Criminal Procedure - Missed Questions Flashcards
(37 cards)
Which of the following statements is true with regard to the execution of a search warrant?
A. A third party may never accompany the police when executing the warrant in a home
B. The police need not always knock and announce their presence before entering a home
C. Private citizens may execute a warrant
D. Any items seized must be specified in the warrant
B. The police need not always knock and announce their presence before entering a home
Acting on a hunch, a police officer went to a young woman’s apartment, broke in, and searched it. The officer found exactly what she was looking for under the woman’s bed: a sack filled with jewels. The attached note read, “Sweetheart, here are the goods from the estate heist. Your loving boyfriend.” It was well known in the community that the woman’s boyfriend was a jewel thief. The officer also knew that the estate of a local socialite had been burglarized three days ago. Just as the officer finished reading the note, the woman returned. The officer immediately placed the woman under arrest as an accessory to the estate burglary. Based on the evidence obtained from the woman’s apartment, a search warrant was issued for her boyfriend’s apartment. The search yielded burglar tools and more jewels from the estate. The boyfriend was immediately arrested and charged with the estate burglary. At the boyfriend’s trial for the estate burglary, his attorney files a motion to suppress the evidence consisting of the bag of jewels and note, the tools, and the jewels from the boyfriend’s apartment.
How should the court rule on the motion?
Acting on a hunch, a police officer went to a young woman’s apartment, broke in, and searched it. The officer found exactly what she was looking for under the woman’s bed: a sack filled with jewels. The attached note read, “Sweetheart, here are the goods from the estate heist. Your loving boyfriend.” It was well known in the community that the woman’s boyfriend was a jewel thief. The officer also knew that the estate of a local socialite had been burglarized three days ago. Just as the officer finished reading the note, the woman returned. The officer immediately placed the woman under arrest as an accessory to the estate burglary. Based on the evidence obtained from the woman’s apartment, a search warrant was issued for her boyfriend’s apartment. The search yielded burglar tools and more jewels from the estate. The boyfriend was immediately arrested and charged with the estate burglary. At the boyfriend’s trial for the estate burglary, his attorney files a motion to suppress the evidence consisting of the bag of jewels and note, the tools, and the jewels from the boyfriend’s apartment.
How should the court rule on the motion?
A. Grant the motion as to the bag of jewels and note, but deny it as to the evidednce found in the boyfriend’s apartment
B. Grant the motion, because all of this evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree
C. Deny the motion, because the police would have caught the boyfriend with the goods eventually
D. Deny the motion, because the police had a warrant to search the boyfriend’s apartment
D. Deny the motion, because the police had a warrant to search the boyfriend’s apartment
The police, suspecting that the defendant was dealing drugs, observed several people walk up to the defendant’s door, knock on his door, and then exchange cash for small packages that the police believed contained drugs. Two uniformed police officers then walked up to the door and knocked. The defendant answered the door, and one police officer asked if they could come in and take a look around. The defendant, believing that he had no other choice but to let the officers inside, agreed. Once inside, they discovered equipment used for making methamphetamine and several tablets of methamphetamine that were sitting on a table covered by a bed sheet. One officer promptly arrested and handcuffed the defendant while the other seized the equipment and tablets. Prior to his trial for the illegal manufacture and possession of methamphetamine, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence as having been illegally seized.
Should the motion be granted?
A. No, because the defendant allowed the police officers to enter his home and look around
B. No, because exigent circumstanes existed for the warrantless seizure of evidence
C. Yes, because the police should have secured the area and obtained a warrant to seize the evidence
D. Yes, because the defendant’s consent was not voluntary
A. No, because the defendant allowed the police officers to enter his home and look around
The police received information linking a man to drug trafficking and went to the man’s residence, where he lived with his mother. The police found the mother at home, and she told them that her son was not expected back until later. The police informed the mother that they suspected the man of selling drugs and asked if they could search his room. She replied, “I’m finished with that no-good bum; not only is he into drugs, but he has been stealing my money to pay for them, and all the time I’m making his bed and fixing his food. You can search his room. He likes to keep his private stuff under his pillow. I hope he goes to jail.” The police searched the man’s room and discovered a quantity of marijuana under the pillow of his bed.
If before trial the man’s attorney moves to suppress the marijuana on grounds that the search was invalid, should the court grant the motion?
A. Yes, because the man had a legit expectation of privacy in the area searched, and the police did not have a warrant.
B. Yes, because the man’s mother’s consent was given at a time when police knew her interests were in conflict with the man’s.
C. No, because the man’s mother had the authority to consent to search of his room.
D. No, because with the mother’s statement the police had probable cause to search his room.
C. No, because the man’s mother had the authority to consent to search of his room.
A police officer learned from a reliable informant that a major drug deal was about to take place at a local restaurant. The officer obtained a search warrant for the restaurant and arrived with other uniformed officers to search the premises. While conducting the search, the officer searched several of the customers. While searching one of the restaurant’s regular customers, the officer felt an object in the customer’s pocket and pulled out a container filled with heroin. The customer was arrested and later convicted of possession of heroin. A state statute permits officers executing a search warrant to search persons on the premises if the officers reasonably expect danger to themselves or a risk of disposal or concealment of anything described in the warrant.
If the customer challenges his conviction on the ground that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated, will he be successful?
A. yes, because the statute is vague and overbroad.
B. Yes, because his presence in the place to be searched by the police does not negate the requirement of probable cause
C. No, because the search was completed pursuant to a valid search warrant
D. No, because the search was authorized by statute.
B. Yes, because his presence in the place to be searched by the police does not negate the requirement of probable cause
Although government-required drug testing constitutes a search, the Supreme Court has upheld such testing without a warrant, probable cause, or even individualized suspicion when justified by “special needs” beyond a general interest of law enforcement.
In which of the following cases is a court least likely to find a special need justifying a warrantless drug test?
A. Railroad employees involved in accidents
B. Politicians running for public office
C. Public school students participating in extracurricular activities
D. Drug interaction agents who have access to large quantities of illegal drugs
B. Politicians running for public office
Which of the following statements is true regarding a detainee’s Fifth Amendment right to counsel under Miranda?
A. All doubts that a request for counsel are construed in favor of the detainee.
B. The right applies only at custodial interrogations by the police or onw known to be an agent of the police.
C. The police may question the detainee about an unrelated crime if they scrupulously honor the request by waiting a few hours and rewarning the defendant before the new questioning begins.
D. A detainee cannot waive the right to counsel in the absence of counsel.
B. The right applies only at custodial interrogations by the police or onw known to be an agent of the police.
While investigating the most recent of a series of murders, a homicide detective was approached by an onlooker who seemed to have detailed knowledge of the murders. The detective recalled the onlooker at some of the other murder scenes, and immediately suspected that he knew something about the crimes. The detective asked the onlooker not to leave until the detective had the opportunity to ask him a few questions. After finishing with the evidence he was gathering, the detective started to question the onlooker at the crime scene without giving him Miranda warnings. The onlooker eventually revealed details of the crimes that were never made available to the public. As a result, the onlooker was arrested and charged with several murders. At a pretrial hearing, the onlooker testified that he believed that he could not leave until he had spoken with the detective. The defense counsel moves to suppress the statements made to the homicide detective.
What is the most likely result?
A. The motion will not be granted because the onlooker was not in custody
B. The motion will not be granted because the onlooker initiated the contact with the homicide detective
C. The motion will be granted because the onlooker believed that he was not free to leave
D. The motion will be granted because the detective was required to give the onlooker Miranda warnings once the detective suspected him of having committed the crime
A. The motion will not be granted because the onlooker was not in custody
At the defendant’s prosecution for robbery of a drugstore, the main prosecution witness testified that the defendant had asked her to drive him to the town where the drugstore was located. The witness testified that the defendant did not explain his purpose for going to the town, and that he had stopped at a relative’s house along the way to pick up a bundle that could have been the sawed-off shotgun used by the robber. On cross-examination, the defendant’s attorney asked a number of pointed questions of the witness, implying that the defendant had asked her to drive to the town so that he could visit relatives there and suggesting that the witness had obtained a sawed-off shotgun for use by a confederate. The defendant did not testify on his own behalf.
