The United States Drug Enforcement Agency suspected that Deft, a U.S. citizen was the leader of an illegal drug smuggling operation that was smuggling heroin into the United States from Mexico and South America. Deft maintained an expensive well secured home in Los Angeles where he resided most of the year, but would frequently take extended trips into Mexico and South America to arrange for the purchase of heroin. After learning from Mexican police officials that Deft was currently living in a small village outside Mexico City, United States Drug Enforcement Agency agents boarded a small plane in San Diego and flew to the village in the middle of the night. The agents then proceeded to a small house where they broke down the door and seized Deft from his bed. They handcuffed Deft and put him on the plane and flew back to San Diego where Deft was then transported by vehicle to the nearest federal prison. While Deft was being transported, other federal law enforcement agents received a tip from a reliable informant that Delia, a known member of the Deft’s drug smuggling operation, was located in a house in Denver, Colorado. The agents proceeded to the house, broke down the door and arrested Delia. Both Deft and Delia have been charged with possession of illegal narcotics because heroin was found in each of their homes when arrested. Both Deft and Delia were tried separately and each of them has brought a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during their arrests.
How should the courts rule on the motions?
A
Grant both Deft’s and Delia’s motion.
B
Grant neither Deft’s nor Delia’s motion.
C
Grant Deft’s motion but not Delia’s.
D
Grant Delia’s motion but not Deft’s.
Corwin was an elected official who was the target of an investigation by law enforcement officers who suspected Corwin of criminal behavior. After reviewing the evidence, the appropriate district attorney has decided to seek an indictment of Corwin charging him with soliciting and receiving bribes. Young, a deputy district attorney, has been asked by the district attorney to review the evidence, which the district attorney may present to the grand jury, and to assess the likelihood that any resulting indictment will withstand constitutional attack. A notebook listing several prominent lobbyists with dates and amount of money next to their names was found by police in Corwin’s residence when they inadvertently executed a search warrant for drugs at Corwin’s home which had been issued for a different address. Despite Corwin’s protests, the police had forcibly entered his home and discovered the notebook lying on top of the desk in Corwin’s study.
Young should advise the district attorney that a constitutional attack on an indictment against Corwin would probably
A
Succeed, because there will be no admissible evidence before the grand jury on which to base the indictment.
B
Succeed, because a portion of the evidence against Corwin was obtained in violation of constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches.
C
Fail, because there is no constitutional right to an indictment for a non-capital offense, and Corwin is therefore precluded from raising any constitutional challenge to the indictment.
D
Fail, because the grand jury may permissibly consider evidence that would be barred from a criminal trial by the exclusionary rule.
Officer Smith received reliable information that Bookie was running an illegal bookmaking operation in his apartment, and that the informer who provided this information has placed bets with Bookie at this location.
Officer Smith obtained a search warrant, based upon his affidavit reciting the foregoing facts, and further stating that the informer is a person who had given him accurate information in previous cases, but whose identity cannot be revealed because it might jeopardize other criminal investigations being carried on by the police.
Armed with the search warrant, Officers Bob and Charlie arrived at Bookie’s apartment and, after properly announcing their presence and intent to execute a search warrant, entered the apartment and observed Bookie in the midst of conducting an illegal bookmaking transaction. They seized various wager slips and bookmaking apparatus (described in the search warrant), and place Bookie under arrest.
Immediately thereafter, Charlie conducted a thorough search of Bookie’s person, and discovered that Bookie was carrying a revolver. Bookie has a prior felony conviction, and it is illegal in the jurisdiction for a convicted felon to carry such a weapon.
Based upon the evidence obtained by Bob and Charlie, Bookie is prosecuted for illegal bookmaking and unlawful possession of firearms.
Was the search warrant valid?
A
No, because based on hearsay information.
B
No, because Officer Smith failed to disclose the identity of the informer, so that the accuracy of his information could not be verified.
C
No, because the reason
D. Yes
Original fact pattern:
Officer Smith received reliable information that Bookie was running an illegal bookmaking operation in his apartment, and that the informer who provided this information has placed bets with Bookie at this location.
Officer Smith obtained a search warrant, based upon his affidavit reciting the foregoing facts, and further stating that the informer is a person who had given him accurate information in previous cases, but whose identity cannot be revealed because it might jeopardize other criminal investigations being carried on by the police.
Armed with the search warrant, Officers Bob and Charlie arrived at Bookie’s apartment and, after properly announcing their presence and intent to execute a search warrant, entered the apartment and observed Bookie in the midst of conducting an illegal bookmaking transaction. They seized various wager slips and bookmaking apparatus (described in the search warrant), and place Bookie under arrest.
Immediately thereafter, Charlie conducted a thorough search of Bookie’s person, and discovered that Bookie was carrying a revolver. Bookie has a prior felony conviction, and it is illegal in the jurisdiction for a convicted felon to carry such a weapon.
Based upon the evidence obtained by Bob and Charlie, Bookie is prosecuted for illegal bookmaking and unlawful possession of firearms.
Did Officers Bob and Charlie act properly when they entered Bookie’s apartment and seized the wagering slips and bookmaking apparatus?
A
Yes, because regardless of whether the search warrant itself was valid, the evidence was in “plain view” upon entry.
B
Yes, because Bob and Charlie entered Bookie’s apartment only after properly stating their intent and presence and waiting a reasonable time for Bookie to open the door.
C
No, because regardless of the announced entry, the door was closed.
D
No, because the wagering slips and apparatus were “mere evidence” of a crime (rather than contraband, fruits, or instrumentalities of the crime).
Original fact pattern:
Officer Smith received reliable information that Bookie was running an illegal bookmaking operation in his apartment, and that the informer who provided this information has placed bets with Bookie at this location.
Officer Smith obtained a search warrant, based upon his affidavit reciting the foregoing facts, and further stating that the informer is a person who had given him accurate information in previous cases, but whose identity cannot be revealed because it might jeopardize other criminal investigations being carried on by the police.
Armed with the search warrant, Officers Bob and Charlie arrived at Bookie’s apartment and, after properly announcing their presence and intent to execute a search warrant, entered the apartment and observed Bookie in the midst of conducting an illegal bookmaking transaction. They seized various wager slips and bookmaking apparatus (described in the search warrant), and place Bookie under arrest.
Immediately thereafter, Charlie conducted a thorough search of Bookie’s person, and discovered that Bookie was carrying a revolver. Bookie has a prior felony conviction, and it is illegal in the jurisdiction for a convicted felon to carry such a weapon.
Based upon the evidence obtained by Bob and Charlie, Bookie is prosecuted for illegal bookmaking and unlawful possession of firearms.
Is the revolver admissible in evidence against Bookie?
A
Yes, the search of Bookie’s person was justified as incident to a lawful arrest
B
No, the arrest of Bookie was unlawful, and therefore no search of his person was justified.
C
Yes, police were entitled to frisk his clothing for weapons regardless of lawfulness of arrest.
D
No, police are not entitled to seize evidence other than that described in search warrant under which they entered.
Dave is a cocaine dealer. To hide his drugs, Dave removed the picture tube in an old television console he kept in his garage to make room to store his cocaine. However, the television console gives no appearance of having been altered.
Dave’s neighbor Don came over to borrow Dave’s chain saw to cut some firewood. Don was not aware that Dave was a cocaine dealer. One day, while Dave was away, Don came to return the chain saw. Finding the garage door unlocked, Don put the chain saw on Dave’s tool bench. Don noticed the old television console and tried to turn it on. When the television set failed to operate, Don decided that a nice way of thanking Dave for allowing Don to use the chain saw would be to have the television repaired. Don then took the television to a television repair shop. When the technician at the repair shop opened up the back panel to repair the television, he discovered several bags of cocaine inside. Immediately, the technician called the police. The police came and seized the drugs. After determining that Dave owned the television, the police immediately went to Dave’s house and arrested Dave and charged him with possession of an illegal drug. At trial, Dave’s attorney has made a motion to have the cocaine suppressed.
Dave’s motion to suppress should be
A
denied, because the cocaine was found in plain view.
B
denied, because there was no search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
C
granted, because the television was searched and the cocaine seized without a warrant.
D
granted, because Dave had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the inside of the television.
Police officer Smith was on patrol in her vehicle when she noticed a dark orange two-door sedan in front of her with no rear license plate. State law provided that all vehicles must display a rear license plate, failure to do so was an infraction for which a driver could be issued a traffic citation.
Smith got behind the car and activated her siren and emergency lights. The car pulled to the side of the road and stopped. Smith immediately ordered the driver and passenger to get out of the car. As the passenger got out of the car, Smith observed that he had a small pistol tucked into the waistband of his trousers at the back. Smith seized the pistol and ordered both men to place their hands on the back of the patrol car.
Smith then received a radio report of an armed robbery of a bank. The report stated that two men and a woman had just stolen several thousand dollars in currency, described the three robbers, that they were armed with handguns, were driving a red, two-door sedan, and gave the location of the bank.
Smith noticed that the two men matched the description of the two male robbers in the radio report. Her present location was about a mile from the bank. She handcuffed the two men and placed them in the back of her patrol car. Smith then searched the interior and truck of the dark orange car. In the trunk she discovered a small metal toolbox secured with a combination padlock. Smith used a tire iron she found in the trunk to force the toolbox open. Inside she discovered marked currency that was subsequently identified as having been stolen from the bank during the robbery. Both the driver and the passenger were subsequently prosecuted for robbery.
Dack, the passenger, objected to introduction into evidence at his trial of any items seized by Officer Smith, on grounds that such items were obtained after she unconstitutionally ordered the two men from the car. The court should rule that Smith’s ordering Dack to get out of the car was
A
constitutional, but only if there was a reasonable, objective basis for Smith to suspect that the two men might be armed when she stopped the car for the infraction.
B
constitutional, because Smith’s interest in her own safety outweighs any intrusion into Dack’s privacy interest.
C
constitutional, because under the circumstances Smith had probable cause to believe that the two men had just robbed the bank.
D
unconstitutional.
I answered A
23 Jun 2016, 1:18 PM
Customer
Original fact pattern:
Police officer Smith was on patrol in her vehicle when she noticed a dark orange two-door sedan in front of her with no rear license plate. State law provided that all vehicles must display a rear license plate, failure to do so was an infraction for which a driver could be issued a traffic citation.
Smith got behind the car and activated her siren and emergency lights. The car pulled to the side of the road and stopped. Smith immediately ordered the driver and passenger to get out of the car. As the passenger got out of the car, Smith observed that he had a small pistol tucked into the waistband of his trousers at the back. Smith seized the pistol and ordered both men to place their hands on the back of the patrol car.
Smith then received a radio report of an armed robbery of a bank. The report stated that two men and a woman had just stolen several thousand dollars in currency, described the three robbers, that they were armed with handguns, were driving a red, two-door sedan, and gave the location of the bank.
Smith noticed that the two men matched the description of the two male robbers in the radio report. Her present location was about a mile from the bank. She handcuffed the two men and placed them in the back of her patrol car. Smith then searched the interior and truck of the dark orange car. In the trunk she discovered a small metal toolbox secured with a combination padlock. Smith used a tire iron she found in the trunk to force the toolbox open. Inside she discovered marked currency that was subsequently identified as having been stolen from the bank during the robbery. Both the driver and the passenger were subsequently prosecuted for robbery.
Which of the following statements is most accurate regarding the admissibility at trial of the gun and currency if Dack objects that both were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights?
A
Both the gun and the currency are admissible.
B
The gun is admissible but the currency is inadmissible.
C
The currency is admissible but the gun is inadmissible.
D
Neither the gun nor the currency is admissible
The jury assigns percentages of fault to the health care personnel and to the patient under