Deck 11: The Exclusionary Rule

Question 1

___________ is evidence that is obtained as a result of an unreasonable search.

A) Direct evidence
B) Derivative evidence
C) Relevant evidence
D) Admissible evidence

Answer 1

A

Question 2

The exclusionary rule was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in in 1914 in ______________.

A) Wolf v. Colorado
B) Weeks v. United States
C) Elkins v. United States
D) Terry v. Ohio

Answer 2

B

Question 3

In ________________ the U.S. Supreme Court, held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment were incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore unreasonable searches and seizures by state officials were prohibited.

A) Wolf v. Colorado
B) Weeks v. United States
C) Elkins v. United States
D) Terry v. Ohio

Answer 3

A

Question 4

In Wolf v. Colorado, the U.S. Supreme was called on to address whether evidence seized in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments could be used in state court and held that:

A) The exclusionary rule that applied to defendants in federal court also applied to defendants in state court.
B) The exclusionary rule was an explicit requirement of the Fourth Amendment and equally applicable to the state and federal courts.
C) The exclusionary rule was a judiciary creation to expedite the trial process.
D) State courts were not required to exclude from trial evidence that was seized in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Question 5

In Rochin v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court:

A) Re-affirmed its holding in Wolf v. Colorado
B) Overturned its holding in Wolf v. Colorado
C) Held that state courts could not admit evidence obtained in a blatantly unreasonably fashion
D) Created the silver platter doctrine as a way to admit evidence that was seized in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

Question 6

Which of the following statements is true about the silver platter doctrine?

A) The silver platter doctrine was the process whereby evidence was "served" by state law enforcement officers to federal prosecutors on a "silver platter."
B) The silver platter doctrine was used by federal agent to circumvent the exclusionary rule.
C) The silver platter doctrine was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1960 in Elkins v. United States.
D) Only a and b are true.
E) All of the above statements are true.

Question 7

In the 1961 case Mapp v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court took the following stance regarding the Exclusionary Rule and state courts:

A) The Fourth Amendment right to privacy, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, is enforceable against the states by using the same sanction of exclusion that is used against the federal government.
B) The exclusionary rule is "part and parcel" and is "an essential part "of the Fourth Amendment.
C) The exclusionary rule is a safeguard because of its deterrent effect rather than a personal constitutional right of privacy.
D) Both a and b are correct.
E) All of the above are correct.

Question 8

Arguments in support of the exclusionary rule include:

A) Failure to recognize the constitutional status of the exclusionary rule serves to grant the right but in reality to withhold its privilege and enjoyment.
B) The exclusionary rule is designed to repair past violations, not to prevent future violations.
C) The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures would be seriously weakened if evidence seized in an unreasonable search cannot be used against an accused at trial.
D) All of the above are correct.

Question 9

The impact of excluding evidence seized during an unreasonable search is:

A) The cost of excluding evidence has led to a large proportion of cases ending in acquittals.
B) The cost of excluding evidence has led police departments to stress the importance of police professionalism.
C) The cost of excluding evidence has led police department to add training programs to help police officers legally circumvent the Fourth Amendment.
D) All of the above are correct.

Question 10

Federal Agent Smith needs additional evidence to arrest Jack, who is suspected of murdering his wife. Time is of the essence as Agent Smith just learned that Jack is scheduled to fly out of the country tomorrow morning to return to his home in South America. Uncertain that he has sufficient time to secure and execute a search warrant before Jack leaves the United States, Agent Smith contacts Sgt. Cane in the city where Jack currently resides and asks Sgt. Cane to go and search Jack's house to find evidence to support the murder charge. Assume Sgt. Cane proceeded to search Jack's home without a warrant. Applying the Court's holding in Wolf v. Colorado, which of the following statements is true about any evidence obtained by Sgt. Cane?