In final argument, the prosecutor called the jury’s attention to the two versions of events suggested by the witness’s testimony on direct examination and the defense attorney’s questions on cross-examination, and then said, “Remember, you only heard one of the two people testify who know what really happened that day.”
If the defendant is convicted of robbery, will his conviction likely be upheld?
A. No, because the prosecutor’s comment referred to the defendant’s failure to testify, a violation of his 5th Amendment privilege of silence.
B. No, because under the circumstances the attack on the witness’s credibiliy was not strong enough to permit the prosector to mention the defendant’s failure to testify in rebuttal.
C. Yes, because the prosecutor is entitled to comment on the state of the evidence.
D. Yes, because even if there was error to comment on the defendant’s failure to testify, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
A. No, because the prosecutor’s comment referred to the defendant’s failure to testify, a violation of his 5th Amendment privilege of silence.
A defendant was convicted after a jury trial of violation of federal statutes prohibiting the sale of automatic weapons to foreign nationals. It was established at trial that the defendant had purchased a number of stolen United States Army heavy machine guns and attempted to ship them abroad. The trial court expressly based its imposition of the maximum possible sentence for the conviction on the defendant’s refusal to reveal the names of the persons from whom he purchased the stolen weapons. His counsel argues that this consideration is reversible error.
If the defendant appeals the sentence imposed, what should the appeals court do?
A. Reverse the trial court, because the consideration of the defendant’s silence violates his 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
B. Reverse the trial court, because the consideration of collateral circumstances in sentencing violates his due process rights.
C. Affirm the trial court, because the right to remain silent granted by the 5th Amendment does not include the right to protect others from incrimination.
D. Affirm the trial court, beause citizens must report violations of the criminal statutes.
C. Affirm the trial court, because the right to remain silent granted by the 5th Amendment does not include the right to protect others from incrimination.
With regard to the crime of robbery, which of the following statements is true?
A. The property must be taken from the victim’s person.
B. If threats of immediate death or serious physical injury are used, they must be threats only to the robbery victim.
C. The force or threats may be used to retain possession immediately after such possession has been accomplished.
D. If intimidation is used, a threat to destroy the victim’s dwelling house is insufficient.
C. The force or threats may be used to retain possession immediately after such possession has been accomplished.
A driver was stopped by the police after running a red light. Her roommate was also in the car. Because the driver did not have a driver’s license, the officer lawfully placed her under arrest and put her in his squad car. At the time of the arrest, the officer saw a shopping bag in the back seat containing clothes with price tags on them. The officer asked the driver if she had made any other purchases that day, and she responded that there were additional purchases in the trunk. The officer then searched the trunk of the car, where he found additional clothes purchases along with a clear plastic bag containing what appeared to be marijuana. Later testing confirmed that it was marijuana, which the roommates had purchased that morning from a neighbor.
The two roommates were charged with possession of marijuana. Prior to her trial, the driver’s attorney moved to suppress evidence of the marijuana because it was discovered in an illegal search, and the motion was granted.
If the attorney for the other roommate who was the passenger in the car subsequently moves to suppress evidence of the marijuana at her trial, should her motion be granted?
A. Yes, because the marijuana was the fruit of an illegal search.
B. Yes, because the judge had suppressed this evidence at the driver’s trial
C. No, because she has no standing to object to an illegal search
D. No, if she admits that she owns the marijuana
C. No, because she has no standing to object to an illegal search
Two friends entered a bar looking to get money to pay off a loan shark, but with no plan how to do so. They struck up conversations with two women. The first friend left the bar, having induced one of the women to return home with him. Once in his house, the first friend told the woman that she would not be allowed to leave unless she gave him all of her money. Fearing for her safety, the woman gave him all of the cash she had in her possession. Meanwhile, the second friend remaining at the bar noticed that the other woman left her credit card on the counter. When the woman looked away, the friend picked up the credit card and put it into his pocket. Shortly thereafter, the woman realized her card was gone and accused the man of taking it. The man pretended to be insulted, slapped the victim, and went off with the credit card in his pocket.
Which of the two friends can be convicted for common law robbery?
A. Both can be convicted
B. The first friend can be convicted, but the second cannot be convicted
C. The second friend can be convicted, but the first cannot be convicted
D. Neither of the two friends can be convicted of robbery
B. The first friend can be convicted, but the second cannot be convicted
A drug smuggler had just returned home after smuggling in a large quantity of cocaine in the false bottom of his suitcase. As he was about to leave his house again to deliver the cocaine to his contact in the city, a police officer arrived with a trained drug-sniffing dog and asked him if he could come in and ask him some questions. The smuggler declined but the officer stepped into the doorway, and the dog immediately caught the scent of the cocaine and pulled the officer toward the suitcase in the hallway. Based on the dog’s clear indication that the suitcase contained narcotics, the police officer opened the suitcase and found the cocaine. The smuggler was then arrested and the cocaine and suitcase seized.
At a pretrial hearing, should the judge grant the smuggler’s motion to suppress evidence of the cocaine in the suitcase?
A. Yes, because a warrantless search and seizure of items within the defendant’s home is not permissible absent exigent circumstances
B. Yes, because the search and seizure required a warrant
C. No, because the cocaine was seized as a search incident to a lawful arrest
D. No, because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the smell of one’s suitcase
B. Yes, because the search and seizure required a warrant
Several students at a public high school told a teacher that a fellow student was selling illegal drugs to other students at the school. The accused student was called into the principal’s office and informed of the accusations. The student denied everything, but the principal grabbed the student’s purse, which was on top of his desk, and opened it. He removed five small transparent plastic bags, each of which contained a white powder, and immediately called the police. The police arrested the student and conducted tests confirming that the white powder was cocaine.
The student was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell. At her trial, the state planned to introduce the bags and their contents into evidence. The student’s attorney moved to suppress the evidence.
How should the court rule?
A. Grant the motion, because there was adequate time to obtain a warrant
B. Grant the motion, because the principal lacked probable cause
C. Deny the motion, because the principal had a reasonable suspicion that the student was selling drugs
D. Deny the motion, because a principal, acting in loco parentis, has the right to search students whenever he chooses to do so
C. Deny the motion, because the principal had a reasonable suspicion that the student was selling drugs
A suspect was arrested on a charge of bank robbery. After formal charges had been filed, the suspect was scheduled for a lineup identification procedure. The suspect’s attorney was notified of the lineup and arrived at the station prior to the scheduled lineup. He was directed to wait in the hallway outside the lineup room. When the suspect was escorted into the lineup room, the officer acknowledged the attorney but did not motion for him to follow them into the lineup room. The attorney remained seated in the hallway. Inside the lineup room, the six members of the lineup, including the suspect, stood on one side of the one-way mirror in full view of the witnesses gathered on the other side in the viewing area. The lineup members stepped forward one by one for a closer inspection. After the first two lineup members had been presented, an officer realized that the suspect’s attorney was not present and immediately escorted him to the viewing area. The attorney arrived in time to witness the presentation of the suspect and the remaining three members of the lineup. Two witnesses then identified the suspect as the robber.
At trial, if the defense objects to the introduction of the lineup evidence, should the objection be granted?
A. No, because the attorney’s absence from the lineup procedure was the product of a good faith mistake.
B. No, because the attorney was present when the suspect was presented in the lineup for identification by the witness.
C. Yes, because the right to have counsel present at a post-charge lineup includes the right to have counsel present for the entire lineup.
D. Yes, unless the witnesses are unavailable at trial.
C. Yes, because the right to have counsel present at a post-charge lineup includes the right to have counsel present for the entire lineup.
