McDonald
An underworld informer advised a police investigator that his neighbor was running an illegal bookmaking operation in his apartment, and that the informer had placed bets with the neighbor at this location. The officer obtained a search warrant, based on his affidavit reciting the foregoing facts, and further stating that the underworld informer was a person who had given him accurate information in previous cases, but whose identity could not be revealed because it might jeopardize other criminal investigations being carried on by the police. Armed with the search warrant, police officers went to the neighbor's apartment. They entered when the neighbor opened the door and searched the apartment. They seized various wagering slips and bookmaking apparatus (described in the search warrant) and placed the neighbor under arrest for illegal gambling. Prior to trial, the neighbor challenges the validity of the search warrant.
Was the search warrant valid?
A - No, because it was based on hearsay information.No, because it was based on hearsay information.
B - No, because the officer failed to disclose the identity of the informer, so that the accuracy of his information could not be verified.No, because the officer failed to disclose the identity of the informer, so that the accuracy of his information could not be verified.
C - Yes, because the identity of the informer is never required.Yes, because the identity of the informer is never required.
D - Yes, because the affidavit accompanying it is sufficiently detailed to allow a determination of probable cause.
D - Yes, because the affidavit accompanying it is sufficiently detailed to allow a determination of probable cause.
True or False: Under Terry, when the offense under investigation is a recent crime committed with the aid of a firearm, police will always have frisk authority so long as they have stop authority.
TRUE
A plainclothes police officer who frequently ate lunch at a certain deli heard rumors that the deli’s owner often placed illegal bets on sporting events. Based on the rumors, the officer peeked into an envelope next to the register and saw betting slips. The officer asked his waitress about the envelope, and she told him that the owner had given it to her and that a man in a brown cap was to pick it up at 2 p.m. The officer stayed at the deli until 2 p.m. and watched the waitress hand the envelope to a man in a brown cap. The officer passed the above information on to a friend in the F.B.I. Several weeks later, based on that information, F.B.I. agents obtained a search warrant for the owner’s home, described in the warrant as a condominium in a large multi-unit complex identified by the street address only. The agents went to the home in the early evening, while the owner was at the deli. After announcing their purpose to the owner’s wife, they searched the home and found betting slips and other materials related to illegal gambling.
The owner was indicted for conspiracy to violate a federal statute prohibiting the use of interstate phone lines to conduct gambling, and for the possession of betting slips.
Which of the following would be the best reason for excluding the evidence found at the owner’s home?
A - The owner was not home when the warrant was executed.The owner was not home when the warrant was executed. - no response given
B - The search was conducted in the evening when it easily could have been conducted during daylight hours.The search was conducted in the evening when it easily could have been conducted during daylight hours. - no response given
C - The warrant failed to specify which condominium unit was to be searched.The warrant failed to specify which condominium unit was to be searched.
D - The waitress had never been used before as an informant.
C - The warrant failed to specify which condominium unit was to be searched.The warrant failed to specify which condominium unit was to be searched.
Acting on information from reliable informants that drugs were being sold by residents at a certain fraternity house, the police obtained a search warrant that entitled them to search the entire premises for illegal narcotics. The police arrived at the house when a party was in progress and were admitted to the house by the fraternity president after showing the warrant. Officers proceeded to search the house. In an upstairs bedroom, they found a young woman who was a guest of a fraternity member sleeping on the bed. No one else was in the room. The police found a footlocker under the bed and opened it, finding a variety of illegal drugs. The police then awakened the woman and seized her purse from her. They found a small quantity of marijuana in the purse. The woman was charged with a drug possession offense. At her trial, the prosecution seeks to admit the marijuana seized from her purse over the objection of her attorney.
Should the court admit the marijuana?
A - Yes, because the footlocker was within the woman's reach.Yes, because the footlocker was within the woman's reach.
B - Yes, because the woman was present in a room where drugs were found.Yes, because the woman was present in a room where drugs were found.
C - No, because the woman had no possessory interest in the premises.No, because the woman had no possessory interest in the premises.
D - because the police had no probable cause to believe that the woman had drugs on her person.
D - because the police had no probable cause to believe that the woman had drugs on her person.
The police observe driver make illegal turn. Upon stopping
the driver, police see him reach under his seat. Officer orders
him out of car and sees a cellophane package protruding
from under the seat as driver exits. The package contained a
white powdery substance which the police suspected to be
cocaine. The officers placed driver under arrest and into the
back of the police cruiser. The officers then proceeded to
search the rest of the driver’s car. In the trunk, the officers
found an assault rifle that was later determined to have been
used in a liquor store robbery. Charged with that robbery, the
driver moved to suppress the assault rifle.
