Download Criminal Procedure sample questions and more Exams Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity!
4 Th^ Amendment
• Question 1
A private gym employee opened a gym member’s locker without permission and found several small plastic bags containing a white powdered substance, a firearm, and a powered-off phone inside the member’s gym bag. The employee put the items back in the bag, closed the locker, and called the police. When the police arrived, they also opened the locker and the gym bag. The officers field-tested the white powdered substance and confirmed that it was cocaine. The officers then turned on the phone and searched the text messages, which revealed several messages soliciting sales of cocaine. The officers did not have a search warrant.
If the gym member is subsequently arrested and charged with illegal drug distribution, which items, if any, should be excluded from evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds?
A. The cocaine, the firearm, and the text messages. B. Only the cocaine and the text messages. C. Only the text messages. D. All of the items are admissible.
• Question 2
In an attempt to identify the students involved in a drug distribution scheme at a public high school, the high school’s principal searched a student’s purse and found controlled substances.
Does the Fourth Amendment apply to the principal’s actions?
A. Yes, because the school is public and the principal was acting in her official capacity. B. Yes, because the principal is a school employee, regardless of the public or private status of the school. C. No, because the Fourth Amendment only applies to law enforcement action. D. No, because the Fourth Amendment only applies to the federal government.
• Question 3
A wife informed the police that she believed her spouse was committing business fraud. The police told the wife that they would not be able to initiate an investigation without more evidence, such as accounting records. The wife then logged onto her spouse’s home computer and forwarded several spreadsheets to the police. The police subsequently arrested the spouse, who was charged with fraud.
In ruling on a pretrial motion, which of the following findings by the court would best support the exclusion of the spreadsheets as evidence at trial?
A. That the police actively encouraged and participated in the wife’s search for additional evidence. B. That the wife was improperly motivated by anger at the spouse for personal reasons. C. That the police participated minimally and incidentally in the wife’s actions by telling her they would need more evidence. D. That the police did not know about the wife’s intention to access the spreadsheets.
• Question 4
A confidential informant searched a man’s car and found stolen goods. The informant turned the goods over to the police, and the man was subsequently charged with dealing in stolen goods.
If a judge determines that the informant was acting as an agent of the government and that the search was unreasonable, what is the appropriate remedy in the criminal case?
A. Fine the police department. B. Dismiss the case with prejudice. C. Exclude evidence of the goods at trial. D. There is no remedy in the criminal case, although the man can sue the police department for a civil rights violation.
• Question 5
A computer repairman found 10 images of child pornography on a customer’s laptop. The repairman alerted the police.
Which of the following facts, if true, might render the images inadmissible at trial?
A. The repairman violated company policy by accessing the files. B. The repairman replicated the search in the presence of the police, who did not have a warrant. C. The repairman found the files while backing up the customer’s data. D. The repairman had previously received compensation from the police for turning in child pornography.
• Question 6
Police officers received an anonymous tip that a woman was growing marijuana in her basement. The tip included a specific address and description of the woman. The officers now wish to obtain a search warrant for the address.
What additional steps, if any, would establish probable cause in support of a warrant?
A. No additional steps are necessary, because the tip with the specific address and description of the woman are sufficient to establish probable cause. B. The officers would likely have probable cause if they confirm that the address and the woman described in the tip are both real. C. The officers would likely have probable cause if they corroborate the tip with other evidence, such as the woman’s electricity records suggesting greenhouse activity inside her house and credit card statements showing that she purchased hydroponic supplies. D. The only possible way for the officers to establish probable cause is if they are able to confirm the identity and credibility of the anonymous tipster.
• Question 7
A confidential informant told police officers about a car repair business that was running an illicit chop-shop operation. The informant had previously provided information to the police leading to arrests in four cases involving motor vehicle theft. However, the informant refused to tell police how he had learned about the chop-shop operation, and police were unable to corroborate the tip.
What is the appropriate inquiry for determining whether there is probable cause to issue a search warrant for the car repair business?
A. Whether there is a sufficient showing of the informant’s basis of knowledge to outweigh a lack of showing of the informant’s credibility or the truth in this particular case of any details of the informant’s tip. B. Whether there is a sufficient showing of the informant’s credibility to outweigh a lack of showing of the informant’s basis of knowledge or the truth in this particular case of any details of the informant’s tip. C. Whether there is a sufficient showing of the truth in this particular case of the details of the informant’s tip to outweigh a lack of showing of the informant’s credibility or basis of knowledge.
