Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
116 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Police are trying to solve a hit and run homicide. They set up a hotline for people to call who have information regarding the incident. One unidentified caller leaves a message that he saw the accident at at 6:00PM. at the corner of Albany and Olympic. The caller describes the car as a 2008 blue Toyota Corolla with an out of state license plate. He also says the car had a fender that was hanging off in the back. He says the driver was 6'2" tall while bald and wearing a Dodger's t-shirt. Police check local garages to see if any cars with that description have come in for repairs lately. The local Toyota dealership says they have had two cars with that description. The owner of one of them was about 5'11", white and bald. Police ask the dealership for that owner's address. They now seek a search warrant for the home and garage of the owner of that car. |
1. No. Don't know the credibility of the caller.
2. Yes. Totality of the circumstances. |
|
|
Police hear that a guy names "Mike" is running a cocaine operation. They stop several known addicts in the area and ask them who sells them their cocaine. All of them say "Mike." Then, police receive information from one of their long-time informants (who has helped them apprehend at least three other drug dealers) that Mike received new shipment of cocaine from his source on January 15, 2013. The informant gives the police Mike's home address. Based upon this information, police seek a search warrant for Mike's house. In the application for the warrant, the attesting police officers states that in his experience, it takes at least several days for cocaine to be sold once it is delivered to the drop house. |
1. No, doesn’t say how he knows they received a new shipment.
2. YES |
|
|
You are a magistrate. A special agent of the Bureau of Criminal investigation with six years of law enforcement experience including drug investigations and training, comes to you for a warrant to search a residence for drugs. The agent provides you with the following information under oath: two weeks ago, she discovered items associated with meth production (such as small pieces of plastic and tin foil) in the garbage bags taken form the curb of the suspect's home; an informant has said that the suspects are generally known as one of the best "meth" makes in town; a check of the state records show that the owners of the house have two prior convictions for marijuana sales. |
Yes. A/S only applies to informants.
|
|
|
Erika and Trevor have just taken a trip to Mexico. On their way back into the country, they are stopped at the border and asked to go to secondary inspection. At secondary inspection, border officials ask Erika to lift her skirt to see if she is bringing in any drugs. The officials also remove the stereo system, heating mechanisms and wheels of Trevor's car to see if there are drugs hidden in any of these compartments. It taken about 2 1/2 hours for the officials to remove everything in the car. They leave the car a mess. It takes Trevor another 4 hours to put everything back together. At the end, the officials tell Trevor and Erika that they are free to go. No drugs are found. Trevor and Erika sue the officials for violations of their Fourth Amendment rights. How should the court rule? |
Answer: Should the court rule that there was not sufficient reasonable suspicion for a secondary suspicion. In addition, even if there were, it too took much time to (6 1/2 hours) to search the car?
|
|
|
You are a magistrate. A special agent of the fraud bureau with ten years of experience in fraud investigation comes to you for a warrant. He states under oath: he crept in the suspect's yard and looked in the suspect's open windows where he saw the suspect's dining room table covered with checkbooks with different people's names. He has heard that the suspect's neighbors had been complaining that their mail, including checks from the bank, had been stolen; he observed a brand, new expensive car in the driveway of the suspects. Based on this information, and his expert opinion that the suspects were operating a fraud scheme of their home, he requests a search warrant for the house. |
1. No. The search was invalid (curtilage)
|
|
|
Police see a group of kids huddling on the playground of a school. When police investigate what is going on, they find a gun and some cocaine. Police seek to arrest and search all the kids on that part of the playground at that time.
Is there enough for probable cause? |
Depends on how close.
|
|
|
Defendant's car is parked in the school parking lot. Police officers have a dog sniff the car for drugs. Is there a search?
|
No. 1) May not be a government actor; 2) No REP
|
|
|
D's car is parked in the school parking lot. Dean Gold has campus security dogs sniff the car for drugs. Search?
|
No. Private actor.
|
|
|
Jennifer takes the train to San Diego for a job interview. A police officer is also on the train. Because Jennifer is hogging the luggage rack, the officer starts squeezing J's bag so he can share the rack with his luggage. When he squeezes the bag, the officer feels a brick of heroin. Search?
|
No search. NO extradoinary movement.
Bond-search (extaordinary movement) |
|
|
Joyce visits friends in New Mexico. Unbeknownst to her, her friends have become DEA informants. They are wearing concealed tape recorders and tape a conversation in which J says she will sell drugs to pay her law school tuition. |
Consensual motioning. No search.
|
|
|
Police plant a tracking device on Tim's car. Stephanie steals the car and her movements are tracked for ten days. |
No search--not her car! No REP!
|
|
|
Police plant a tracking device in a gift delivered to Jack. Jack takes the gift into his house and carries it form room to room. His action are monitored by the tracking device in the gift. Search?
|
Search!
CA: No search b/c willingly took it into the house. (2) Karo- follow beeper into house = search. Cops have to turn beeper off b4 enters house |
|
|
Police suspect Vic of child molestation. They use cameras outside of local schools and playgrounds to montior Vic's movements. search?
|
No search. No REP
|
|
|
Private security guards call the police and say they have seized a plastic baggie from Grace's purse. They put the baggie back in the purse before the police arrive. The security guards give the police the purse. The police open the purse and test the contents of the bag for drugs. Search? |
No search--they aren't doing anything private security guards already did.
|
|
|
Scott is an inmate in jail. Prison officials enter his cell and read his personal journal. Search?
|
No. No REP.
|
|
|
Police take a DNA swab of the inside of your mouth.