How should the Court rule?
A. admissible under the MV exception
B. Admissible under the inventory search exception
C. Admissible under the SILA exception
D. Inadmissible
A. admissible under the MV exception
A man was tried in state court for possession of heroin. The prosecution offered in evidence five rolled-up toy balloons containing heroin, which police officers had found on a table in the man's apartment. At a hearing on the defense's motion to suppress, testimony was presented that established that the police had put the apartment under surveillance and had watched a police informant go to the door of the apartment, hand four balloons of heroin to the man, and leave. The police had then knocked on the apartment door, identified themselves as police officers, and demanded entrance. Having heard nothing for 30 seconds, the police had then broken down the door and entered the apartment, discovering the heroin. The police had intended to arrest the man for the purchase of heroin, a felony. When they had gotten inside the apartment, they discovered that the man had left by a back exit. He was later arrested at the nearby newsstand.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and the case is on appeal following the man's conviction for possession of heroin. How should the appellate court rule?
A - Affirm the conviction on the ground that the error, if any, in admitting the heroin was harmless error.Affirm the conviction on the ground that the error, if any, in admitting the heroin was harmless error.
B - Affirm the conviction on the ground that the police complied with the "knock and announce rule" even though no one was there to admit them.Affirm the conviction on the ground that the police complied with the "knock and announce rule" even though no one was there to admit them.
C - Reverse the conviction on the ground that the man's Fourth Amendment rights (as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment) have been violated.Reverse the conviction on the ground that the man's Fourth Amendment rights (as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment) have been violated.
D - Reverse the conviction on the ground that the "knock and announce rule" was not satisfied when the police announced their presence and identity to an empty residence.Reverse the conviction on the ground that the "knock and announce rule" was not satisfied when the police announced their presence and identity to an empty residence.
C - Reverse the conviction on the ground that the man's Fourth Amendment rights (as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment) have been violated.Reverse the conviction on the ground that the man's Fourth Amendment rights (as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment) have been violated.
This case involved the use of electronic surveillance (a wiretap) to overhear private conversations in a public phone booth without a warrant. The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and established a two-part test for determining whether a government action violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Katz
A police officer in a small town is investigating a series of burglaries. The officer stops a man walking down the street who matches the general description of the suspect. The officer asks the man for identification and searches his pockets. During the search, the officer finds a wallet containing stolen credit cards. The man is arrested for burglary. At trial, the defense attorney moves to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop and search.
How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?
A) Granted, because the officer did not have probable cause to stop the man.
B) Granted, because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the man.
C) Denied, because the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the man for investigation.
D) Denied, because the officer had probable cause to arrest the man when the stolen credit cards were found.
B) Granted, because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the man.
A - Yes, because the defendant was already handcuffed and detained in the police car before the search took place.
B - Yes, because the officer did not have probable cause to look under the driver's seat.
C - No, because Sally has a reduced expectation of privacy in her vehicle.
D - No, because the driver was a recent occupant of the vehicle and the officer had reason to believe that the car contained evidence of the crime for which the defendant was arrested.
D - No, because the driver was a recent occupant of the vehicle and the officer had reason to believe that the car contained evidence of the crime for which the defendant was arrested.
A private airstrip was located deep in the desert. Federal narcotics officers observed the airstrip to see who was going there. They saw two pickup trucks go to the airstrip, after which two small airplanes landed and later took off again. The officers approached the pickup trucks and smelled a strong odor of marijuana. In the back of the pickup trucks, the officers could see packages wrapped in dark green plastic. The officers arrested the drivers of the pickup trucks and impounded the trucks. Three days later at the police station the officers, without obtaining a search warrant, searched the trucks and opened some of the packages to take samples, which proved to be marijuana. The drivers were prosecuted on drug charges and filed motions to suppress, which were granted by the trial court.
If the prosecution appeals, how should the appellate court decide?
(A) Ruling affirmed, because three days had passed following the
vehicle stop.
(B) Ruling affirmed, because the search of an impounded vehicle
requires a search warrant.
(C) Ruling reversed and remanded, because a search of an
impounded vehicle never needs a search warrant.
(D) Ruling reversed and remanded, because the officers had
probable cause to search.
