MBE Flashcards
A federal officer had probable cause to believe a woman had participated in a bank robbery. Two days after the robbery, the woman checked into a local hotel room. When the woman left for the evening, the hotel manager opened the hotel room door so the officer could enter the room and look inside. The officer did not find any of the stolen money but did see, lying open on the bed, the woman’s diary. The diary contained an entry describing the woman’s involvement in robbing the bank.
The woman was charged in federal court with bank robbery. She moved to suppress the diary.
Should the court suppress the diary?
Yes.
While there was probable cause, the officer had no warrant and there was nothing in the facts to suggest that an exception to the warrant requirement would exist.
The Fourth Amendment protects places as to which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy - one of those places is a person’s dwelling, even a temporary dwelling like a hotel room.
What must police have before they enter a place where a suspect has a reasonable expectation of privacy?
(1) have probable cause to suspect a crime;
(2) have a search or arrest warrant, or benefit from some exception to the warrant requirement.
Police received an anonymous tip that T was growing marijuana in her backyard, which was surrounded by a 15-foot high, solid wooden fence. Officer B was unable to view the yard from the street, so he used a police helicopter to fly over T’s house. B identified a large patch of marijuana plants growing right next to the house and used this observation to obtain a search warrant.
T is prosecuted for possession of marijuana and moves to suppress the use of the marijuana in evidence.
Should the court grant T’s motion to suppress the evidence?
No, the court should deny T’s motion to suppress the evidence.
This is because T had no reasonable expectation of privacy from aerial observation - plain view doctrine.
Where objects on private property can be seen from public places, observation by the police does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search.
On 10/22/2017, a police officer submitted an application for a warrant to search 217 Elm Street for cocaine. In the application, the officer stated under oath that he believed there was cocaine at that location because of information supplied him on the morning of 10/22/2017 by Susie Shultz. The officer described Susie as a cocaine user who had previously supplied accurate information concerning the use of cocaine in the community and summarized what Schultz had told him as follows:
The previous night the, 10/21/2017, Schultz was in the defendant’s house at 217 Elm Street, and he gave her cocaine. Shultz also saw three cellophane bags containing cocaine in the defendant’s bedroom.
The warrant was issued, and a search of 217 Elm Street was conducted on 10/22/2017. The search turned up a quantity of marijuana but no cocaine. The defendant was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana. The defendant moved to suppress the use of the marijuana as evidence, contending that Shultz was not at 217 Elm Street on 10/21/2017 or at any other time.
If, after hearing the evidence the judge concludes that the statement in the application attributed to Schultz is incorrect, the judge should grant the motion to suppress only if …
Only if the judge also finds that the officer knew the statement was false.
The exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained by violating the defendant’s constitutional rights may not be introduced by the prosecution, at least for purposes of providing direct proof of the defendant’s guilt. However, the exclusionary rule does not bar evidence that was obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a proper magistrate but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause - the good faith exception (U.S. v. Leon).
The good faith exception will NOT apply if the officer who prepared the affidavit on which the warrant is based knows that the information in it is false or recklessly disregards its truth or falsity. Therefore, the motion to suppress evidence under the exclusionary rule should be granted if the good faith exception does not apply.
The police had, over time, accumulated reliable information that a rock singer operated a large cocaine distribution network, that he and his accomplices often resorted to violence, and that they kept a small arsenal of weapons in his home.
One day, the police received reliable information that a large brown suitcase with leather straps containing a supply of cocaine had been delivered to the singers home and that it would be moved to a distribution point the next morning. The police obtained a valid search warrant to search for and seize the brown suitcase and the cocaine and went to the singer’s house.
The police knocked on the singer’s door and called out, “Police. Open up. We have a search warrant.” After a few seconds with no response, the police forced the door open and entered. Hearing noises in the basement, the police rand down there and found the singer with a large brown suitcase with leather straps. They seized the suitcase and put handcuffs on the signer. A search of his person revealed a switchblade knife and a pistol.
The police then fanned out through the house, looking in every room and closet. They found no one else, but one officer found an Uzi automatic weapon in a box on a closet shelf in the singer’s bedroom.
In addition to charges relating to the cocaine in the suitcase, the singer is charged with unlawful possession of weapons.
The singer moves to suppress the Uzi as evidence. What should the judge decide on the singer’s motion to suppress?
The motion to suppress the Uzi as evidence should be granted because the search exceeded the scope needed to find out if other persons were present.
Incident to a lawful arrest in an arrestee’s home, the officers executing the warrant may conduct a “protective sweep” of all or part of the premises if they have a “reasonable belief” that another person who might be dangerous to the officers may be present in the areas being swept. (Maryland v. Buie)
The Uzi was neither in plain view nor in a place where a person could reasonably be found. Since the search warrant covered only the brown-suitcase (it could have covered more but it didn’t) once that was found the search of the closet could not be justified on the grounds of executing the search warrant.
Police received information from an undercover police officer that she had just seen two men in a red pickup truck selling marijuana to school children near the city’s largest high school. A few minutes later, two police officers saw a pickup truck fitting the description a half a block from the high school. The driver of the truck matched the description of one of the men described by the undercover officer.
The only passenger was a young woman who was in the back of the truck. The police saw her get out and stand at a nearby bus stop. They stopped the truck and searched the driver. In the pocket of the driver’s jacket, the police found a small bottle of pills that they recognized as narcotics. They then broke open a locked toolbox attached to the flatbed of the truck and found a small sealed envelope inside. They opened it an found marijuana. They also found a quantity of cocaine in the glove compartment.
After completing their search of the driver and the truck, the police went over to the young woman and searched her purse. In her purse, they found a small quantity of heroin. Both the driver and the young woman were arrested and charged with unlawful possession of narcotics.
If the driver moves to suppress the use as evidence of the marijuana and cocaine found in the search of the truck, the court should …
The court should deny a motion to suppress as to both the marijuana and the cocaine because the search that allowed the police to find the drugs was conducted properly.
Generally, the Fourth Amendment requires that police have a warrant to search a person or location. However, there are many exceptions to this rule, like the automobile exception.
Police can search a car if they have probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or evidence of a crime. (California v. Carney).
When police stop a vehicle and have probable cause to believe that contraband is contained in it, they may search any container that could possibly contain the object of the search. (U.S. v. Ross)