Search? |
YES.
|
|
|
Undercover police ask you to seal an evelope so they can get a DNA sample. Search?
|
Yes.
|
|
|
Police peer into your backyard through a hole in your fence. Search?
|
No.
|
|
|
Police climb over your fence to inspect plants you have been growing 100 ft from your home. Search?
|
Yes.
|
|
|
Police peer into your windows from the street. Search?
|
No.
|
|
|
Police hang glide over you home to see plants growing right youside your backyard. Search?
|
Yes. Use both majority and O'Connors concurrence.
|
|
|
Police photograph through your windows with a telephoto lens. Search?
|
No. (As long as on the street/not curtilage)
|
|
|
Police pose as a child in a chat room discuss and read your chat room communications. Search?
|
No. No REP
|
|
|
Police request records from your utility company to determine if you are using an amount of eleictricity that would indicate you are growing marijuana. Seach?
|
No. (3rd party)
|
|
|
Police open your mail, read it, and then reseal it and put it back in your mailbox. Search?
|
YES. REP!
|
|
|
Police hold your mailup to the sun to see if they can read its contents. Search?
|
NO.
|
|
|
A police officer poses as a bellhop at a hotel so he can carry your luggae and determine from its weight whether your luggage is likley to contain missing, stolen, objects. Search?
|
No.
|
|
|
Police smell your hands to determine whether you have been handling marijuana. Search?
|
No. No REP for contraband.
|
|
|
Police plant a tracking device on your car and follow your driving patterns 24/7 for three weeks. Search?
|
Yes.
|
|
|
Police pant a tracking device in your coat pocket to follow your movements. Search?
|
Yes.
|
|
|
A police dog sniffs your luggage and detects the odor of marijuana. Search?
|
No.
|
|
|
A police dog sniffs your front door and detects the odor of marijuana in your house. Search?
|
Yes. (Jardines-Trespass theory)
|
|
|
UCLA plants hidden cameras in its classrooms to determine if students are illegally downloading copyrighted materials. Search?
|
No, no REP (anyone can see your computer)
|
|
|
Eric Chang tells police that he has just bought some drugs from Min Yun and that she is selling drugs out of her car parked near the law school. Eric describes in detail the blue duffle bag in which Min keeps the drugs. He says that the drugs are kept in the duffle bag in the trunk. Eric has been a reliable snitch so police rush over to the law school and see Min's parked car. They quickly arrest Min, put her in the back of the patrol car, and then search the passenger compartment and trunk of her car. They find a gun in the glove compartment and drugs in the duffle bag in the trunk. 1) Under what theory could police search the passenger compartment of Mins car? 2) Under what theory could police search the trunk of Min's car? |
1) Automobile excpetion and search incident to arrest (but SILA wouldn't be allowed b/c Min is in the back of patrol car)
2) Only automobile |
|
|
Jonathan is arrested for driving with expired registration tags. When he is arrested, he is told to sit on the curb five feet from his vehicle. Police then search the passenger compartment and find drugs. They also find drugs in the trunk. |
1) Yes. Passenger search incident to arrest (grab area-Stevens)
2) No. No reason to believe there would be drugs. |
|
|
Ian is working on his car and is upon on blocks in front of his house. Police have just identified him as the man seen on videotape robbing a local jewelry store. According to Ian's neighbor, Ian was seen immediately after the robbery putting bulging sacks into the trunk of this car. Police rush over and search Ian's trunk. Inside, they find the sacks, open them and find the stolen jewelry. After they find the stolen jewelry, they arrest Ian. |
1) NOT search incident to arrest
BUT might not meet exception--on bricks |
|
|
Police har a passerby yell, "I've been stabbed and robbed. He ran into the yellow house. Hurry, he'll get away.." The police break into the yellow house and begin to search every room. Not only do they look in an all the closets and under the bed, they also look in the toilet tank and in the washing machine. In the toilet tank, the police find several weapons. In the washing machine, they find bloody clothing. The police also find the robber behind a dresser in a bedroom. They arrest him and charge him. How should the court rule? |
Warden v. Hayden: Yes, it's hot pursuit. Anywhere person could be & evidence in plain view.
|
|
|
Little Ricky gets lost on his way home. A police officer sees him wandering in the streets and drives him to his house. Grateful to see the boy, Ricky's parents invite the police officer into their house. On the kitchen table, the officer sees a stack of money, some of which is covered with red dye. In the officer' experience, the red dye on money usually means that it has been stolen from a bank and is part of the bait bills. The officers seize the money and arrest Ricky's parents. Was the seizure of the bills permissible? |
Yes. Plain view, and can be there b/c of invitation.
|
|
|
Officers have an arrest warrant for Karen Roach. They plan to arrest her for credit card fraud. When they enter her house to arrest her, Karen is in her living room. However, police hear noises in the bedroom. Afraid that others in the house might try to interfere with the arrest, police run into the bedroom. They see a stack of credit cards and some marijuana. May they seize this evidence even if Karen is in the living room? |
Yes It's a protective sweep.
So, they can seize the marijuana (immediately apparent). Credit cards?? Probably not. |
|
|
Police officers go to Nick Quincey's home to ask him about some recent burglaries in the area. As they wait in his living room, they start looking under the sofa cushions. There, they find a couple of computers. The officers start the computers to see whose information might be on them. Sure enough, they see that the computers appear to belong to some neighbors who recently reported their laptops to be stolen. Have the officers conduct an illegal search? |
YES. Has to be in plain view/went beyond the scope of consent.
|
|
|
Maya and Nicholas own and operate a gun store. Pursuant to federal regulation, officers of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regularly inspect such stores to inspection are made w/o notice and include the ATF officers looking through the store's books, as well as looking through the store to see if there are any unregistered weapons. Maya and Nicholas want to challenge the searches as violations for their Fourth Amendment rights. Are they likely to be successful with their challenge? |
No.
|
|
|
Sevan runs a health club and spa. The club is licensed to provide exercise and spa facilities. On Saturday night, right before the club closes, uniform police officers show up at the club, demanding its records and searching the exercise rooms and locker room areas. They claim to be doing a search under the Health and Safety Code which provides that health clubs and spas may be searched on a regular basis to determine if there is compliance with licensing requirements and health standards. During the search, police find illegal steroids and way too many dirty towels. Should the evidence be suppressed? |
No, assuming there is an adequate statutory scheme providing notice and limiting discretion,
|
|
|
Government officials are concerned about the growing drug problem in the United States. Accordingly, they order drug testing for every person who uses the state and local parks. Noting that a number of accidents occur each year in these parks, and that families need safe places to visit, government officials require each driver to give a urine test when entering a state or federal park. The results of the drug test are automatically forwarded to the police. Mr. and Mrs. Coe Kain challenge the policy as violating the Fourth Amendment. How should the court rule? |
Court should not allow this as a special needs search.
Level of intrusion vs. government interest. Level of intrusion is very high in compariosn to genral safety. Second, it is automatically forwarded to the police (primary purpose CANNOT be investigatory) |
|
|
Calvin attends the local public high school. Concerned with a growing alcohol problem, school officials have announced that they will randomly test all students who attend school dances to determine whether they have alcohol in their system. The results of these alcohol tests are reported the students' parents and their principal. If a student is found to have alcohol in his or her system, he or she is held back a year in school and forced to go through additional health education classes. How should the court rule on this? |
Probably does not violate the Fourth Amendment, although holding an individual back one year may be too severe?
|
|
|
Police are driving through a neighborhood when they see a group of kids partying on Weiss's lawn. The police approach the kids to see what they are doing. When they do so, they hear someone inside the house scream, "And here's another kick for dating my girl" They hear someone moan. Police rush inside where they find Mohsen and Connor having a minor fight. While they are inside, they also see drugs and drug paraphernalia. The police arrest Mohsen and Connor for illegal possession of drugs. Should the evidence be suppressed? |
No. It was in plain view and the officers were lawfully there pursuant to exigent circumstances.
|
|
|
Police hear a scream from a running victim. The victim is yelling, "He stole my new bracelet. Be careful, he has a gun!" The police follow the robber as he runs into a nearby home. When the police charge into the home, they see several marijuana plants, a pile of envelopes, and an illegal automatic rifle. The home belongs to Maria. Police open some of the sealed envelopes and discover tax refunds in the names of different people. The police seize all of the items and charge Maria with possession of narcotics, tax fraud, and possession of an illegal weapon. Is the seized evidence admissible? |
Tax refunds inadmissible. Not immediately apparent contraband.
|
|
|
The police are walking past Max's house when they hear a big explosion. They rush inside and see a meth lab in full operation. The officers seize evidence from the lab. They do not have a warrant for the search. Have they violated Max's Fourth Amendment rights?
|
No. Exigent circumstnaces.
|
|
|
Laurie Flevenson leaves the door of her home open while she runs around the neighborhood trying to find her cat. While she is down the block, the police cruise by and see Flevenson's front door ajar. No one answers when the police knock on the door. Inside, the police see a house that is a complete shambles. They go in and find stolen jewelry in Flevenson's house. Flevenson moves to suppress the evidence. how should the court rule? |
Admissible. Community caretaking exception.
|
|
|
Officer Steve conducts a warrantless arrest of Mario for gambling. Mario then tells Officer Steve that he has cocaine in a storage locker. Using the information, Officer Steve gets a warrant to search the storage locker and seizes the cocaine. As it turns out, Officer Steve does not have probable cause for the arrest. Mario moves to suppress the cocaine found in the storage locker. How should the court rule? |
Where is the illegal conduct? Does that illegal conduct lead to the evidence?
Here, illegal conduct is arrest. That illegal arrest leads to the evidence of cocaine. So, cocaine would be suppressed. |
|
|
Officer Chan suspects Sevan of receiving stolen goods. Without a warrant, Officer Chan enters Sevan's house and sees stolen goods. Officer Chan than leaves some of his fellow officers in Sevan's house and he goes and gets a warrant. Officer Chan does not use any of the information from what he saw in Sevan's house to get the warrant. When the warrant is issued, Officer Chan comes back and seizes the goods. Sevan moves to suppress the stolen goods found in the house. How should the court rule? |
Have to say you had probable cause before.
|
|
|
Assume the same situation as in question 1, but unbeknownst to Officer Steve, Mario is also being investigated independently by Officer Reeb for narcotics violations. Officer Reeb obtains a lawful search warrant for the storage locker, but before she has time to execute it, Officer Steve has conducted this search. Mario moves to suppress the cocaine found in the storage locker. How should the court rule? |
Not independent source. It's inevitable discovery.
|
|
|
The Health Department is conducting its regular inspection of apartments in Park LaBrea. Before it can inspect Heidy' house, a police officer illegally enters Heidy's apartment and sees drugs in plain view. As he is arresting Heidy and collecting the evidence, the Health Department officials knock on the door to do their inspection. Heidy is charged with unlawful possession of the drugs. She moves to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule? |
How were the drugs found? Unlawfully
Inevitable discovery? Yes, it would have been in plain view. Matters that it was a valid administrative search! |
|
|
The police do not give Heidy her Miranda rights before interrogating her. Heidy ends up confessing to the police that she has been dealing drugs for her law school campus. She also says that additional drugs can be found in Professor Flevenson's classroom, hidden in a little compartment at the front of the lecture hall. The police locate the drugs. Heidy moves to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule? |
She can't challenge the search. Even though it derived from the illegal confession.
|
|
|
Heidy has the chance to hire and speak with a lawyer. She sends a note to the police telling them that the more drugs can be found in her car. Police get a warrant for the car, search it and find drugs. Heidy moves to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule?
|
Admit the evidence. This is like Wong Son. Intervening/Purging factors.
ALSO, fruit of the poisonous tree doesn't apply to Miranda violations. |
|
|
Officer Davis illegally arrests Kelly for bank robbery. Kelly confesses. However, the court suppresses Kelly's statement. Nonetheless, when Kelly takes the witness stand at trial and denies she has anything to do with a bank robbery, the prosecutor questions her about her confession and moves to introduce it into evidence. Defense counsel objects. How should the court rule? |
OK. Impeachment purposes.
|
|
|
Officer Marrles obtains a search warrant for Matt's house. However, the search warrant turns out to be defective because it mistakes the statutory number for the crime the officers are investigating. It also is short of probable cause because it provides no corroboration of an anonymous tip by an information. When the defense moves to suppress evidence found in the search of Matt's home, the prosecutor argues the good faith exception. How should the court rule? |
Probably deny. Good faith exception only applies when it was objectively reasonable to rely on warrant.
|
|
|
Police stop Natalie as she is driving away from K-Mart. Michael and Jack are in the car with Natalie. Police search everything in the car, including Jack's backpack. Inside the backpack the police find cocaine. Jack tells the officers that the cocaine belongs to Mike. The police charge Natalie, Mike, and Jack with possession of the cocaine. Which one of the defendants has standing to challenge the seizure of the cocaine and under what theory? |
Natale? Yes, it's her car.
Jack? Yes, it's his backpack Mike? No, none of his things searched were his. |
|
|
Trevor and Diana both live in a trailer park. Diana has told Trevor that he is welcome to hang out at her house any time. She even gives him a key. Trevor regularly uses Diana's house to do his laundry because he dos not have a washing machine. He also comes over when he wants to watch Diana's satellite television. Police get an anonymous call that there are drugs in Diana's house. Without a warrant, they enter Diana's house and find Trevor sitting on the couch, eating popcorn, watching the television and smoking marijuana. They arrest Trevor and seize the marijuana. Does Trevor have standing to challenge the search? |
Yes, probably. Keys, regular domestic activities. No argument: Not sleeping there
|
|
|
Jonathan, Scott and Aram are driving in Jonathan's car. The police pull over the car without any reasonable suspicion. They look inside the car and see Scott and Aram in the backseat. The order them out, pat them down and find drugs in their pockets. Do Scott and Aram have standing to challenge the illegal seizure of the car and the subsequent discovery of drugs on their persons? |
Yes. This is Brenlin.
|
|
|
Bonnie and Clyde are involved in a conspiracy to rob banks. An anonymous informant tips off the police to the scheme. Accordingly, the police immediately search Bonnie's home without a warrant. Inside Bonnie's home, the police find detailed plans of the bank and a demand note written by Clyde. Clyde is arrested at his home down the block from Bonnie's house. He moves to suppress the evidence found in Bonnie's home. Does Clyde have standing to challenge the search? |
No?
|
|
|
Bart was a master drug smuggler, who used mules. One of his mules was caught with drugs. Bart was implicated because she showed up on the mule's airplane ticket. HE claims the drugs are his and files a motion to suppress the drugs b/c they were illegally obtained under the Fourth Amendment. Will his motion to suppress be granted? |
The fact that Bart has a possessory interest in the cocaine seized is not itself enough to allow him to challenge the Constitutionality of the seizure. Only if Bart's possession of the cocaine gave him a legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to that item will Bart be allowed to protest. Once Bart put the cocanie in Karen's person, where any customs agent might look at it, where Karen might have shown it to third person, Bart almost certainly lost any expectation of privacy.
|
|
|
Leslie reported to the police that her home had been burglarized. While Leslie went to the restroom, the officer went through some of her papers and found a letter that her brother believed she killed her mother. Officer took this lead, which was key in convicting Leslie. Will the court granted Leslie's motion to suppress the testimony of her brother/witness lead?
|
No, courts are hesitant to grant a motion to suppress for a lead on a witness as fruit of the poisonous tree.
|
|
|
Officer O'Brien unlawfully stopped and searched a couple. Woman had 5 joints on her. Man said, "I can't let her go down for this. Some of the joints are mine!" Is the man's confession admissible?
|
Yes. Although there is some connection with the illegal stop, the issue is always whether there have been intervening events. Here the fact that Peter's statement was somewhat voluntary, and was not in response to questioning, might purge the taint.
|
|
|
Police arrest Joyce for robbing a bank. On the way to the station house, the ask her if this was the first time she ever robbed a bank. Joyce says, "yes, but I've always thought it was a better way to make money than being a lawyer." Police officers then give Joyce her Police arrest Joyce for robbing a bank. On the way to the stationhouse, they ask her if this was the first time she ever robbed a bank. Joyce says, “yes, but I’ve always thought it was a better way to make money than being a lawyer.” Joyce makes this statement before she has been Mirandized. At the stationhouse, Joyce is given her Miranda rights and signs a written waiver. She then provides a full statement as to why she robbed the bank, how she planned the robbery and what she planned to do with the proceeds. Is Joyce's statement in the police car admissible? Is Joyce's statement at the station house admissible? |
Police car: No.
