Multiple Choice
Three college students who attend a public university share an apartment in Collegetown, USA. Police have heard that three members of the local college's varsity swim team live there and have all recently failed university-administered drug tests. Police show up at the apartment hoping they can acquire to consent to enter. As they approach the apartment, police see that the landlord is standing outside the door. Police ask the landlord to let them in. The landlord, who is a lawyer, refuses, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Chapman v. United States. Irritated, police instead knock on the door. One resident of the apartment is there and allows police to enter. In a common area, police find drug paraphernalia and a small amount of cocaine. They seize this evidence. Just then, a second resident of the home enters and tells police to leave immediately. They do leave, but take the evidence with them.
-The landlord's refusal to grant police access to the apartment was:
A) an incorrect application of Chapman v. United States.
B) correct in principle, but cited the wrong case.
C) only valid because somebody was home.
D) in fact consistent with appropriate Supreme Court case law.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q1: Critical Thinking:<br>A local police department suspects that
Q2: Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control
Q3: Any means of invading a person's reasonable
Q4: Although the Fourth Amendment refers to "houses,"
Q6: Police must first obtain a warrant before
Q7: A "search" within the meaning of the
Q8: Which of the following doctrines would permit
Q9: Completion:<br>-In 1984 the Supreme Court created a
Q10: The _ doctrine holds that evidence derived
Q11: The Fourth Amendment contains a provision expressly