A) The evidence would be admissible in a federal trial against Jack for the murder of his wife since no unreasonable search was conducted by a federal officer.
B) The evidence would be inadmissible in a federal trial against Jack for the murder of his wife because federal agents participated in the unreasonable search by engaging the local police in their arrest efforts.
C) The evidence would be inadmissible in a federal trial against Jack for the murder of his wife as the product of an unreasonable search by a state law enforcement officer.
D) The evidence would be admissible in a federal trial against Jack for the murder of his wife because Jack could later sue the state agents for violation of his Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

Question 11

Federal Agent Smith needs additional evidence to arrest Jack, who is suspected of murdering his wife. Time is of the essence as Agent Smith just learned that Jack is scheduled to fly out of the country tomorrow morning to return to his home in South Americ a Uncertain that he has sufficient time to secure and execute a search warrant before Jack leaves the United States, Agent Smith contacts Sgt. Cane in the city where Jack currently resides and asks Sgt. Cane to go and search Jack's house to find evidence to support the murder charge. Assume Sgt. Cane proceeded to search Jack's home without a warrant. Applying the Court's holding in Elkins v. United States, which of the following statements is true about any evidence obtained by Sgt. Cane?

A) The evidence would be admissible in a federal trial against Jack for the murder of his wife since no unreasonable search was conducted by a federal officer.
B) The evidence would be inadmissible in a federal trial against Jack for the murder of his wife because federal agents participated in the unreasonable search by engaging the local police in their arrest efforts.
C) The evidence would be admissible in a federal trial against Jack for the murder of his wife as the product of an unreasonable search by a state law enforcement officer.
D) The evidence would be admissible in a federal trial against Jack for the murder of his wife, and Jack could later sue the state agents for violation of his Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

Question 12

Which of the following statements represents an argument against the exclusionary rule?

A) The prosecution, not the police officer, feels the immediate impact of the exclusionary rule making the purported deterrent effect on police officers a "wistful dream."
B) The impact of the exclusionary rule will be felt on the judiciary who will suffer decreased respect as a result of having to take the side of the victim.
C) The exclusionary rule undermines the purpose of the criminal trial process, where the determination of guilt or innocence is based on available and reliable evidence.
D) Both a and c are correct.
E) All of the above are correct.

Question 13

Suggested alternate remedies to the exclusionary rule include:

A) Civil tort lawsuits could be filed against the police officers.
B) Officers could face sanctions ranging from demotions to terminations for their actions.
C) Officers could be prosecuted for violation of one's civil liberties.
D) All of the above are suggested alternatives.

Question 14

The ______________ is a practice where federal agents rely on evidence seized by state officers in violation of the Fourth Amendment for use in federal court.

A) Exclusionary rule
B) Fruit of poisonous tree doctrine
C) Silver platter doctrine
D) Alternate source doctrine

Question 15

The first step taken when challenging the reasonableness of a search is:

A) Resist arrest
B) File a pretrial motion challenging the search
C) Flee the court's jurisdiction until a judicial determination is made on the constitutionality of the evidence
D) File a civil suit to recover the illegally seized evidence

Question 16

If a pretrial motion to suppress evidence is filed in federal court, who bears the burden of proving the reasonableness of the search?

A) If the search was based on a warrant, the burden of proof falls on law enforcement.
B) If the search was based on a warrant, the burden of proof falls on the defendant.
C) If the search was conducted without a warrant, the burden of proof falls on the defendant.
D) The burden of proof falls on law enforcement whether the search was conducted with or without a warrant.

Question 17

In a pretrial challenge to a search conducted based on a warrant, which of the following statements is true?

A) The warrant is presumed to have been issued on evidence that meets the probable cause standard.
B) The defendant challenging the warrant bears the burden of proving that the warrant lacked probable cause.
C) The burden of proof required for a defendant to demonstrate that a warrant lacked probable cause is the clear and convincing evidence standard.
D) All of the above are correct.
E) Only a and b are correct.

Question 18

If evidence was seized from a warrantless search, which of the following statements is true?

A) The defendant bears the burden of proving that the evidence was seized without probable cause.
B) The law enforcement officers bear the burden of proving that the search constituted an exception to the search warrant requirement.
C) The evidence is automatically suppressed if seized without a warrant.
D) Both a and c are correct.