• Question 8
• Question 11
A partygoer left her coat with the coat-check desk at a hotel. A police officer suspected drug use by some of the guests and, without a warrant or other legal justification, began looking in the pockets of the checked coats for evidence. The officer located drugs and paraphernalia in the partygoer’s coat and arrested her for possession of those items when she retrieved her coat at the end of the party. In a pretrial motion, the defense argued for suppression of the evidence on the ground that the search violated the partygoer’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Which finding by the court best supports suppression of the evidence?
A. The partygoer had a subjective expectation of privacy in property stored in the coat-check room, but that expectation was not objectively reasonable. B. There was an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in property stored in the coat-check room, but the partygoer did not have a subjective expectation of such privacy. C. The partygoer did not have a subjective expectation of privacy in property stored in the coat-check room, and there was no objectively reasonable expectation of such privacy. D. The partygoer had a subjective expectation of privacy in property stored in the coat-check room, and that expectation was objectively reasonable.
• Question 12
A company’s partners shredded numerous records that incriminated the company and the partners in business fraud. When the partners discarded the shredded paper in a city dumpster, the police collected it from the dumpster and reconstructed a few key pieces of evidence. The partners were later arrested for business fraud. Prior to trial, the defense moved to suppress the reconstructed shredded documents on the ground that the police had conducted an illegal search. If the reconstruction of the shredded documents was a search, the police had no legal justification for the search.
What must the court find in order to admit the contents of the shredded documents?
A. The partners demonstrated a subjective expectation of privacy in the documents by shredding them prior to discarding them. B. Shredding documents does not give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of those documents if the documents are later discarded in a city dumpster. C. The police used advanced technology to reconstruct the documents. D. The partners did not knowingly expose the shredded documents to the public.
• Question 13
An ex-boyfriend sent anonymous threatening and harassing messages to his ex-girlfriend via text message and social media. During their investigation, police officers obtained from the phone company: (1) the subscriber information associated with the phone number used to send the messages, (2) logs of when the messages were sent and to what number they were sent (but not containing the content of the messages themselves), and (3) the content of all the text messages sent from that number for the relevant time frame. Police then obtained from the Internet provider and social media companies: (4) the IP address used to send messages over social media, (5) subscriber information for the Internet account associated with that IP address, and (6) the content of all social-media messages sent from the account. The officers did not obtain a warrant in order to access any of the information obtained, all of which helped establish that the ex-boyfriend was responsible for the communications. The officers subsequently arrested the ex-boyfriend for stalking.
In which piece or pieces of evidence did the ex-boyfriend have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
A. In all the evidence obtained by the police officers. B. Only in the evidence obtained from the phone company (the phone-number subscriber information, text-message logs, and text-message content). C. Only in the evidence obtained from the Internet provider and social-media companies (the IP address, Internet subscriber information, and social-media-message content). D. Only in the text-message content and the social-media-message content.
• Question 14
The police suspected a truck driver of smuggling firearms and other illicit items. As part of his employment contract, the driver had been informed that his employer, a trucking company, had GPS units installed on its trucks, logged the locations of the trucks in its fleet at all times, and regularly audited the logs. Without a warrant, the police subpoenaed the trucking company’s GPS logs for the driver for a month’s time frame. The trucking company provided the police with the requested logs, which tracked the driver’s unauthorized movements within a large, private industrial complex. Further investigation revealed that the complex was used to distribute contraband weapons and other items. The police arrested the driver and charged him with unlawful distribution of contraband. At trial, the defense moved to suppress evidence of the GPS logs.
Is the judge likely to suppress the logs?
A. Yes, because a warrant is required for the police to access GPS tracking logs. B. Yes, because the GPS logs revealed the driver’s movements within private property. C. No, because the driver did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in logs that he knew his employer maintained, monitored, and audited. D. No, because the driver did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements on the public roadways.
• Question 15
A police officer on patrol attempted to pull over a car by activating her overhead lights. The car’s driver sped up, and the officer engaged the driver in a high-speed chase. During the chase, the driver threw a backpack out the window. The driver then lost control of the vehicle and crashed down an embankment. The officer pulled the driver out of the car and handcuffed him. Another unit retrieved the backpack, opened it, and reported to the officer that the backpack contained cocaine. The officer then informed the driver that he was under arrest for possession of drugs.
At what point had the officer first seized the driver?
A. When the officer activated her overhead lights. B. When the officer engaged in a high-speed chase. C. When the driver threw the backpack out the window. D. When the driver crashed his car because of the chase. E. When the officer pulled the driver out of the car and handcuffed him. F. When the officer informed the driver that he was under arrest
• Question 16
Animal control officers entered a woman’s property unannounced, and without a warrant, to do a welfare check on her animals. The woman’s property consisted of 10 acres and contained: (1) a grazing field surrounded by a short fence, (2) wooded land in the far back of the property, and (3) the woman’s home with a fenced-in yard. Surrounding the whole of
C. The thermal imaging, the overheard statements, and the photographs with the human trafficker. D. None of the evidence was obtained by a search subject to the Fourth Amendment’s protections.
• Question 19
A police officer flew a surveillance drone over a man’s property and witnessed the man conduct a hand-to-hand drug transaction. The drone video-recorded the transaction. The man was later arrested for a large-scale drug operation, and the prosecution sought to enter the video as evidence. The defense moved to suppress the evidence as being an illegal search.
Which of the following findings would support suppressing the evidence?
A. The police officer flew the drone in the same manner as the general public flies drones. B. Civilian drone use over the man’s property and in the man’s community is rare. C. The camera used did not have a zoom feature. D. The police officer used the same model of drone available to the general public.
• Question 20
The police suspected a farmer of growing marijuana on his property, which consisted of 30 acres. The farmer’s home was in the far northwest corner of the property. Police came onto the property without a warrant from the southwest corner and wandered through several fields of corn and cotton, searching for the marijuana. As the police approached the farmer’s house, they spotted a small vegetable garden nearby and discovered a patch of marijuana in it. The police arrested the farmer, and the defense moved to suppress the evidence on grounds that the police conducted an illegal search.
Which finding by the court best supports admitting the evidence over the defense’s objection?
A. The vegetable garden and the house were both enclosed by shrubbery. B. The vegetable garden was clearly visible from the road. C. The vegetable garden was in the backyard and for the farmer’s personal use. D. The vegetable garden was a few feet from the home’s back door
Question 21
While investigating a traffic crash, a police officer suspected a driver of driving under the influence. The officer based his suspicion on the smell of alcohol on the driver's breath, the driver's bloodshot eyes, descriptions by witnesses of the driver's erratic driving patterns prior to the crash, and a passenger's admission that both the driver and the passenger had been drinking. Due to the driver's injuries from the crash, the officer did not request that the driver perform field sobriety exercises. The officer quickly authored an affidavit for a search warrant describing her observations of the driver and the statements of the witnesses and passenger; however, the officer accidentally included stock language that stated that the officer had asked the driver to perform field sobriety exercises, which the driver performed poorly. A magistrate issued a warrant to allow the officer to draw the driver's blood to test for blood alcohol content, which test revealed that the driver’s blood alcohol content was above the legal limit. The driver was subsequently prosecuted for driving under the influence of alcohol. Video from the squad car and the officer's own testimony later clearly refuted the statements in the affidavit about performing field sobriety exercises.
What is the likely outcome of a Franks motion to suppress evidence of the driver’s blood alcohol content based on the false information in the officer’s affidavit? A The evidence will likely be admitted, because there was sufficient probable cause without the false statements. B The evidence will likely be admitted, because the inclusion of the false statements was an accident.
C The evidence will likely be suppressed, because the officer knew the statement was false, even if it was accidentally included. D The evidence will likely be suppressed, because the video and the officer’s admission establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the statements were false.
Question 22
An informant told police that a man was manufacturing methamphetamine in his garage. The informant stated that she went inside the man’s garage three times and observed supplies for methamphetamine production inside. The informant also told police that the man agreed to sell her some methamphetamine after he made his next batch. The police obtained a search warrant for the man’s garage on the basis of this information and located methamphetamine and supplies for production of methamphetamine. The police arrested the man for possession and manufacture of a controlled substance. The defense, suspecting that the woman lied about going into the man’s garage and agreeing to buy drugs from the man, would like to file a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence of the methamphetamine and supplies on the grounds that the affidavit to support the warrant contained false information.
What additional steps, if any, should the defense take to ensure that the motion to suppress will survive a preliminary hearing and proceed to an evidentiary hearing?
