chemical smell means someone may be ill
D. Administrative inspection — they can inspect any dwelling where drugs are suspected
A. Exigency based on officer safety — meth labs can explode, creating danger to officers and others
In United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, the Supreme Court held that an 18+ hour detention at the border was non-routine. What standard did this non-routine action require?
A. Probable cause and a warrant
B. Reasonable suspicion
C. No standard — the border exception is absolute
D. Consent of the traveler
B. Reasonable suspicion
A school official has reasonable suspicion that a 16-year-old has opioids. A classmate said the student was "selling pills from their jacket pocket." The official searches the jacket pocket and finds nothing, then demands the student remove all clothing. Is the full strip search valid?
A. Yes, because reasonable suspicion extends to the whole person once a search is initiated
B. No, because finding nothing in the jacket pocket eliminates suspicion without new information pointing to concealment in undergarments
C. Yes, because opioids are more dangerous than ibuprofen and justify greater intrusion
D. No, because strip searches of minors are categorically prohibited in schools
B. No, because finding nothing in the jacket pocket eliminates suspicion without new information pointing to concealment in undergarments
Which of the following is the most accurate statement about the burden of proof when the government invokes an exigency?
A. The burden is on the defendant to show that no exigency existed
B. The burden is on the state to prove that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry
C. There is no burden — exigency is presumed whenever police are at the scene of a potential crime
D. The burden shifts to whoever filed the suppression motion
B. The burden is on the state to prove that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry