Deck 14: Evidence Unconstitutionally Obtained

Question 1

What is the rationale for not admitting evidence that is obtained in violation of the Constitution?

Answer 1

The rationale for not admitting evidence that is obtained in violation of the Constitution is primarily grounded in the protection of individual rights and the integrity of the judicial system. The United States Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment, protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. This protection is a cornerstone of American civil liberties.

When evidence is obtained in violation of these constitutional protections, the legal system employs a principle known as the "exclusionary rule." This rule mandates that evidence obtained through unconstitutional means cannot be used in a court of law against the accused. The rationale behind this rule is multifaceted:

1. **Deterrence of Misconduct**: One of the primary reasons for the exclusionary rule is to deter law enforcement from violating constitutional rights. If evidence obtained illegally could be used in court, it would provide little incentive for police to respect constitutional protections during investigations.

2. **Judicial Integrity**: Allowing evidence obtained through unconstitutional methods to be admitted in court would imply judicial approval of illegal conduct. The courts are meant to uphold the law, and using such evidence would compromise the integrity of the judicial system and undermine the rule of law.

3. **Protection of Rights**: The Constitution is designed to protect individual rights and liberties. By excluding evidence obtained in violation of these rights, the courts reinforce the importance of these protections and prevent the government from benefiting from its own wrongdoing.

4. **Remedial Function**: The exclusionary rule serves as a remedy for the violation of a person's constitutional rights. It acknowledges that a wrong has been committed and attempts to rectify the situation by negating any advantage the prosecution might have gained from the illegal search or seizure.

5. **Public Trust**: The fair administration of justice is essential for maintaining public trust in the legal system. If the public perceives that the government can violate constitutional rights without consequence, trust in the rule of law and in the institutions that enforce it would be eroded.

It is important to note that the exclusionary rule is not without its critics. Some argue that it allows guilty parties to go free on a technicality, potentially putting the public at risk. However, the rule is seen by many as a necessary check on government power, ensuring that individual rights are not trampled in the pursuit of law enforcement objectives.

Question 2

What are the provisions of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments that limit the use of evidence in criminal cases?

Answer 2

The provisions of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments that limit the use of evidence in criminal cases are as follows:

1. Fourth Amendment: The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This means that evidence obtained through an illegal search or seizure, such as evidence obtained without a warrant or without probable cause, may be excluded from use in a criminal case.

2. Fifth Amendment: The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination and ensures due process of law. This means that evidence obtained through coercion or without the Miranda warning (which informs individuals of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney) may be excluded from use in a criminal case.

3. Sixth Amendment: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial, including the right to confront witnesses and the right to legal counsel. This means that evidence obtained in violation of these rights, such as evidence obtained through witness intimidation or without the presence of legal counsel, may be excluded from use in a criminal case.

Overall, these amendments serve to protect individuals from the use of evidence that has been obtained in violation of their constitutional rights, ensuring that only legally obtained evidence is admissible in criminal cases.

Question 3

Define the exclusionary rule. What is its purpose? How has the rule been modified in recent years? What is the "derivative evidence" rule? What is the good faith exception?

Answer 3

The exclusionary rule is a legal principle that prohibits evidence obtained in violation of a person's constitutional rights from being used in court. Its purpose is to deter law enforcement officers from conducting illegal searches and seizures, and to protect individuals from having evidence unlawfully obtained against them in court.

In recent years, the exclusionary rule has been modified to include certain exceptions, such as the "good faith exception." This exception allows evidence to be admissible in court if it was obtained in good faith by law enforcement officers who believed they were acting within the bounds of the law, even if it is later determined that their actions violated the Fourth Amendment.

The "derivative evidence" rule is another modification to the exclusionary rule, which allows evidence that is obtained as a result of illegally obtained evidence to also be excluded from court. This means that if the original evidence was obtained unlawfully, any evidence that is derived from it, such as confessions or witness statements, would also be inadmissible.

The good faith exception, on the other hand, allows evidence to be used in court if it was obtained in good faith by law enforcement officers who believed they were acting within the bounds of the law, even if it is later determined that their actions violated the Fourth Amendment.

Overall, the exclusionary rule and its modifications serve to protect individuals' constitutional rights and ensure that evidence used in court is obtained legally and fairly.