Question 19

Defendant Dan timely filed a motion to suppress evidence at his trial for kidnapping. The trial judge ruled against Dan and allowed the evidence to be admitted into Dan's trial. Dan was ultimately convicted of kidnapping. Dan appeals his conviction based on the admission of the evidence that was the subject of his motion to suppress. What is a possible outcome of Dan's case at the appellate level?

A) If the appellate court sides with Dan, the result is an automatic reversal of the guilty verdict.
B) If the appellate court sides with Dan, the result will be the reversal of the guilty verdict unless the appellate court finds that the trial judge's decision amounted to harmless error.
C) If the prosecution can successfully argue beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no reasonable probability that the evidence at issue influenced the outcome of the trial, Dan's conviction will be affirmed by the appellate court.
D) Both b and c are correct.

Question 20

The legal test applied for standing in claims of an alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure requires all of the following, except:

A) Whether the defendant had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the area that was searched
B) Whether the defendant had a subjectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the area that was searched
C) Both a and b
D) Neither a nor b

Question 21

In which of the following cases did the Court find that the defendant had standing to suppress based on unreasonable search and seizure?

A) The police stopped a vehicle believed to have been involved in a robbery. The vehicle contained two passengers-neither of whom owned the vehicle. A search of the vehicle turned up a firearm under the front seat. The passengers filed a motion to suppress the evidence based on an unreasonable search.
B) The police entered a home without a warrant or consent, looking for a suspected murder who was believed to be an overnight guest in the home. The suspect was found hiding in a closet. The suspect filed a motion to suppress based on an unreasonable search.
C) Defendant Cox was directed by a police officer to empty the contents of her purse. When she did so, a jar of illegal drugs was among the contents. Her boyfriend, who was with her at the time, claimed the drugs were his. The boyfriend field a motion to suppress based on an unreasonable search.
D) None of the above cases resulted in a finding of standing.

Question 22

___________ is a method created by the Court to limit the impact of the exclusionary rule.
3 and

A) Standing
B) Exceptions to the application of the exclusionary rule
C) The silver platter doctrine
D) Both a and b

Question 23

Which of the following represents the rationale for carving exceptions out of the exclusionary rule?

A) The exclusionary rule is a constitutional rule intended to deter the police and protect the integrity of the court.
B) The exclusionary rule is a judge-made remedy designed to deter unreasonable searches and seizures.
C) There are times when the amount of deterrence gained from excluding evidence from trial is outweighed by the cost to society that results from the exclusion.
D) Both b and c

Question 24

The following statement is not a correct statement about the collateral proceedings exception:

A) The collateral proceedings exception excludes unlawfully seized evidence from all criminal proceedings associated with the charges, up to and including the formal trial.
B) The collateral proceedings exception permits the use of unlawfully seized evidence in all criminal proceedings, excluding it only from the formal trial.
C) The collateral proceedings exception is rooted in the belief there is an interest in a full presentation of the facts.
D) Excluding evidence from proceedings other than the formal trial provides little additional deterrence from police misconduct.

Question 25

_______________ occurs when the connection between the unlawful search and the seizure of the evidence is weak.

A) A break in the chain of custody
B) Attenuation
C) Collateral damage
D) Self-incrimination

Question 26

A police officer conducted an unlawful search of Fred's vehicle. When the police office momentarily stepped away from the vehicle, Fred sped away. With the police officer in pursuit, Fred opens the window in the vehicle and voluntarily throws narcotics out the vehicle's window. The drugs are subsequently seized by the police in Fred's arrest for possession of narcotics. Fred files a motion to suppress the narcotics. Applying the attenuation exception, how would the court rule on Fred's motion?

A) The court would deny Fred's motion.
B) The court would grant Fred's motion.
C) The court would defer a decision on Fred's motion pending the outcome of the trial.
D) The court would dismiss Fred's motion for lacking standing.