D. Ruling reversed and remanded, because the officers had probable cause to search.
Police had probable cause to arrest a woman for embezzlement, a non-violent white-collar offense. They arrested her at her office. After placing her in handcuffs and securing her in the back of a squad car outside the building, an officer returned to her unlocked desk drawer inside and searched it without a warrant, finding incriminating documents.
At trial, she moves to suppress the documents.
How should the court rule?
A) Deny the motion, because the drawer was within her control at the time of arrest.
B) Deny the motion, because documents related to financial crimes are always discoverable.
C) Grant the motion, because the search was not contemporaneous with the arrest.
D) Grant the motion, because the search was not justified as a search incident to arrest.
D) Grant the motion, because the search was not justified as a search incident to arrest.
A search incident to arrest must be spatially and temporally tied to the arrest and limited to areas within the arrestee’s immediate control at the time of arrest (Chimel v. California). Once the woman was removed from the area and secured, the desk drawer was no longer accessible, and a warrant was required. Choice A is a trap — it's outdated post-Arizona v. Gant.
Police officers are chasing a robbery suspect on foot. He runs into a private residence through the front door, which was unlocked. The officers follow him inside without a warrant, arrest him in the living room, and search the surrounding area. They find a firearm in a nearby closet. The suspect moves to suppress the firearm evidence.
How should the court rule?
A) Granted, because the officers entered the home without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
B) Granted, because there was no consent to enter the home.
C) Denied, because the officers were in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon.
D) Denied, because the firearm was in plain view in a common area.
C) Denied, because the officers were in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon.
A police officer sees a man leave a bar at 2:00 a.m. and walk to his car, swaying as he walks. The officer stops the man and orders him to perform field sobriety tests. The man fails the tests, and the officer arrests him for driving under the influence. During a search of the man’s car, the officer finds an open container of alcohol. The man is charged with DUI and possession of an open container of alcohol.
At trial, the defense attorney moves to suppress the evidence of the open container.
How should the court rule?
A) Granted, because the officer did not have a warrant to search the vehicle.
B) Granted, because the officer did not have probable cause to search the vehicle.
C) Denied, because the search was a valid inventory search incident to arrest.
D) Denied, because the officer had probable cause to believe the man was driving under the influence.
D) Denied, because the officer had probable cause to believe the man was driving under the influence.
A defendant robbed a victim at knife-point, aided by fellow gang members who hit and kicked the victim. The police followed the defendant into his apartment building, where they heard screaming coming from one apartment. The officers knocked on the door, and a woman answered, holding a baby and crying. There was blood on her shirt and hand. The officers found the defendant inside and arrested him, although the defendant stated that the officers had no right to be in his apartment. One hour later, an officer returned to the apartment and received consent from the woman for a search, which revealed the knife, gang paraphernalia, a shotgun, and ammunition. The defendant filed a motion to suppress.
How should the trial court rule?
(A) Deny the motion, because one occupant can consent to a search, regardless of the wishes of other occupants.
(B) Deny the motion, because the defendant was not present to refuse consent to search the apartment.
(C) Grant the motion, because one occupant cannot give consent to a search if another occupant objects.
(D) Grant the motion, because the defendant had already stated his refusal to give consent before he was removed from the apartment.
(B) Deny the motion, because the defendant was not present to refuse consent to search the apartment.
A police officer was on patrol near a high school one afternoon when he noticed a group of students walking around the back of the school. Since it was after school hours, the police officer decided to see what the students were doing. The police officer confronted the students, who were all wearing backpacks, and the students insisted that they were simply walking home from school. Knowing that teenagers in the community often kept drug paraphernalia in their backpacks, the officer demanded that the students allow him to search the contents of their bags. The students refused, because they did indeed have drug paraphernalia in their bags which they did not want the officer to find.
Does the officer have the authority to search the students' backpacks under the plain view doctrine?
(A) Yes, because the bags were in plain view of the officer.
(B) Yes, because the students were on school grounds, and the police officer was therefore lawfully positioned in questioning the students.
(C) No, because it was not immediately apparent that the contents of the backpacks were incriminating.
(D) No, because a police officer may not seize property without a warrant even if the property is in plain view.
(C) No, because it was not immediately apparent that the contents of the backpacks were incriminating.
An anonymous caller told 911 that a young man wearing a red hoodie and jeans had just left a high school with a handgun in his backpack. Ten minutes later, police saw a teen matching the description walking calmly down the sidewalk near the school. They stopped him, frisked his backpack, and found the weapon.