A No additional steps need to be taken, because once the defense identifies the information it believes to be false, the burden is on the prosecution to show that the informant did not lie. B The defense need only gather supporting evidence that the informant’s statements were false. C The defense needs to gather supporting evidence that the informant’s statements were false and supporting evidence that the police either knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard of the truth.
Question 23
Police officers suspected a man of making bootleg DVDs in his apartment. The officers applied for a search warrant, which a magistrate granted after finding probable cause. The warrant described the premises to be searched as the second apartment on the east side of the man’s apartment complex, with a blue door. In fact, the man's apartment did have a blue door, but it was the second apartment on the west side of the complex. The second apartment on the east side had a red door. The officers searched the apartment with the blue door, which in fact belonged to the man in question. The police discovered incriminating evidence during the search, and arrested the man.
If the defense challenges the validity of the warrant, how is the court likely to rule?
A The warrant is invalid, because it described a location that did not exist. B The warrant is invalid, because there was a significant risk that police could have reasonably searched the wrong location. C The warrant is valid, because the police still searched the correct location. D The warrant is valid, because it was issued based on sufficient probable cause.
Question 24
Hoping for help identifying a suspect, the police released a clip of surveillance video from a store that had been robbed. The video showed a woman methodically hiding high-end merchandise in her purse and leaving the store without paying. A citizen tipster responded by identifying the woman and stating that he knew that the woman had also stolen from four other stores in the past week. The police confirmed that the woman identified by the tipster strongly resembled the woman in the video. On the basis of the theft on video and the thefts reported by the tipster, the police then requested and obtained a search warrant for the woman’s home. After executing the search warrant, the police found only the items of merchandise stolen from the store on the video. The police arrested the woman for the theft on video. It was later revealed that the tipster was actually the woman’s ex-husband, that he had made false accusations against her previously, and that
The police obtained a warrant authorizing them to search a man’s home for evidence of illegal bookkeeping. When executing the warrant, the police initially entered a small, separate apartment unit built on top of the man’s garage. Unbeknownst to the officers, the man leased this unit to a tenant. Upon entry to the apartment unit, the officers observed several prescription pill bottles, which they seized. Shortly after seizing the bottles, the officers realized that the unit was not occupied by the man, and the officers left. The officers later inspected the pill bottles and field-tested the contents. They found that the bottles contained controlled substances that did not match the prescriptions on the labels. The tenant was subsequently arrested and charged with possession of controlled substances.
Which of the following is the most likely reason the judge would exclude the evidence of the controlled substances at trial?
A The police acted in bad faith in entering the tenant’s apartment. B The controlled substances did not fall under the plain-view exception. C The police were not lawfully in the tenant’s apartment. D The police did not have probable cause to search the tenant’s apartment.
Question 28
The police suspected a man of stealing several large appliances. They obtained a search warrant for his home. The man had no prior criminal history, and the police had no indication that he was armed or dangerous. When executing the warrant, officers decided to catch him by surprise by breaking down the door without knocking. After discovering the stolen appliances, the police arrested the man and charged him with grand theft. The defense filed a pretrial motion to suppress on the grounds that the police had failed to knock and announce themselves before entering the defendant’s home.
Is the judge likely to grant the defense’s motion to suppress?
A No, because the exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of the knock-and-announce rule. B Yes, because the police had no evidence to suggest that the man might harm them. C Yes, because the police had no evidence to suggest that the man had any weapons. D Yes, because the police had no evidence to suggest that the man might be able to destroy large appliances in a short period of time.
Question 29
The police suspected a woman of a string of burglaries. Several of the stolen items included jewelry. The police obtained a search warrant for her home and, if present, her person. Upon executing the warrant, the police found the woman’s wife at home. The police searched the woman’s wife and found stolen jewelry on her person. The wife was later charged with possession of stolen goods. The defense filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence of the jewelry that the police found on the wife’s person during their search.
If the judge determines that no exception to the warrant requirement applies, should the judge exclude the evidence?
A Yes, because a warrant can never authorize the search of a person. B Yes, because the warrant did not authorize a search of the wife. C No, because the police have a right to detain and search any person present during the execution of a search warrant. D No, because any occupant could easily conceal jewelry on his or her person, and the warrant authorized the police to search for jewelry.
Question 30
The police suspected a mechanic of operating a chop shop, dealing in stolen auto parts, in the back of his auto repair business. They obtained a warrant authorizing a search of the business for stolen vehicles only. While executing the warrant, officers searched through the business’s filing cabinets and discovered cocaine inside. The mechanic was
subsequently arrested and charged with possession of cocaine. The defense filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence of the cocaine found in the search of the business.
Should the judge admit the evidence?
A Yes, because the officers had a search warrant to search the premises where the cocaine was found, and the cocaine was in plain view. B No, because the officers exceeded the scope of the authorized search. C Yes, because the officers had a search warrant to search the premises where the cocaine was found, and the cocaine was on the premises; it is irrelevant whether the cocaine was in plain view.
Question 31
Several undercover police officers infiltrated a large-scale drug distribution ring. The officers sought to obtain more information about the supplier and attached a small tracking device to a briefcase full of cash used to purchase cocaine from the supplier. The officers did not obtain a warrant to install the tracking device. The supplier accepted the briefcase, and the officers tracked the supplier’s movements to a small business. After conducting surveillance on the business for several weeks, the officers obtained a search warrant based on the information they had learned from the surveillance. The officers discovered large amounts of cocaine and money during the search, and they arrested the supplier on a charge of drug trafficking. The defense moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the business on the ground that the tracking device had violated the supplier’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Is the court likely to grant the motion?
A No, because in accepting property from another, a person assumes the risk that the property may be bugged or tracked. B No, because the officers obtained a warrant before searching the business. C Yes, because the tracking device will be considered an advanced sense-enhancing technology. D Yes, because the use of a tracker always constitutes a search.
Question 32
Police officers applied for a warrant to search a warehouse on a street named “1st Street NW” for evidence of stolen goods. The warrant affidavit described the location to be searched as a gray warehouse building with a green-and-white garage door. The officers had probable cause to believe a theft ring was storing contraband inside the warehouse, which was located in the city’s only industrial park. The magistrate accidentally authorized a search of a warehouse in a gray building with a green-and-white garage door on “1st Street SW.” There were no warehouses at all on 1st Street SW, which was a residential neighborhood, and the police searched the correct warehouse on 1st Street NW without returning to the magistrate for a correction. The warehouse owner was arrested for organized theft. Prior to trial, the defense challenged the validity of the warrant in a motion to suppress.
Is the court likely to grant the motion to suppress?
A Yes, because the warrant described the wrong location. B Yes, because the warrant described a nonexistent location. C Yes, because the officers searched a location other than that authorized in the warrant. D No, because the error did not create a risk that police would search the wrong location
Question 33
The police obtained a warrant to search a 10-acre farm for evidence of illegal drug manufacture. In executing the warrant, the officers brought drug-sniffing dogs to assist with the search. One of the dogs picked up a scent and tracked it to the property line, which was surrounded by a fence. The dog’s handler jumped the fence in order to pursue the track further, although the handler knew that she was entering a neighbor’s property. The dog located a large amount of heroin and cash buried in open fields on the neighbor’s property. The neighbor’s property was several acres large, with the neighbor’s
indicated irregularities in the amount of opioids dispensed. The detective submitted an affidavit requesting a search warrant for the nurse’s car, home, and locker at work. The detective did not identify the informant in the affidavit.
What is the most likely reason that the court would deny the detective’s request for a search warrant?
A The court cannot consider hearsay evidence from an unnamed informant. B There is insufficient evidence of the informant’s credibility. C There is insufficient evidence of the basis of the informant’s knowledge. D There is insufficient evidence of truth in this particular case.
Question 37
For several days, the police staked out a house that they suspected was being used as a drug den. From a van parked across the street, the police observed several drug transactions occur inside the house through the front windows. The police also attached a hidden camera and wire to an informant to record conversations about drug deals inside the house. The police did not obtain a warrant to record the conversations through the informant. Finally, the police searched the house’s garbage bin after it was placed on the street for collection, and they found needles, baggies, and other items of drug paraphernalia in the garbage. The police ultimately arrested the residents of the house for possession of drugs and operation of a drug house. The defense sought to suppress evidence of: (1) the officers’ observations of the drug transactions, (2) the video and audio recordings from the informant, and (3) the paraphernalia from the garbage bin.
Which evidence, if any, is the judge likely to exclude under United States Supreme Court precedent?