Two men were arrested while riding in a stolen automobile. They were taken to the police station, booked, and fingerprinted. They were then taken to an interrogation room. After the detective gave them their Miranda warnings, one of the men said, “Forget it. As soon as you check for outstanding warrants, you’ll find out that I escaped from prison. Since I am going back anyway, it’s a farce to deny that we stole that car.” The other man said nothing, and the first man proceeded to write and sign a full confession.
The man who remained silent pled not guilty to the charge of grand theft auto. At his trial the prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence to show that he did not deny that he stole the automobile when the other man told the police in front of him that he was a party to the theft.
Should the court hold that this evidence is proper?
A. Yes, because silence in this situation is indicative of guilt and is an implied admission.
B. Yes, because the man who confessed had voluntarily waived his right to remain silent.
C. No, because an accomplice’s evidence is inherently unreliable and unduly prejudicial.
D. No, because under this circumstance, the man who remained silent had no duty or responsibility to deny the allegation.
C. No, because an accomplice’s evidence is inherently unreliable and unduly prejudicial.
The defendant robbed a bank and fled in a getaway car driven by an accomplice, not realizing that one of the bundles of money he took had the serial numbers recorded and had a tiny tracking device attached to the wrapper. The bank’s security consultant obtained portable tracking equipment and was able to trace the bundle of money to the defendant’s house. The police were notified and they arrived at the defendant’s house a few hours after the robbery. They knocked on the door, announced their presence, and saw someone matching the description of the robber in the hallway. They entered and arrested the defendant, and then conducted a protective sweep of the house for the accomplice, who they believed had a gun. They did not find him, but while checking a closet, they discovered several of the bundles of money from the bank and a gun the defendant had used in the robbery. The police also discovered two clear plastic bags of what appeared to be marijuana sitting on top of a dresser. They seized the money, the gun, and the two bags. Later testing confirmed that the substance in the bags was marijuana.
The defendant was charged with the bank robbery and with possession of the marijuana. At a preliminary hearing, he moves to suppress introduction of the money, gun, and marijuana.
How should the court rule?
A. Grant the motion as to the marijuana but not as to the money or gun because the money and gun were found as a result of the protective sweep for the defendant’s accomplice.
B. Grant the motion as to the money and gun but not as to the marijuana because the bags containing the marijuana were clearly visible on the dresser during the search.
C. Grant the motion as to all of the evidence seized.
D. Deny the motion as to all of the evidence seized.
C. Grant the motion as to all of the evidence seized.
A public high school’s drug policy strictly prohibited the use, possession, or sale of any drug on school grounds, including any prescription or over-the-counter medication, unless supervised by a nurse. During lunch, the school principal observed a student ingesting two white pills. The student admitted to the principal that the pills were aspirins and had been given to her by a senior. School officials approached the senior and demanded to search her backpack. When no aspirins were found in the backpack, the officials required the senior to submit to a private physical search by the female school nurse. Some aspirins were subsequently found in the waistband of the senior’s gym shorts that she was wearing under her school uniform, and she was suspended. The senior’s mother sued school officials, claiming that the physical search violated her daughter’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. In response, the school officials filed a motion for summary judgment against the mother’s claim.
The facts above are stipulated to by the parties. Should the court grant the motion for summary judgment?
A. Yes, because the search revealed that the senior had violated the drug policy.
B. Yes, because the school officials had reasonable grounds to believe that the search was not necessary.
C. No, because the trier of fact could determine that the search was excessively intrusive in light of the nature of the infraction.
D. No, because the trier of fact could determine that the school officials did not have probable cause to conduct a physical search based on the oncorroborated statement of a minor.
C. No, because the trier of fact could determine that the search was excessively intrusive in light of the nature of the infraction.