At the teen’s trial for illegal firearm possession, his attorney moved to suppress the gun.
How should the court rule?
A) Grant the motion, because the tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability.
B) Grant the motion, because the police lacked probable cause.
C) Deny the motion, because the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion.
D) Deny the motion, because school zones are high-risk areas.
A) Grant the motion, because the tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability.
Under Florida v. J.L. (2000), an anonymous tip that lacks predictive information or corroborated reliability cannot justify a stop and frisk, even if it describes someone with a gun. There was no observed illegal behavior or corroboration of criminal activity here. Choice C is tempting but wrong due to the anonymous source's unreliability.
An undercover police officer poses as an inmate and is placed in a cell with a defendant who has been indicted for armed robbery. The officer deliberately engages the defendant in conversation and elicits incriminating statements about the robbery. The officer does not give Miranda warnings.
The defendant moves to suppress the statements.
How should the court rule?
A) Granted, because Miranda warnings were required in all custodial interrogations.
B) Granted, because the statements were deliberately elicited after indictment in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
C) Denied, because the officer did not ask direct questions.
D) Denied, because the defendant did not know the undercover officer was law enforcement.
B) Granted, because the statements were deliberately elicited after indictment in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
Federal agents lawfully arrest a man at his home without a warrant for suspected wire fraud. After the arrest, they conduct a detailed, warrantless search of the man’s entire home, including locked drawers and storage areas, and seize documents and hard drives. The agents do not obtain a search warrant before doing so. The prosecution seeks to admit the evidence found in the home at trial.
The man's attorney files a motion to suppress.
How should the court rule?
A) Granted, because a warrantless search of the home is presumptively unreasonable without exigent circumstances or consent.
B) Granted, because the agents needed a warrant to arrest the man in his home.
C) Denied, because the search was incident to a lawful arrest.
D) Denied, because the search took place shortly after a lawful arrest and was limited to evidence of the crime.
A) Granted, because a warrantless search of the home is presumptively unreasonable without exigent circumstances or consent.
Undercover officers staked out an area known for narcotics transactions and sellers who are routinely armed with weapons. An officer watched the area for several hours. During that time, he saw a man approach numerous cars and persons and engage in a number of quick transactions. At 3:00 a.m., the police moved in. As the officer and the other police approached the man, people on the corner dispersed, and the man attempted to flee as well. The officer chased after the man, ordering him to halt and place his hands on his head. The man stopped moving, but did not take his hands out of his pockets. Because he could not see the man's hands, the officer was concerned that the man might have a weapon. He conducted a pat-down search of the man. During his pat-down search of the man, the officer did not feel anything resembling a weapon, but did feel something that he immediately recognized as crack cocaine vials. The officer reached into the man's pocket and removed the vials. He then arrested the man. At the man's trial for various drug-related offenses, the man's attorney moved to suppress the evidence seized by the officer.
How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?
(A) Denied, because the officer performed a proper stop-and-frisk.
(B) Denied, because the search was incident to arrest.
(C) Granted, because the officer did not have a search warrant.
(D) Granted, because the officer did not have legally obtained probable cause.
(A) Denied, because the officer performed a proper stop-and-frisk.
The police have an arrest warrant for a man. Two officers stake out his house. They see him walk right past their car and enter his home. They wait approximately 10 minutes, and then walk up to his front door and knock on the door. When the man cracks open the door, the first officer tells him that they have a warrant for his arrest. The man opens the door and asks to see the arrest warrant. When the officers show it to him, the man says he intends to cooperate, but needs to put on his shoes. The officers agree and follow him inside. The man tells them that the shoes by the front door are fine, but the officers insist on taking him to the bedroom. In the bedroom, the man takes a pair of shoes from near his bed and puts them on. One of the officers then searches the man's closet. Behind the hanging clothes, the officer finds four fully automatic M-16 rifles. Fully automatic weapons are illegal in the jurisdiction, and the man is a convicted felon who is prohibited from owning any firearms.
In the ensuing trial, what is the likely outcome of the man's motion to suppress the evidence of the weapons in the closet?
(A) The motion will be denied, because the search was incident to an arrest.
(B) The motion will be denied, because the man asked to go inside to put on his shoes.
(C) The motion will be granted, because the search exceeded the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest.
(D) The motion will be denied, because the items seized were dangerous weapons implicating the public safety exception.
(C) The motion will be granted, because the search exceeded the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest.