Question 4

How does the rule relating to the use of illegally seized evidence in England differ from that in the United States? Which rule do you feel has the most merit? Discuss.

Question 5

State at least five ways of making legal searches without warrants, and give the rationale for each exception.

Question 6

What is the justification for seizing evidence from a person incident to a lawful arrest? State and explain the Chimel rule.

Question 7

In the 2009 case, Arizona v. Gant, under what circumstances may officers conduct a warrantless search of a car interior when the occupant has just been arrested?

Question 8

In the case of United States v. Thornton, what conduct did the officer perform that made the arrest and search incident to arrest illegal?

Question 9

In 1984, the United States Supreme Court carved out a limited exception to the exclusionary rule known as the public safety exception. Define the exception stated in that case and the rationale of the Court in authorizing the exception. What are the requirements for a valid search warrant?

Question 10

May the protection of the Fourth Amendment be waived? If so, what are the requirements? Who has the burden of proving waiver?

Question 11

Define the moving vehicle exception. Is evidence discovered under this exception admissible against a defendant who controls the field? Does the moving vehicle exception apply to a motor home? Explain.

Question 12

The Supreme Court has held that following an arrest for a felony, the routine collection of DNA can be considered constitutional in the absence of a search warrant for DNA. Why did the Supreme Court determine that such a collection of DNA was reasonable in the absence of a warrant? Does this make such evidence admissible against the person from whom it was collected?

Question 13

What is the open fields exception? What factors are to be considered in determining whether property is a part of the curtilage? Does the Fourth Amendment apply to searches by private individuals?

Question 14

What is the rationale for authorizing the seizure of objects from a lawfully impounded motor vehicle? Define plain view as an exception to the warrant requirement.

Question 15

Do the provisions of the Fourth Amendment apply when evidence is obtained by wiretapping and eavesdropping? Is the seizure of evidence by the use of an illegal wiretap or eavesdropping permitted? Are there any exceptions to the rule that an order must be obtained before wiretap evidence is admissible?

Question 16

Why is a confession inadmissible if it is not freely and voluntarily given? Define free and voluntary, and give case examples.

Question 17

What degree of proof is required of the prosecution to show that a confession is voluntary? Discuss. What factors are considered?

Question 18

What is the delay in arraignment rule as it relates to confessions? In relation to this, give the facts and holding of the Mallory case.

Question 19

What are the four warnings required by the Supreme Court as stated in Miranda v. Arizona? At what stage are the warnings required?

Question 20

If the Miranda warnings are not given, is evidence from the confession excluded for all purposes? Discuss.

Question 21

What are the provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control Act relating to the admissibility of confessions? Did this statute have the effect of overturning the Miranda warnings and allow evidence to be admitted?

Question 22

In a federal prosecution, when there is an unreasonable delay in bringing an arrested person in front of a judicial official, and the arrestee makes a confession, must the confession be considered inadmissible?

Question 23

What is the provision of the Constitution that relates to self-incrimination? Are nontestimonial communications protected by this constitutional provision? Discuss.

Question 24

There are two provisions of the Constitution that include the phrase "due process of law." What are they? Give an example of a situation in which the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated.

Question 25

What provisions of the Bill of Rights protect a person's right to counsel in criminal cases? At what point in the judicial process does the right to counsel attach? If a confession is obtained after counsel is requested by the accused, is it admissible evidence?

Question 26

State the rule relating to the right to have counsel present at an in-person lineup or other confrontation for identification.

Question 27

In the case of United States v. Leon, a judge, after evaluating all of the evidence, issued a facially valid search warrant. Police officers, acting in good faith, executed the warrant and found large quantities of drugs. The warrant was later determined to be invalid due to insufficient probable cause. What was the opinion of the Supreme Court concerning the admissibility of the evidence obtained by the officers? What was the rationale of the Court in reaching its conclusion? What was the rule established in that case?

Question 28

The defendant in the case of Georgia v. Randolph contended that both he and his wife had to agree to a consent search of their marital home, or a search would be unreasonable. In the case, the married couple had a dispute involving their marriage and minor child that got the police involved. When the police wanted to search the home for drugs, the wife consented but the husband refused. Under the circumstances, can there be a lawful consent to search when the two occupiers of the property disagree on allowing police to enter? The police obtained a warrant based on what was found when the wife invited the police to enter. Does the exclusionary rule mean that the drug evidence seized after the warrant was obtained is subject to suppression? Why or why not?

Question 29

In the case of Horton v. California, a police officer prepared an affidavit for a search warrant, which referred to the proceeds of a robbery and weapons. The warrant issued by the magistrate authorized only a search for the proceeds. While executing the search warrant the officer seized weapons in plain view. Was the seizure of the weapons justified under the warrant? What was the Supreme Court's decision concerning the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view be "inadvertent"? What are the two conditions that must be satisfied in order for a plain view seizure to be valid?

Question 30

The rationale for excluding evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution is that:

A) such evidence is not relevant or material.
B) if such evidence would not be excluded, that fact would provide an incentive for police to affirmatively commit violations of individual constitutional rights.
C) a jury would place little weight on such evidence because force was used in obtaining it.
D) the Constitution of the United States expressly prohibits the use of such evidence.

Question 31

Additional support for excluding evidence seized in violation of the Constitution is that:

A) in a democracy, governmental jurisdictions must follow the law.
B) every person can expect fair treatment and due process from the government.
C) excluding evidence helps ensure that the government will observe the rule the next time the situation arises.
D) all of the above responses indicate sound reasons to exclude illegally seized evidence from criminal trials.

Question 32

The rule of law that prohibits the use of evidence obtained by an illegal search:

A) is known as the exclusionary rule.
B) is universally applied in all courts of the United States and England.
C) was made applicable in both the federal and state courts in this country in 1914.
D) was adopted by the courts in the United States because experience showed that such evidence was not relevant.

Question 33

Supreme Court rulings that exclude evidence for violations of the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures:

A) require that all evidence illegally seized always be suppressed.
B) do not require that evidence should be suppressed if the prosecutor wants to use it.
C) are not applied when the police violate the knock-and-announce requirement of the Fourth Amendment, as a general rule.
D) are always applied when the knock-and-announce requirement of the Fourth Amendment is violated.

Question 34

When evidence has been illegally obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule may be applied to keep the evidence from admission in court:

A) but a trial court may later determine that the violation was not outrageous and refuse to enforce the exclusionary rule.
B) but the trial court may choose to sanction the police officers personally for their violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of a suspect.
C) and the illegally seized evidence cannot be used as a source to discover "derivative evidence" suggested by the illegally seized evidence.
D) however, other evidence that was discovered as "derivative evidence" from the illegally seized evidence is admissible in court.

Question 35

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

A) specifically states that evidence obtained in violation thereof is not admissible in criminal cases.
B) when adopted in 1789, applied both to federal agents and state agents.
C) includes a provision that no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
D) outlines the conditions under which a search incident to a lawful arrest may be authorized.

Question 36

When a search is made incident to an arrest:

A) the search is valid even though the arrest turns out to be unlawful.
B) the area of the search is limited to the area that is within the immediate dominion and control of the arrestee or any evidence would be inadmissible.
C) the search may include the area of the whole house if the arrest is made in the living room of the arrestee's home and the evidence would be admissible against the arrestee.
D) the search may be made without a warrant or probable cause so long as the arrest immediately follows the search.

Question 37

When an officer saw a woman driving down the street under circumstances that appeared to be a bit unusual given the time of day and the location of her travel, but there was no visible criminal activity, the officer may:

A) stop the vehicle when he finds that the license plate does not belong to the vehicle.
B) stop the vehicle and make a search of the interior of the car because more evidence of criminal activity might be found.
C) stop the vehicle and initiate a search of the whole vehicle even in the absence of probable cause because persons operating vehicles have a reduced or lower expectation of privacy than when a in his or her home.
D) not stop the vehicle if there is no visible or suspected criminal activity.

Question 38

A suspect may waive his or her Fourth Amendment rights and consent to a search. If a search is made under this authority:

A) the person who waives his or her rights cannot revoke the waiver once the search is started.
B) if a waiver is made to search one part of the house, then the other parts may be searched without an additional waiver.
C) the prosecution must show that the consent was freely and voluntarily given and the person who gave the consent had the capacity to consent.
D) the person who gives the consent cannot place any restrictions on the scope of the search.

Question 39

An exception to the rule that a search can be made only with a warrant is what is commonly known as the moving vehicle/probable cause doctrine. Under this exception:

A) the United States Supreme Court has held that the search of a motor home temporarily parked in a downtown parking lot is justified.
B) it is not necessary that the officer have probable cause to make the search, because probable cause is required only when the search is under a warrant.
C) a search may not, under any condition, include closed containers in the automobile.
D) only automobiles may be searched because this exception does not apply to boats, airplanes, or movable motor homes.

Question 40

Police arrested a driver who had lawfully just parked his car. The arrest was for driving with a suspended driver's license. Following the arrest and after the arrestee was handcuffed and placed in a police cruiser, the police searched the interior of the car and discovered drugs in a glovebox. The police:

A) made a proper search since this is really an inventory search of the car.
B) had to make a search to be sure that evidence could not be destroyed.
C) have made a proper search because this search was incident to the lawful arrest.
D) have conducted an illegal search of the glove box because no evidence of the offense of arrest would have been discovered inside the car.

Question 41

In some instances, if an object is in plain view, it may be seized without a search warrant. Such a seizure is legally authorized:

A) even though the officer is not legally on the premises when he or she views the object.
B) if the officer observes drugs during a traffic stop but not if the stop was made as a pretext without probable cause.
C) if the officer has a suspicion that the article to be seized is illegally possessed.
D) if the officer is legitimately in a position to view the object and has probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity.

Question 42

In Maryland v. King (2013), upon an arrest, the police conducted a DNA search and procured a sample of the defendant's DNA without a warrant. A routine collection of DNA following a valid arrest:

A) was held to be reasonable because no individual has the expectation of privacy of that individual's DNA pattern.
B) was held to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment since the defendant was already in custody, and the taking of a DNA sample from the mouth was similar to taking a fingerprint.
C) was held to be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the taking of a DNA sample is an intrusion into the arrestee's body.
D) was held to have been unreasonable in the absence of a properly issued warrant for the collection of a DNA sample.

Question 43

When police proceed with probable cause but without a warrant, there may be some limitations on searches and seizures. Consistent with this practice: [Select the correct response.]

A) Drivers who are suspected of being under the influence of alcohol or other drugs may be tested without a warrant and even without probable cause.
B) Drivers of automobiles may always be tested without probable cause and without a warrant because of the well-known carnage on public highways in the states.
C) The use of a warrant is not required for any automobile search, including the driver.
D) Generally, a suspected intoxicated driver may not have his or her blood-alcohol level tested without a warrant or some other legally recognized excuse for a warrant.

Question 44

While the United States Constitution protects houses, including the curtilage, evidence obtained outside the curtilage may be admissible. In considering extent-of-curtilage questions, the courts have decided that:

A) a barn located 60 yards from the house and not within the area enclosed by a fence surrounding the house is within the curtilage.
B) the fact that the home is surrounded by an enclosure has no bearing on whether the area is part of the curtilage.
C) the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of garbage left for collection on the sidewalk outside the yard of the home.
D) if the entry of officers on the property amounts to a trespass, it makes no difference whether the property is part of the curtilage.

Question 45

In Mapp v. Ohio, decided in 1961, the United States Supreme Court:

A) for the first time determined that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment would not be admissible in federal courts.
B) upheld the Ohio Supreme Court's decision that evidence obtained by an illegal search was nevertheless admissible in state court because the Fourth Amendment applied only to federal prosecutions.
C) held that evidence obtained by an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not admissible in either state or federal court.
D) determined that no evidence would be admissible in court unless obtained with a valid search warrant.

Question 46

A police officer, who possessed probable cause that a resident of a detached home had received possession of a stolen motorcycle, entered the driveway of defendant's home, and lifted a tarp to check on the vehicle's identification number (VIN). Regarding the conduct of the police officer:

A) a warrant is required to search any residence under any circumstances.
B) a warrant would be required since the entry onto the residential property and lifting the tarp that covered the motorcycle to view the VIN is considered a Fourth Amendment search.
C) no warrant is required for a police officer to walk across the residential yard and look at the vehicle identification number since the motorcycle under a tarp was in plain view.
D) the officer does not need a warrant because there was no expectation of privacy of a motor vehicle parked that was completely observable from the public street.

Question 47

If an automobile has been lawfully impounded:

A) search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment do not apply, because this is a moving vehicle situation for which no warrant is generally required.
B) and the officer is making a routine inventory as required by department policy, he or she may seize contraband or illegally possessed evidence if the officer discovers the evidence inside the vehicle during the inventory search or discovers contraband or illegally possessed evidence within a container within the automobile.
C) the officer may seize what he or she recognizes to be illegally possessed goods but cannot seize or search any containers found inside the car.
D) articles may be lawfully seized from the car even if the police department has no policy regulating inventory searches because such inventory searches are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Question 48

Wiretapping and eavesdropping:

A) have from the earliest cases been considered within the protection of the Fourth Amendment.
B) have, at least since the cases of Katz v. United States and Berger v. United States, been within the protection of the Fourth Amendment.
C) are legal and evidence resulting therefrom is admissible where made by state officers if the requirements of the federal law are complied with, even though the state law prohibits either wiretapping or eavesdropping or both.
D) are investigative techniques that are no longer effective because the evidence cannot be used in any court.

Question 49

Law enforcement officials often wish to track suspect's movements with a global positioning satellite (GPS) tracking device that may or may not be connected to a reporting device such as a cell phone. In order to lawfully attach, collect information, or admit that information in court:

A) law enforcement officers do not need a warrant to attach a GPS device to a suspect's motor vehicle.
B) police may attach a GPS tracking device without a warrant because a person's movements on the surface of Earth are visible to everyone.
C) law enforcement officers generally must procure a warrant that allows the attachment of the device in the jurisdiction in which the officers work.
D) officers must obtain a warrant pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and must apply to the special court that administers that law.

Question 50

In a situation where police investigators want to obtain historical cell phone location data from a potential defendant's cell phone usage:

A) a potential defendant has no expectation of privacy of data that he or she has voluntarily conveyed to a third-party cell phone carrier.
B) the suspect has no expectation of privacy of cell phone records because everyone knows that such data is not considered private by society.
C) no warrant is required, and the evidence is admissible because in using a cell phone, a suspect or a defendant consents to such information generated by the phone as being available to law enforcement officials.
D) a warrant is required to obtain historical cell phone location data if the cell phone location data evidence is expected to be introduced against a suspect or defendant at a trial.

Question 51

The free and voluntary rule, as it relates to the admissibility of a confession in a federal prosecution:

A) prohibits the use of a confession if obtained during an unreasonable delay in bringing the accused before a magistrate.
B) was predicated on the portion of the Fourth Amendment prohibiting an illegal search for words or intangible evidence.
C) at the present time applies in federal cases but not in state cases.
D) presently applies only to state officials and courts.

Question 52

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court:

A) added restrictions concerning the use of confessions by requiring that warnings be given prior to attempting to engage in custodial questioning.
B) made the delay in arraignment rule applicable to the states.
C) indicated that confessions made to law enforcement officers would no longer be admissible in evidence.
D) specifically stated that unless warnings were properly administered by the officer, evidence subsequently obtained from the subject could not be used for impeachment purposes.

Question 53

Following the Miranda ruling, several cases that were necessary to interpret Miranda were decided. These decisions have pointed out that:

A) the Miranda warning must be given in the exact terms as stated in the case.
B) if a suspect has indicated that he or she does not want to give a written statement, but gives an oral statement, the oral statement is inadmissible.
C) the Miranda warnings are required if the police ask questions of a suspect who is not in custody at the time of the questioning.
D) the Miranda warning need not be given in the exact terms as stated in the Miranda case as long as the warning reasonably conveys to the suspect his or her rights as required by Miranda.

Question 54

After the Supreme Court decided the Miranda case, Congress passed a law that attempted to reverse the decision in Miranda. In the view of Congress according to the statute it passed, a confession taken in violation of the teachings of the Miranda case could be used against a defendant as long as a judge ruled that the confession had been voluntarily made. In Dickerson v. United States, a defendant had been arrested for federal bank robbery, but Miranda warnings had been defectively given to the arrestee prior to the offering of incriminating statements. In Dickerson v. United States, according to the Supreme Court of the United States:

A) Congress has the power to determine what types of evidence would be admissible in federal courts and, therefore, could determine whether the Miranda rule would stand or fall.
B) state courts are free to enforce or ignore the Miranda decision because the Supreme Court has no general supervisory power over state court practice.
C) the Miranda warnings were required by the Constitution, and Congress had no power to attempt to change a decision of constitutional dimensions.
D) Congress has no power to override any decision of the Supreme Court of the United States because of the separation of powers doctrine.