A man and a woman were arrested and charged with a series of armed robberies. Each suspect was given Miranda warnings, and different interrogation teams questioned each suspect separately. Upon being questioned, the man told the police, “I’m not going to talk until I see a lawyer.” An officer responded, “You might want to reconsider, because your partner has already confessed, and she’s implicated you in the crimes.” The man then told the police that he wanted to talk to the woman privately. The police escorted the man to the woman’s cell, locked him in with her, and left. Unbeknownst to either of them, the police had bugged the woman’s cell and recorded both the man and the woman making self-incriminating statements during their meeting. The man made no further statements to the police on advice of counsel, whom he called immediately after his conversation with the woman. The man was put on trial first, and the prosecution sought to introduce into evidence tapes of the bugged conversation between the man and the woman. The defense made a motion to suppress the evidence.
Should the court grant the motion to suppress?
A. Yes, because the evidence is the fruit of a wiretap that violated the Fourth Amendment.
B. Yes, because the police created a situation likely to induce the defendant to make an incriminating statement.
C. No, because there is no expectation of privacy in a jail cell.
D. No, because the conversation constituted a waiver of the man’s Miranda rights.
B. Yes, because the police created a situation likely to induce the defendant to make an incriminating statement.
Police officers received a tip from a motel manager that a male guest was renting a room for an extended stay and selling narcotics at the motel. When officers arrived at the motel, they asked the manager for the guest’s room number and a key. The manager complied, told the officers the guest had stepped out, and gave them permission to search the room. The officers found the guest’s room and knocked on the door. When no one answered, they used the key. Upon opening the door, they saw a woman sitting on the bed, sniffing what appeared to be cocaine. They asked the woman what she was doing. She said she was just leaving after she finished “her hit.” The officers immediately placed the woman under arrest and searched the areas near her. They found a large bag of white powder in a dresser drawer two feet away from the bed on which the woman was sitting and seized it.
Several officers remained in the room and arrested the male upon his return for possession with intent to distribute. Laboratory tests confirmed the white powder was cocaine. In a pretrial motion, the male argued that the cocaine should be suppressed from admission at trial because it was unlawfully seized.
How should the court rule on the defendant’s motion?
A. Deny it because the search of the motel room was a valid search incident to arrest
B. Deny it because the manager consented to the search of the motel room.
C. Grant it because the officers did not have a warrant to search the dresser.
D. Grant it because the officers did not have a warrant to search the room.
D. Grant it because the officers did not have a warrant to search the room.
Hijackers of a truck carrying dog food were arrested and indicted by a grand jury. During the grand jury’s investigation, the district attorney’s office subpoenaed the truck driver as a witness. To her relief, she was not asked questions about a series of thefts of shipments of dog chew-toys that she was involved in, but believes that the subject might be brought up at trial by the defense lawyers. She is afraid that she likely will be fired if she invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination on the witness stand, so she wants to avoid testifying at all at the trial, even if she is subpoenaed by the defense.
As her lawyer, what advice should you give her about complying with a subpoena?
A. She cannot avoid testifying, because she can plead the Fifth Amendment on the stand.
B. She cannot avoid testifying, and she must answer all questions truthfully, even if her answers will incriminate her, because she is not on trial.
C. She can avoid testifying, because she is not a party to the action.
D. She can avoid testifying, because the potential that she will incriminate herself is greater than the interest the defense has in calling her as a witness.
A. She cannot avoid testifying, because she can plead the Fifth Amendment on the stand.
A woman was arrested, given Miranda warnings, and questioned about an armed robbery. After she asked to speak with an attorney, the police stopped questioning her about the robbery. Several hours later, the police gave the woman a fresh set of Miranda warnings and began to question her about a different robbery. She did not repeat her request for an attorney and instead made several incriminating statements about the robbery. At the woman’s trial for the robbery for which she made incriminating statements, the prosecution seeks to have her statements introduced into evidence.
If the woman’s attorney objects on appropriate grounds, how should the court rule?
A. Overrule the objection, because the police did not badger the woman into confessing.
B. Overrule the objection, because the woman did not renew her request for an attorney after receiving fresh Miranda warnings.
C. Sustain the objection, because the police did not honor the woman’s request.
D. Sustain the objection, because a confession obtained in violation of a defendant’s Miranda rights but otherwise voluntary may be used against the Defendant.
C. Sustain the objection, because the police did not honor the woman’s request.