Station house: Probably yes. This is like Elstad. Time-space difference and good faith. What if police started their interrogation at the station house with: "Well, Joyce, you've already told us that you've always wanted to rob a bank. IS that your statement and do you want ot give us more details?-->THIS WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE. too much like Seibert (using old confession to elicit new one) |
|
|
Al Kappone is arrested for bank robbery. As a result of his confession, the police locate a bag of loot with this fingerprints, two witnesses who saw him rob the bank, and a further confession. Assuming there has been a violation of Kapone's Miranda, rights, can this evidence be sued against Kapone at trial?
|
Loot with fingerprints-Yes (Putane)
Two witnesses--Yes (Tucker) Further confession-Need more facts (Probably impeachment if it was voluntary) |
|
|
Leo is arrested for selling drugs. The police tell him that he has the right to remain silent, but they forget to tell him that he has the right to counsel. Leo spills his guts to the officers and tells them all about his drug sales. Before trial, Leo makes a motion to suppress his statement. How should the court rule?
|
Should exclude the statement.
Assume that the court suppresses the statement. IF Leo takes the witness stand and claims he has never seen drugs in his life, can P use the statements against him? YES (impeachment) If the statement has been beaten out of Leo, can P refer to it? NO, it's not voluntary. IF it's not voluntary, it can't be used for any purpose, even impeachment. (suspicious that involuntary statements are not true). |
|
|
Jared is arrested for trying to ignite his underwear on a plane flight. When he was arrested on the plane, the air marshals are concerned that he may have more explosives. Without giving Jared his Miranda rights, the Marshal interrogates Jared as to whether there are more explosives. Jared tells him that all of the powerful stuff is in his underwear. When Jared is charged with possessing an explosive device on a plane, he moves to suppress his statement. How should the court rule? |
Quarrels-no, this is the qurrels exception. So, you would be able to use the statement.
|
|
|
Jon is arrested for running a house of prostitution. When he is booked that the station, the booking officer asks Jon for his name, address, birth date, weight, and names of any spouses, partners, or significant others. The officers did not given John his Miranda rights before asking these questions. Jon tells the officer his address, which happens to be the same as the house of prostitution. he also gives the name of one of the girls in the house as his fiance. John moves to suppress his statements. Should the motion be granted? |
No. Regular booking questions EXCEPT FOR name of spouse. Argue if they are/are not routine.
|
|
|
Vanessa is arrested for robbing a bank. When the officers first give her the Miranda rights, Vanessa just rolls her eyes. The officer then puts a waiver of rights form in front of Vanessa. She just pushes it away. However, she starts to answer the officer's questions. She admits robbing a bank so that she can buy more Girl Scout cookies. She just can't get enough of those cookies. Should Vanessa' statement be suppressed? |
Statement should NOT be suppressed. It's an implied waiver.
|
|
|
James is arrested for illegal gambling. Police inform him of his Miranda rights, but James tells them, I invoke my right to remain silent" Police say, OK that's your right. If you change your mind let us know." 30 min later the same officers say to James, "Don't worry. We aren't going to ask you about the gambling. We were just wondering if you can clear up some question is we have about one of your other businesses." The officers then reread his Miranda rights. James says, "Fine, I wont tell you about the gambling, but here is how I made a ton of money for law school tuition." How should the court rule? |
The statement should probably be suppressed.
Same officers, shorter time than Mosely, same place. Not really a totally different subject (sort of related to fraud/economic crimes). |
|
|
Now lets assume that James says, "I invoke my right to remain silent and my right to counsel." Would this make a difference?
|
YES. (unless there has been a 14 break in custody)
|
|
|
The police officers reasonably suspected E was guilty of stealing a diamond. The police officer went to E's house and asked if he could come int to ask some questions about a recent robbery. E invited the officer in. After 45 min of questioning, E said "I better go to the grocery store before it closes." The officer said, "No, I think we really have to get to the bottom of this." Then E confessed to the crime. Is E's statement admissible? |
Depends on whether E was in custody.
A reasonable person after being told that she could not go to the grocery store, would probably not feel free to leave. |
|
|
Nell, a wealthy businesswomen, disappeared one day. There was a ransom demand for $1 million dollars. Nell's husband met the kidnappers and gave the ransom money. The officers follow the car the kidnapper went into. There, the officer said to the kidnapper, "IF anything happens to Nell, you'll get the chair under the Lindberg law. Tell us where she is, and save your life. Where is she?" If the kidnapper answers, is his statement admissible? |
Yes. Emergency exception as established in Quarrels.
|
|
|
Nestor was arrested on armed robbery charges, and taken into the station house. He was read a complete set of Miranda warnings. Nestor made no statement or even gesture indicating that he understood the warnings and his waiving his rights. The police immediately began questioning him. Nestor answers their questions, thus incriminating himself. May his statements be introduced against him at trial as part of the prosecution's case in chief? |
No.
|
|
|
After a series of muggins within a four square block, police conducted a comprehensive sweep of the area. The mugger was described as white, male, about six feet tall, with blond hair and a goatee. Officer Leary noticed Byron walking nervously down the street with his hand in his pockets. Leary could tell Byron was white, but couldn't tell if he had a goatee. Leary attempted to approach Byron to determine if he had one. Byron ran into an apartment corridor and Leary saw his goatee in the lighted stairway. Leary arrested him on the spot. After handcuffing him and putting him in the squad car, but before reading him his rights, O'Leary asked Byron where he's been at 9:00 PM the night before. Byron confessed. Byron searched his pockets and found the ring. If Byron contends that the search that produced the ring violate his Fourth Amendment rights, the most accurate statement is... |
Byron is incorrect, because O'Leary had probable cause to make the arrest.
|
|
|
Huffer was involved in illegal gambling activities, but the government had never been able to assemble enough evidence to prosecute him. Insider, who had been indicted for a similar offense, offered to help the government prosecute Huffer in return for a lighter sentence in her case. The FBI agreed. Insider purposefully engaged Huffer in several conversations, during which Huffer made incriminating statements. If the government seeks to have Insider testify about these conversations, her testimony will be |
Admissible, because Huffer spoke to Insider voluntarily. Incriminating statements made in response to police questioning are admissible, unless D has already been indicted or the statements result from a custodial interrogation that is not preceded by adequate Miranda warnings.
|
|
|
Dr. Carla, a private citizen, sees someone outside her window and assumes the person is casing for a robbery. She calls the police and tackles the suspected robber. Assume Dr. Carla's assertion that Jones had attempt to rob her cause Officer Brown to arrest Jones. A vial of heroin was discovered in a search incident to arrest. If Jones moves to suppress the heroin, the evidence will likely be... |
admitted, because there was probable cause to arrest Jones.
|
|
|
Officer Jane, having obtained a valid arrest warrant for Defendant, went to D's home. There, D's wife told Officer Jane that D was visiting Friend and Friend's address. Officer Jane then went to Friend's home,. Friend answered the door bell and after Officer Jane announced her authority and purpose, said to officer Jane, "Beat it, I've got no love for cops." Officer Jane then advised friend that unless he opened the door, it would be broken down. Friend let Officer Jane enter. Inside, Jane arrested D and seized Heroin belonging to Friend (the heroin was on the table next to which D was sitting.) Friend is now being prosecuted for heroin possession. If friend moves to suppress the heroin, his motion should be |
granted, because Office Jane unlawfully entered Friend's house.
In the absence of consent or exigent circumstances, a search warrant is required before police may enter someone's home to execute an arrest warrant for another individual. |
|
|
D, a 17 year old, was arrested (as she walked to school) for setting fire to a building on Main Street. She was given Miranda warnings and then asked if she would like to make a statement about the Main Street arson. D answered, "I'll talk to you, provided you don't start hasslin' me." In the course of the interrogation, Officer Bill asked D about a fire at a store on First Street. D admitted committing that arson. Police then told D that someone had died as a result of the fire. D was subsequently charged with felony murder. Assume that D was validly arrested, that that she suffered form unreasonable delusion that Office Bill would kill her if she didn't' answer his questions. Under these circumstances, D's admission is... |
ADMISSIBLE. A voluntary waiver of Miranda is not invalided the subjective belief of the accused.
|
|
|
Officer Judy validly arrested D and gave D correct Miranda warnings. D stated, "I want to see my lawyer." The police then allowed D to call his attorney, who was out of his office. D then said to Officer Judy, "You know, I've heard confession is good for the soul. I think I'd lake to make a statement after all." Officer Judy stated the Miranda warnings again. D then confessed. Confession is.... |
admissible, because D waived his Miranda rights. A D may wave his rights after asking for a lawyer when: 1) he initiates subsequent discussion with the police; 2) proper Miranda warnings are reiterated before any statement, and 3) there has been no intervening interrogation by the police.
|
|
|
13 year old eighth grader attend her local public school. She was drug tested as part of a requirement to go into an extra curricular activity. Her urine analysis came up positive for opiates. An anonymous tip came to the school that she was selling oxycontin on campus all semester. When Sally was confronted by school officials, she denied all accusations. She as then strip searched by the nurse and the nurse found the drugs. Are the drugs found by the nurse admissible? |
No, because it is unreasonable for school officials to strip search a student if if hey have a well grounded suspicion that the student may possess illegal drugs.
|
|
|
Wanda was prosecuted for petty theft (misdeamnor). She was indigent and request counsel but was denied counsel. Two months later, she was arrested for shoplifting a diamond wring (grand theft). She refused her PD. When the state denied the right to counsel for her petty theft trial, was she denied a unconstitutional right?
|
No, there was no error because no imprisonment resulted.
|
|
|
Is a defendant's rights violated when an attorney is not present for a lineup BEFORE the defendant is criminally charge?
|
NO
|
|
|
Conlon is arrested for selling bootleg films. The officers read him his Miranda rights, but he doesn't really respond when they ask him whether he wants to waive his rights. For four hours, the officers question Conlon about his alleged bootlegging activities. Conlon just smiles and looks off in the distance. At one point, he says "i guess most people in my situation take the Fifth." The officers ignore his comment and keep asking questions. Finally, one of the officers turns to Conlon and asks, "have you been paying attention to use?" Conlon answers, "Yes." The officer then says, "Were you waiting for just the right time to confess?" Conlon answers "Yes." The officer then says, "So, now is the right time and you are confessing?" Conlon answers, "Yes." The prosecutor plans to introduce Conlon's comments at trial. Conlon moves to suppress the statement. How should the court rule? |
This is an implied waiver (like Burguise)
|
|
|
Josh is brought to court and arraignment on an indictment for conducting a fraud scheme. He is assigned a lawyer who tells him to keep his mouth shut. But, you know Josh. When the police came to visit him in jail and give him his Miranda rights again, he answers all of their questions about a separate burglary and that they believe he committed. Should his statements be suppressed? |
No, under the Blockburger theory. Same offense=same incident, same elements.
|
|
|
While Josh is sitting in jail BEFORE he is formally charged, the police have a jailhouse informant sit with him in the holding cell and ask him questions about his crime. Josh tells the informant everything. Did the police actions violate Josh's Fifth Amendment rights? Did the police violate Sixth Amendment rights?
|
NO and NO
|
|
|
If a jailhouse information questions Josh in a cell after he gets a lawyer, does that violate Josh's Sixth Amendment rights?
|
YES. (like Henry). Cannot deliberatl illict information. But informants can just be a listening post.
|
|
|
What if the jailhouse informant just sits and listens to Josh, without asking any questions, as Josh tells his cellmates about the details of his crimes?
|
NO. (Like Kulhmann)
|
|
|
An officer sees through a lawful viewpoint minors drinking alcohol on private property. Is it proper for the officer to enter on the property without a warrant?
|
NO. Must be an immediate threat to public safety. viewing a violation of the law usually doesn't' permit unauthorized intrusions.
|
|
|
A judge issued a search warrant based on probable cause that evidence of a major stolen jewelry operation would be found at Carl Smith's residence. The probable cause established that Smith was the city's major fence for stolen jewelry and was running the business out of his home. The warrant ordered police to search the residence and Carol Smith, the occupant of the residence. Police went to execute the warrant at Smith's residence and at Smith's place of employment. The officers found evidence of the fencing operation at Smith's residence. At the time, officers went to Smiths place of employment and searched him, finding in his pocket a large diamond ring which turned out to be stolen. |
Yes. Probable cause did not exist to believe that Smith would have the evidence sought anywhere but at his residence. NOT that they didn't specify that Smith could be searched at place of employment because they didn't search the place but rather searched Smith.
|
|
|
Probable cause was established that D transmitted two images containing child porn from a computer in his home. A warrant issued ordering police to search Peter's home and to seize the computer and the two files and visual depictions in any format or media of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. During the search of the computer, police opened many files in the D's computer finding multiple images containing child pron. The defense argued that police had probable cause only to search the two files specified in the warrant. Should the other files other than the ones specified be suppressed? |
No. probable cause exited, and the warrant authorized a search of other files for images of child porn. (US v Campos) |
|
|
Police operating with a valid search warrant searched John Bradley's dormitory room. An officer also searched the connecting shared bathroom. The bathroom door to Johns' neighbor's room, Tom Kimberling, was open. The police officer could see into Kimberling's dorm room. From the threshold to Kimberling's room, the officer saw on top of a dresser against the far wall a stack of loose marijuana and rolling papers. The officer walked into Kimberling's room and seized the contraband and arrested Kimberling. Kimberling's lawyer moved to suppress the marijuana. The prosecuting attorney claimed that the marijuana was in plain view. Will the evidence be admitted? |
No. The contents of the room were in plain view but the officer did not have authority to enter the room and seize the contraband.
An incriminating object that is on the premises belonging to a criminal suspect may establish the fullest possible measure of probable cause. But even where the object is contraband, the police may not enter and make a warrantless seizure. |
|
|
A man is arrested for jaywalking (not an arrestable offense). The cop then searches him and finds weed on him (a misdemeanor). Can the evidence of the weed be suppressed?
|
No. The arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the search was lawfully done incident to arrest.
|
|
|
Can you pump someone's stomach to get evidence?
|
Yes, but you'll need a warrant!
|
|
|
Police answer a 911 call with no one on the other end and received a busy signal when they repeatedly tried to call back. Officers dispatched to the scene found a sheet blocking the view through a screen. The officers banged on the door. After a couple of moments, the defendant answered the door by poking his head around the sheet. The D appeared surprised by the presence of the officers and very nervous. D denied calling 911. When police asked if they would come in and look around, D said no. Officers entered w/o permission. They walked through the entire house and found marijuana sitting on top of a dresser drawer and child porn in the dresser. D was charged with drug abuse and possession of child porn. Should the court suppress the weed? Is the child porn admissible? |
Marijuana: 1) Admit it. IT was in plain view when police entered to search for anyone who needed help. 2) Deny it. Police illegally extended the search of a person to the dresser drawer.
|
|
|
Frank fled from an arresting officer following a drug sale. Police believed that Sheppard was hiding out in his apartment. They banged on the door of the apartment but no one answered the door. Sheppard was seen by officer from a fire escape right outside the apartment. When Sheppard saw the officer on the fire escape, he ran into the back bedroom and closed the door. Officers opened the window, climbed in the apartment and opened the front door for other officers. They entered the back bedroom with weapons drawn and arrested Sheppard. Additional drugs were found in the back bedroom. Sheppard's defense attorney moved to suppress the evidence. The state argue that exigent circumstances existed to allow police to enter the apartment without a warrant from the fire escape because they feared Sheppard was getting a gun or destroying evidence. Did the police enter lawfully? |
No. police may not rely on exigent circumstances of their own making to justify a warrant less entry to arrest or conduct a search.
|
|
|
D was arrested for shoplifting while trying to leave Target. The arresting officer asked the D where his car was parked. The car was in a large lot that serviced Target an other stores in a shopping complex that was open 24 hours a day. The officer called for a tow truck and then inventoried the vehicle before it was towed. During the inventory, the officer found a handgun in the glove compartment. The defendant was charged with improperly handling a firearm in a vehicle, in addition to he shoplifting charge. The gun is... |
Inadmissible because the impound and inventory were illegal. The car was legally parked. D was arrested away from the vehicle. There was no justification for impounding the vehicle.
|
|
|
Can an officer look underneath a driver's seat for a gun during a "Terry" stop of the car?