Question 55

According to the most recent interpretations of self-incrimination provisions of the Fifth Amendment by state and federal courts:

A) taking fingerprints and photographs of a suspect violates the Fifth Amendment.
B) the privilege protects an accused from being forced to appear in a lineup or give a DNA sample.
C) the protections of the Fifth Amendment do not apply in state criminal prosecutions.
D) the privilege protects the accused only from being compelled to testify against himself or herself or to give evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature.

Question 56

By a series of decisions, courts have held that evidence obtained in violation of due process will not be admitted. The due process provision that limits the conduct of state officials is:

A) the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
B) included in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
C) a part of the Fifth Amendment.
D) a part of the decision handed down by the Supreme Court in Rochin v. California.

Question 57

The right to counsel provisions of the Sixth Amendment:

A) according to Escobedo and Miranda, place on the police a burden to inform the suspect of his or her right to counsel prior to custodial questioning.
B) may not be waived by the accused in court or out of court.
C) protect an accused after he or she is sworn and on the stand, but not during investigation.
D) have been interpreted to mean that a pretrial confession is not valid unless counsel is present during questioning.

Question 58

When a person is in police custody and after Miranda warnings have been given and the police want to interrogate the individual:

A) the police may attempt to get the person in custody to talk to them even after that person indicated that he or she was relying on the protections of Miranda.
B) the police may begin interrogation once the Miranda warnings have been given to the person in custody because the arrestee has been given proper legal advice.
C) the individual must first consult with an attorney before police may attempt to interrogate that individual.
D) no interrogation may be initiated after the person in custody expresses a clear desire to talk with an attorney.

Question 59

The United States Supreme Court has handed down several decisions concerning the questioning of a suspect after the suspect has claimed his or her rights under the Sixth Amendment (Edwards v. Arizona, Michigan v. Jackson, and Michigan v. Harvey). In accordance with these decisions:

A) once a suspect has been arraigned and has claimed the right to counsel at the arraignment or preliminary hearing, neither the police officer nor the suspect may initiate additional questioning.
B) if a suspect has been arraigned and has claimed the right to counsel, the police officer may not initiate questioning; however, further discussion may be initiated by the suspect and such evidence should be admissible.
C) if a suspect has claimed his or her right to counsel but questioning continues, statements [evidence] made by the arrestee may not be used by the prosecution in its case in chief, nor for impeachment purposes.
D) if a suspect has been indicted, there can be no further questioning by the officers, unless the prosecutor and defense attorney agree.

Question 60

Several cases (United States v. Wade and Kirby v. Illinois) that relate to lineups and other confrontations have been decided. According to these cases:

A) counsel must be present at all lineups or other confrontations for identification.
B) counsel is required at the pre-indictment confrontation but not at the post-indictment confrontation.
C) if the accused has not waived counsel and counsel is not provided at the post-indictment pretrial lineup, the in-court identification could be tainted.
D) the pre-arrest, pre-indictment confrontation is a critical stage, and counsel must be present at any confrontation.

Question 61

In the case of United States v. Leon, a police officer executed a facially valid search warrant, which was later determined to be defective because of insufficient probable cause. The United States Supreme Court, on review:

A) determined that, because the search warrant was invalid, the exclusionary rule would apply, and the evidence should not have been admitted.
B) recognized a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, in a situation where a defective warrant has been issued by a judge and the officer has no reason to believe that the warrant is defective.
C) recognized that suppressing evidence when the officer acts in good faith does not achieve the purposes of the exclusionary rule and indicated that the exclusionary rule would no longer be applied in search and seizure situations.
D) held that a search warrant, valid on its face, may be legally executed by a police officer even though the officer is aware that the warrant is based on insufficient probable cause.

Question 62

In the United States v. Jones, where federal law enforcement officials attached global positioning satellite tracking system to his automobile without a valid warrant:

A) there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment because no one has an expectation of privacy in the undercarriage of his or her automobile.
B) there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment since the officers possessed an expired warrant, so the attachment of the global positioning satellite tracking system did not constitute a violation of the defendant's expectation of privacy.
C) the evidence obtained by virtue of the global positioning satellite tracking system should be admissible against the defendant, Mr. Jones, because a police officer could have observed Mr. Jones at every location where he appeared during the duration of the global satellite positioning system.
D) resulted in a determination by the Supreme Court of the United States that a global positioning satellite tracking system and its usage on a private automobile required the presence of a warrant that was valid, and that evidence collected without a warrant should be excluded.