A The officers’ observations, the video and audio recordings, and the paraphernalia. B Only the officers’ observations, and the video and audio recordings. C Only the video and audio recordings. D Only the officers’ observations. E Only the paraphernalia. F None of the evidence is likely to be suppressed under Supreme Court precedent.
Question 38
The police were investigating a woman’s claim that her ex-boyfriend was stalking her. The woman had received several threatening and harassing handwritten letters at her home, workplace, and on her car. Without first obtaining a warrant, officers went to the ex-boyfriend’s workplace and encountered the ex-boyfriend in the parking lot. The officer walked up to the ex-boyfriend and asked if they could speak with him. The ex-boyfriend agreed and denied any involvement with the stalking episodes. The officers then produced a subpoena requiring the boyfriend to write a handwriting exemplar. After a forensic handwriting expert found the ex-boyfriend’s handwriting matched the handwriting in the letters the woman received, the police arrested the ex-boyfriend for stalking. Before trial, the defense moved to suppress the handwriting exemplar.
Is the court likely to suppress the exemplar?
A Yes, because the police did not have a warrant for production of the exemplar. B Yes, because the police unlawfully seized the boyfriend in the parking lot. C No, because the police had a subpoena. D No, because compelled production of a handwriting exemplar is not a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Question 39
A confidential informant provided information to the police regarding a money-laundering scheme at a nail salon. The police obtained banking records from the salon and surveilled the premises for several weeks. After a lengthy investigation that corroborated some of the informant’s information, the police obtained a search warrant for the salon and discovered incriminating evidence during the search. The salon’s owner was subsequently charged with money-
laundering. The owner’s attorneys discovered credible evidence that the confidential informant lied about some of the information that was included in the affidavit supporting the issuance of the search warrant. The attorneys filed a Franks motion challenging the warrant and moving to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the warrant. If the judge finds at a preliminary hearing that there was sufficient probable cause without the allegedly false pieces of information, what is the appropriate procedure?
A The judge should hold an evidentiary hearing, because the defense is always entitled to an evidentiary hearing in these circumstances. B The judge should deny the motion, because the warrant was supported by sufficient probable cause even excluding the false information. C The judge should grant the motion, because a warrant based on an affidavit containing false information is always invalid.
Question 40
The police suspected a doctor of operating a pill mill by over-prescribing opioids to patients. Officers recruited a patient to assist with the investigation, asking the patient to call the doctor and request more pain medication. The patient allowed the police to listen in on the conversation, during which the doctor made several incriminating statements. The police later arrested the doctor for trafficking in opioids. Before trial, the defense sought to suppress the police officers’ testimony regarding the conversation.
Is the court likely to grant the motion to suppress?
A Yes, because the doctor had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone conversation. B Yes, because the patient acted as a government agent at the request of the police. C No, because the doctor did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone conversation. D No, because the content of a conversation is not physical evidence that can be suppressed.
Question 41
A businessman sent a letter through the postal service to a friend at her home. The letter contained insider-trading information. The police intercepted the letter from the friend’s mailbox, located on the roadside of the friend’s home. The police read the letter and, based on incriminating evidence in the letter and other evidence gathered over the course of their investigation, arrested the businessman and friend for conspiracy to commit insider trading. At trial, the friend moved to suppress the contents of the letter.
Is the court likely to find that the police conducted a search by reading the letter?
A Yes, because the friend had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a sealed letter. B No, because the mailbox was on the road and therefore anyone could access its contents. C No, because the mailbox was not on the curtilage of the friend’s home, and therefore the police did not conduct a search by accessing it. D No, because the businessman and friend transmitted the letter through the postal service, which could have accessed the letter’s contents at any time.
Question 42
The police executed a warrant on a man’s home to search for evidence of child pornography. The warrant authorized police to obtain only computers, electronics, and other digital storage systems at the man’s house. While executing the warrant, an officer observed a firearm. The officer had no knowledge of any circumstance (such as a prior felony conviction) that would prohibit the man from possessing a firearm. However, the officer picked up the firearm, looked for its serial number, and discovered that the serial number had been altered such that it was illegible. The man admitted that he knew the gun had an altered serial number when he purchased it and that the gun was likely stolen. The police arrested
C No, because the doctor did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone conversation. D No, because the content of a conversation is not physical evidence that can be suppressed.