|
YES. Police may search the area around driver's seat for a weapon if facts and circumstances give rise to a reasonable suspicious that the driver may be armed, and the driver will be allowed to return to the vehicle after the stop concludes.
|
|
|
Police officers set up a checkpoint to get more info on a hit n run accident that occurred over the weekend. Officer encounter a driver slurring his words. He's drunk (breathalyzer). Is Breathalyzer admissible?
|
YES.
|
|
|
What can an officer do in a routine traffic stop?
|
Officers can ASK to search car, and consent must be VOLUNTARY
|
|
|
Officer conducts an admin search of a bar. There is a back private office. Can the officer inspect the office w/o owner's consent?
|
NO
|
|
|
Officer knocks on D's door and asks to search the home. D hesitates. Officer then says we can always get a warrant. D lets officer in. Is the search voluntary?
|
Probably not. Assertion of authority when authoirty to search (warrant) was not there.
|
|
|
D lets officers into her home to ask questions. Officers start looking through her closet and find drugs. Are the drugs admissible?
|
NO. She didn't consent to a search of the closet!
|
|
|
Wife of D allows police officers to search the house. D has a locked file cabinet in his officer. Wife allows officers to break the lock (she doesn't have a key). Officers discover child porn. Is the child porn admissible?
|
NO, officer's can't reasonably rely on this consent.
|
|
|
Mario, age 32, 5’8”, Hispanic, brown hair, is suspected of robbing a bank. An hour after the robbery, police arrest him and have him stand in a line-up with three other Hispanics and two Asian suspects. Most of the suspects are taller than Mario, but one of the Asian suspects is his height. The victim teller identifies Mario as the robber. |
a) No. No formal charges.
b) Prob not, but you could argue Foster c) No. |
|
|
Based upon the teller’s identification, Mario is indicted for bank robbery. The police hold another line-up so that the bank’s security guard can try to identify Mario. Mario does not have a lawyer at the line-up and the other suspects look so much like Mario that they could be his brother. Nonetheless, the security guard says, “It was #2. That’s Mario. I used to go to school with him and I was stunned when he came to rob our bank.” |
a) No. GIlbert (per se exclusion)
b) Yes, going to school with person is independent source. |
|
|
The police also take a single photo of Mario and show it to the bank manger to see if he can identify the robber. The manager says, “Yes, I think that is the guy. I didn’t get a good look, and I was really scared, but you probably wouldn’t show me the photo unless you thought he had something to do with it. The more I think about it, the more confident I am that he was the robber.” |
a) No, didn't violate Sixth Amendment rights.
b) Due Process (unreasonably suggestive) |
|
|
Wynona is being prosecuted for shoplifting. The surveillance camera at the store shows the image of a woman with a large hat stuffing clothing into her bag and walking out of the store w/o paying. Wynona claims she has an alibi for that day. Which of the following can are prosecutors allowed to do, assuming Wynona asserts her Fifth Amendment rights?
|
Require Wynona to stand up in court and put on a hat like the one in the surveillance photo. Threaten to ask Academy to take away her Emmy award.
|
|
|
Hannah and her sisters are on trial for bank robbery. At the scene of the robbery, officers find an envelope used by the robbers for their demand note. In a search of Hannah's home, officers find receipts for the purchase of masks. The receipt is signed by HK. Police ask Hannah to provide the following evidence. Does she have a Fifth Amendment privilege to refuses their requests? |
a) No
b) Np c) Yes d) No |
|
|
Police suspect that Dick Chaney has been getting kickbacks fro moil companies. They issue a subpoena to him for all of his bank records, including "any other records, communications, or memo showing payments from oil companies." Dick moves to quash the subpoena on Fifth Amendment grounds. Should his motion be grated? |
Yes. Thought process. They COULD try to authenticate his handwriting.
|
|
|
Sheriff IM Ruff is supect of being part of a group of sheriffs who beat up inmates. There is a federal criminal investigation of the officer's conduct. Prosecutors need an insider, like Ruff, to testify. They call Ruff into the grand jury but he asserts the Fifth. Prosecutors then apply for and receive statutory/use immunity for Ruff. |
a) Yes
b) No. Tainted! |
|
|
Kent was convicted of assault of a federal officer. Kent was rumored to have killed his daughter. Officers put an undercover informant in the jail w/ Kent. Kent was receiving threats from different prisoners based on the rumors he killed his daughter. The undercover officer offered to protect Kent, BUT ONLY IF Kent told the undercover officer the truth. Kent confessed. Is the confession admissible? |
NO. Coerced by a threat of violence.
|
|
|
Fare v. Michael C. |
Respondent, at the time 16 1/2 years old, was taken into custody by Van Nuys, Cal., police on suspicion of murder. Before being questioned at the station house, he was fully advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona. D asked to see his probation officer. HELD: D had waived his right to remain silent, notwithstanding his request to see his probation officer.
|
|
|
Reliable informant tells officers that he saw a suspected narcotics dealer deal drugs to him two months ago. Based on this, police get a warrant. Valid probable cause?
|
NO. Too remote in time to justify (by itself) probable cause.
|
|
|
Can a police officer ask a detainee at the scene of a search questions? Does he/she have to be Mirandized?
|
YES. NO.
|
|
|
Police place a GPS tracking device on a car. They follow the car for a month. They follow the car to a vacant warehouse. Police peered in the window (from public property) ans saw drug paraphernalia used in the manufacture of the synthetic cocaine. Based on these observations, police get a warrant. Is the warrant valid? |
YES. Even though the GPS track is not valid, the independent source doctrine would apply (Could have gotten it just by following the car for a month, if that following did not constitute a search).
|