A man was arrested for burglary, advised of his Miranda rights, and agreed to speak with the police. Midway through the interrogation, he stopped answering questions, looked down, and remained silent for several minutes. The officer continued questioning, eventually asking, “If you’re innocent, why did you run from the scene?” The man replied, “I didn’t think you'd believe me.”
At trial, the prosecutor introduced this statement to suggest consciousness of guilt. The defendant moved to suppress the statement, arguing a Fifth Amendment violation.
How should the court rule?
A) Suppress the statement, because the suspect had invoked his right to remain silent.
B) Suppress the statement, because any waiver of Miranda rights must be continuously reaffirmed.
C) Admit the statement, because the suspect had waived his Miranda rights and never reasserted them.
D) Admit the statement, because the officer’s question was not likely to elicit an incriminating response.
C) Admit the statement, because the suspect had waived his Miranda rights and never reasserted them.
Once a suspect knowingly and voluntarily waives their Miranda rights, officers may continue questioning until the suspect affirmatively invokes their right to remain silent or requests counsel. Merely remaining silent is not an invocation under Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010). No re-Mirandizing is required unless the suspect asserts a right.
A man was arrested for burglary and was read his Miranda rights, which he waived. He was questioned by detectives and made some ambiguous statements, but did not confess. Two days later, the man was formally charged with the burglary via indictment, and he was assigned a public defender at his initial appearance. The next day, without notifying his lawyer, police officers went to the jail and began asking the man about the burglary again. They re-administered Miranda warnings, which the man again waived, and he then confessed.
At trial, the defendant moves to suppress the confession.
How should the court rule?
A) Granted, because the police failed to honor the defendant’s earlier invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel.
B) Granted, because post-indictment questioning without counsel violated the Sixth Amendment.
C) Denied, because the defendant voluntarily waived his Miranda rights before speaking.
D) Denied, because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel only applies at trial, not during questioning.
B) Granted, because post-indictment questioning without counsel violated the Sixth Amendment.
A defendant is arrested for robbery. After being read his Miranda rights, he invokes his right to remain silent. The officers stop questioning him. Two hours later, different officers return and re-Mirandize the suspect. They begin questioning him about an unrelated burglary, and he gives an incriminating statement.
His attorney moves to suppress that statement.
What is the most likely outcome?
A) Suppressed, because once a suspect invokes the right to remain silent, police must cease all questioning indefinitely.
B) Suppressed, because the police violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
C) Admitted, because the statement was about an unrelated crime and followed a fresh Miranda warning.
D) Admitted, because the defendant re-initiated contact by agreeing to speak.
C) Admitted, because the statement was about an unrelated crime and followed a fresh Miranda warning.
A man is arrested for assault. The police conduct an interrogation and advise the man of his Miranda rights. The man agrees to waive his rights and answer questions. During the questioning, the man gives an incriminating statement. The defense attorney moves to suppress the statement, arguing that the man’s waiver of rights was not valid.
What is the most likely reason the court will uphold the validity of the waiver?
A) The waiver was valid because the man was told of his rights and voluntarily answered questions.
B) The waiver was valid because the man did not explicitly ask for a lawyer.
C) The waiver was invalid because the man did not have legal counsel present during the interrogation.
D) The waiver was invalid because the man was not told the consequences of waiving his rights.
A) The waiver was valid because the man was told of his rights and voluntarily answered questions.
A woman was driving her van along a public road one night. A police officer who was driving behind the woman, decided to make a random stop of the woman's vehicle to check her license and registration. The officer pulled the woman's van over to the side of the road and then walked up to the driver's side of the vehicle. When he came alongside the driver's window, the officer asked the woman for her identification. As the woman was thumbing through her wallet, the officer shone his flashlight into the van and spotted a plastic bag containing marijuana lying on the floor under the back seat. The officer then arrested the woman and charged her with possession of marijuana.
At the woman's trial for illegal possession of a controlled substance, her attorney moved to suppress the use of the marijuana as evidence.
How should the judge rule on her motion?
(A) Granted, because the marijuana was the fruit of an illegal search.
(B) Granted, because the police officer did not have probable cause or a reasonable suspicion to believe that the woman's van contained a controlled substance.
(C) Denied, because the marijuana was in plain view when the police officer shone his flashlight inside the van.
(D) Denied, because the marijuana was in an automobile.
(C) Denied, because the marijuana was in plain view when the police officer shone his flashlight inside the van.