Question 46
While out on patrol, a police officer noticed a shed in the back of someone’s property, near the road, with some apparent activity inside. The shed was not contained within a fence and was a hundred feet away from the home on the property. The officer decided to investigate, parked her car, and walked onto the property. As she approached the shed, she noticed a strong chemical smell, consistent with the smell of a methamphetamine lab, emanating from the shed. She observed several empty containers of acetone and ammonia discarded by the door, as well as broken batteries. The police officer knew that these items were commonly used to manufacture methamphetamine. The officer walked into the shed and observed two men manufacturing methamphetamine.
Which evidence, if any, was obtained through a search under the Fourth Amendment?
A The chemical smell, the containers and batteries, and and the officer’s observations of the men inside the shed. B The containers and batteries, and the officer’s observations of the men inside the shed. C Only the officer’s observations of the men inside the shed. D None of the evidence was obtained through a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Question 47
An employee at a private law firm had child pornography files stored on his workplace computer. The computer was password-protected and located in the employee’s work office, and the employee was the only person who used the computer, although the employer’s technical staff members routinely audited and maintained all computers in the workplace. The police tracked several transactions on a file-sharing server and obtained the IP address connected to the law firm. The police then searched all computers at the law firm until they located the employee’s files. The police did not obtain a warrant prior to searching the computers. The police arrested the man, whose attorney then filed a motion to suppress the evidence.
Which rationale best explains the judge’s denial of the defense’s motion and admission of the evidence?
A An employee never has an expectation of privacy in his workplace. B The employee’s computer was subject to routine audits and maintenance by the employer. C The employee shared his IP address with the file-sharing server when he transmitted the files. D Only the employee ever accessed his workplace computer.
Question 48
An officer saw a woman whom he knew to be a habitual drunkard out driving at 2:15 a.m., shortly after the bars in town closed. The officer followed her to an apartment complex, where she parked, exited the car, and started to walk into the building. The officer had not observed anything in the woman’s driving pattern to suggest that she was driving while intoxicated. The officer parked, rolled down his window, and asked the woman, “Hey, would you mind coming over here to answer a few questions?” The woman turned around, walked to the officer’s car, and began speaking with him. At that point, the officer noted that she had bloodshot eyes, her breath smelled of alcohol, and she was slurring her words. The officer arrested the woman for drunk driving. At trial, the defense filed a motion to suppress evidence of the officer’s observations of the woman’s bloodshot eyes, breath, and slurred words on the grounds that the officer had illegally seized her.
Is the judge likely to grant the motion to suppress?
A No, because the officer engaged the woman in a consensual encounter when he called her over to his car. B No, because the officer had grounds to believe the woman was driving while intoxicated based on her history of drunkenness and the time of night.
C Yes, because the officer did not have probable cause to call the woman over to his car. D Yes, because the woman submitted to the officer’s authority by following his request to come over and speak with him.
Question 49
A county designated an administrator in the police department as a magistrate in order to alleviate the burden on the judiciary in approving search warrants. The administrator continued his duties at the police department but was also available to sign warrants for officers as necessary, with the added convenience of having an office in-house for that purpose. The administrator did not have a law degree.
Which of the following facts about this arrangement, if any, is a court most likely to find problematic in a subsequent challenge to a warrant issued by the administrator?
A The administrator is not a judge. B The administrator is not a lawyer. C The administrator is not neutral and detached. D The court will not find any problems, because the arrangement is permissible.
Question 50
Several undercover police officers infiltrated a large-scale drug distribution ring. The officers sought to obtain more information about the supplier and attached a small tracking device to a briefcase full of cash used to purchase cocaine from the supplier. The officers did not obtain a warrant to install the tracking device. The supplier accepted the briefcase, and the officers tracked the supplier’s movements to a small business. After conducting surveillance on the business for several weeks, the officers obtained a search warrant based on the information they had learned from the surveillance. The officers discovered large amounts of cocaine and money during the search, and they arrested the supplier on a charge of drug trafficking. The defense moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the business on the ground that the tracking device had violated the supplier’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Is the court likely to grant the motion?
A No, because in accepting property from another, a person assumes the risk that the property may be bugged or tracked. B No, because the officers obtained a warrant before searching the business. C Yes, because the tracking device will be considered an advanced sense-enhancing technology. D Yes, because the use of a tracker always constitutes a search.
5 Th^ Amendment
Question