Question 63

In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, Melendez-Diaz was charged with distributing cocaine and with trafficking in cocaine. At trial, the government presented evidence that the bags seized in the case contained cocaine, through an expert witness, who had not conducted any of the laboratory analysis, who testified that according to three "Certificates of Analysis" that the bags taken from the defendant and his associates contained cocaine. Under the facts of this case:

A) the expert witness testimony was lawfully permitted concerning the contents of the bags of cocaine because another expert had conducted the laboratory analysis and the three "Certificates of Analysis" proved the nature of the contents.
B) the expert witness testimony was lawfully allowed into evidence because this has been the custom for many years.
C) the expert witness should not have been allowed to testify concerning the contents of the bags because such testimony would clearly have been hearsay evidence, and no exception exists to allow such evidence.
D) the expert witness should not have been permitted to testify concerning the contents of the bags because he had no first-hand knowledge, and such testimony violated the defendant's due process rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to confront his accusers.

Question 64

In the case, Utah v. Strieff, the police illegally stopped the defendant as he left a house that was thought to be a drug distribution house. When police checked his identification, it revealed that he had an outstanding warrant for which he was arrested. A search incident to that arrest disclosed that he was in unlawful possession of methamphetamine. When defendant Strieff filed a motion to suppress, the prosecution prevailed because the search was sufficiently attenuated or separated from his illegal arrest. When the case reached the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court ruled that:

A) the methamphetamine possessed by a defendant Strieff should have been suppressed because the illegal stop created the ability to find that he had an outstanding warrant that led to the discovery of the recreational pharmaceuticals on his person.
B) the evidence should have been suppressed because the initial arrest was illegal, and derivative evidence seized from illegal stops of persons should be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.
C) Strieff could not suppress the evidence because his personal rights were not violated when he was illegally stopped by the police officer and so the evidence was properly admitted.
D) the drugs were discovered in a manner that was sufficiently separated from the illegal arrest and therefore, the trial court made a correct decision, despite the original illegal seizure of his person.

Question 65

In the case of Arizona v. Gant, police arrested the driver, Mr. Gant, for driving with a suspended license. Because he was arrested in close proximity to his motor vehicle, police handcuffed and placed Mr. Gant in the rear of a patrol car. Because he was arrested so close to his motor vehicle, the police conducted a search of the interior of his car as incident to the lawful arrest. Cocaine proved to be in a jacket pocket within the vehicle. When the case reached the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court:

A) determined that an arrest permits a search of a motor vehicle from which a suspect has just exited where there is some proximity of the arrestee to the vehicle.
B) held that once a person has been arrested, a search of his belongings and a search of a vehicle used by the defendant was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
C) ruled that police may search a vehicle as incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense related to the arrest.
D) noted that a search of a motor vehicle is permitted whenever an investigative stop of a motor vehicle has properly been initiated as incident to a lawful arrest.

Question 66

In Maryland v. King, the defendant had a sample of his DNA taken by a buccal swab as part of the routine booking procedure. His DNA was placed in a database following this felony arrest. This DNA sample happened to match the DNA taken from a woman in a rape case. Following his rape conviction, at which the DNA samples were matched, Mr. King appealed, contending that the use of a cheek swab to collect DNA following a routine arrest violated the Fourth Amendment and the evidence should be thrown out. The Supreme Court of the United States:

A) held that it was reasonable to take a warrantless DNA sample following a routine arrest because the privacy expectations of an individual who has been taken into custody are of a diminished scope and that taking a swab of DNA is much like collecting a fingerprint.
B) held that the taking of the buccal swab DNA sample did not violate the Fourth Amendment because arrestees have no Fourth Amendment rights following a valid arrest.
C) determined that an additional warrant was necessary in order to make the intrusion into the mouth of an arrestee, and therefore, the search of Mr. King's mouth was unreasonable because the government did not have a warrant to search his mouth.
D) determined that the interests of law enforcement far outweigh any minimum expectation of privacy that an individual might have in the identification of his DNA and that the Fourth Amendment has no application here.