Question 27

In Brown v. Illinois (1975), the U.S. Supreme Court articulated three circumstances where there is the attenuation of the taint of an unlawful search. Which of the following is not one of the circumstances articulated by the court?

A) when there is a significant passage of time between the initial illegality and the discovery of the evidence
B) Where a Number of factors intervene to weaken the connection
C) When the police mistakenly or unintentionally misinterpret the law
D) All of the above

Question 28

The 1963 case Wong Sun v. United States tested which exception the exclusionary rule?

A) Collateral proceedings
B) Attenuation
C) Good faith exception
D) Inevitable discovery exception

Question 29

In which case did the U.S. Supreme Court carve out the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule?

A) Terry v. Ohio
B) United States v. Leon
C) Stone v. Powell
D) Arizona v. Evans

Question 30

In the last 3 decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has relied on the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule to uphold the constitutionality of searches in five circumstances. These include all of the following, except:

A) Reliance on a warrant
B) Reliance on assurance by a judge that the warrant meets the Fourth Amendment standards
C) Reliance on the apparent authority of a third party to consent
D) Reliance on a statute that had been declared unconstitutional before the warrant was issue

Question 31

In United States v. Leon, the police secured and executed a warrant, seizing cash and narcotics. In response to the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, the federal district court found that the affidavit supporting the warrant failed to establish the informant's reliability and credibility and did not constitute probable cause. When heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court:

A) Held that the police acted in reasonably good faith reliance on the warrant and that excluding the evidence would be an extreme sanction and was inappropriate
B) Held that the officers who secured the warrant carried out a thorough and responsible investigation and reasonably believed that the search of the home pursuant to a warrant was founded on probable cause
C) Held that if the officers been properly trained, they would have known that the search was illegal
D) All of the above
E) Only a and b

Question 32

Under the independent source exception to the exclusionary rule, evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is:

A) Inadmissible if the defendant can show that that the police could have obtained sufficient probable cause to obtain a warrant had they sought out an independent source
B) Admissible if the police are able to demonstrate that the evidence was also obtained through independent and lawful means
C) Admissible if the evidence was obtained inadvertently during the execution of a valid warrant
D) Inadmissible unless the police officers can retrace their investigation and establish that probable cause to seize the evidence had been established but not properly articulated

Question 33

The inevitable discovery rule was first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in:

A) Wolf v. Colorado
B) Silverthorne Lumber Company v. United States
C) Nix. v. Williams
D) Murray v. United States

Question 34

If the government can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that without a doubt the evidence would have been discovered in the same condition in a lawful fashion, the evidence may be admitted into evidence as the _______________ exception to the exclusionary rule.

A) inevitable discovery
B) independent source
C) good faith
D) attenuation

Question 35

The difference between the independent source exception and the inevitable discovery exception is:

A) Under the independent source exception, the evidence introduced at trial was obtained legally whereas the evidence introduced at trial under the inevitable discovery exception was not.
B) The independent source exception relies on a factual finding before the evidence is admitted whereas the inevitable discovery exception necessarily implicates a hypothetical finding before the evidence is admitted.
C) The independent source exception requires third party information whereas the inevitable discovery exception relies on the idea that the police would have established probable cause for a warrant had they had more time to do so.
D) Both a and b are both correct.

Question 36

An opposing lawyer's attack on a witness's credibility during cross-examination is called ___________.

A) an objection
B) impeachment
C) insurrection
D) narrative

Question 37

If evidence seized in an unlawful search is used to attack a witness's credibility during cross-examination, the judge will instruct the jury:

A) That they may consider such evidence as inconsistent with the defendant's testimony when evaluating the defendant's credibility
B) That they may not consider the evidence in evaluating whether the defendant is guilty
C) That they are to disregard any reference to the unlawfully obtained evidence
D) None of the above
E) Both a and b

Question 38

Following the Court's ruling in United States v. Calandra (1974), the exclusionary rule is viewed as a doctrine that is not an ironclad requirement of the Fourth Amendment that judges are compelled to apply in every circumstance.

Question 39

One of the key arguments in support of the exclusionary rule is that the exclusionary rule deters the police, thus serving to prevent future violations, not repair past violations.

Question 40

The silver platter doctrine allowed federal prosecutors to use evidence seized illegally by federal agents at trial.

Question 41

One of the arguments against the exclusionary rule is that it undermines the purpose of the criminal trial.

Question 42

The exclusionary rule is a constitutional right required by the Fourth Amendment as a way to address evidence that is seized in violation of protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Question 43

The burden to prove standing falls on the party alleging the violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Question 44

Bob was arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit murder based on evidence that was obtained by the police thorough an illegal wiretap in Bob's co-defendant's phone line. Bob can have this evidence suppressed, based o n a violation of the his Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

Question 45

When the link between the unreasonable search and the seizure of evidence is weak, the court may exclude the evidence under the attendance exception.

Question 46

One of the factors considered by the court in determining if the link between the unreasonable search and the seizure of evidence is weak is the length of time that transpired between the two events.

Question 47

Courts are more apt to find the link between the unreasonable search and the seizure of evidence is weak when they are dealing with testimony rather than physical evidence.

Question 48

The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule focuses primarily on the reasonable beliefs of police officers.

Question 49

The good faith exception to the search warrant was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984 in United States v. Leon.

Question 50

The police served a warrant at 347 Main Street, which resulted in the seizure of large quantities of marijuana sitting on the countertops in the kitchen of the residence. Ted, the resident of 347 Main Street is arrested for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Before his trial, Ted's attorney moves to have the evidence against Ted suppressed after learning that the address on the warrant should have been 437 Main Street and not Ted's residence at 347 Main Street. The prosecution learns that the court clerk inadvertently transposed the 3 and 4, and the warrant was issued with an incorrect address. The evidence against Ted will be suppressed as a result of the clerk's error.

Question 51

The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule requires that the government prove by clear and convincing evidence that the evidence unlawfully seized would have been inevitably discovered in the same condition in a lawful fashion.

Question 52

Evidence that is seized in an unlawful search may be used for impeachment of the defendant if the defendant takes the stand at his trial.

Question 53

What two categories of evidence might be obtained during an illegal search that could be deemed inadmissible in court under the exclusionary rule?

Question 54

Why must a prosecutor act immediately to challenge a ruling on the inadmissibility of evidence under the exclusionary rule and not wait to appeal until after there is a finding of guilt?

Question 55

What was the impact of Mapp v. Ohio on state courts?

Question 56

Explain why in United States v. Leon the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Leon and in favor of admitting evidence seized pursuant to a defective warrant.

Question 57

What was the basis of the U.S. Supreme Court's recognition of exceptions to the exclusionary rule following its ruling in United States v. Calandra?

Question 58

Discuss the development of the exclusionary rule from when it was first recognized by the Court in the Weeks case through its application to state court in the Mapp case.

Question 59

The following represents a brief summary of the facts in the 1963 case Wong Sun v. United States. In this case, federal narcotics agents illegally arrested Toy, who then implicated Yee as drug dealer. Yee was arrested, and drugs were found in Yee's home. Yee then stated that he got the drugs from Wong Sun. Wong Sun is then arrested. Toy, Yee, and Wong Sun were all charged with narcotics violations. Wong Sun was released on his own recognizance. A few days later, Wong Sun voluntarily returned to the police station, was interrogated, and provided statements to federal narcotics officers. The Court was asked to rule on whether the narcotics seized from Yee's home and Wong Sun's confession were fruits of the poisonous tree which, according to the defendants, was Toy's illegal arrest. Explaining and applying the exclusionary rule and any applicable exceptions, discuss how the Court should rule about Yee's claim and about Wong Sun's claim?

Question 60

Discuss the constitutional debate both for and against the exclusionary rule.

Question 61

Explain standing and how one establishes that he or she has standing to challenge the introduction of evidence at trial

Question 62

Compare and contrast the independent source exception to the inevitable discovery exception.