Question 1

Illinois v. McArthur (2001) dealt with whether an officer could refuse to allow a resident to enter his home without a police officer until a search warrant could be obtained.

Accepted Answer

Illinois v. McArthur (2001) held that an officer could refuse to allow a resident to enter his home without a police officer until a search warrant could be obtained.

Question 2

The precedent case for search and seizure of abandoned property and open fields is Arizona v. Gant.

Accepted Answer

Arizona v. Gant dealt with the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement for searches of vehicles. The Supreme Court has not yet directly addressed the issue of search and seizure of abandoned property and open fields in a precedent case.

Question 3

The automobile exception, as it stands today, simply states that if a government agent has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime, no warrant is needed.

Accepted Answer

This is a correct statement of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that because of the "ready mobility" of vehicles, warrantless searches of vehicles are permitted if there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime. However, this exception is subject to various limitations and requirements, such as that the search must be limited to the areas where the suspected items could reasonably be found.

Question 4

United States v. Warshak affirmed:

Accepted Answer

United States v. Warshak affirmed that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mails, and that the government must obtain a warrant before accessing them.

Question 5

A seizure occurs whenever a vehicle is stopped, and so Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure apply.

Accepted Answer

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and a vehicle stop is considered a "seizure" under this amendment, requiring it to be reasonable.

Question 6

In Riley v. California (2014), it was concluded that all property immediately associated with the arrestee may be searched incident to arrest.

Accepted Answer

In Riley v. California (2014), the Supreme Court held that the police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.

Question 7

When government agents search a person incident to arrest, they may use reasonable force to protect themselves, as well as to prevent escape or the destruction or concealment of evidence.

Accepted Answer

According to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, government agents are allowed to use reasonable force when conducting a search incident to arrest to protect themselves and prevent escape or destruction of evidence. However, the force used must be reasonable and not excessive.

Question 8

The "open fields" doctrine holds that land beyond that normally associated with use of that land, that is, undeveloped land, may not be searched without a warrant.

Accepted Answer

The "open fields" doctrine allows law enforcement to search undeveloped land without a warrant because it is not considered an area where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Question 9

Prior to 1967, courts took a property-based approach to defining a search and when constitutional protections were implicated.

Accepted Answer

Prior to 1967, courts relied on the property-based approach.

Question 10

Once given, consent may be revoked at any point.

Accepted Answer

According to ethical and legal standards, individuals have the right to withdraw their consent at any time without implication or penalty.

Question 11

The Supreme Court ruled that unannounced cell searches do not require warrants, do not violate inmates' Fourth Amendment rights, and are justified by the need to maintain order in:

Accepted Answer

Bell v. Wolfish is the case that addressed the issue of unannounced cell searches in correctional facilities. The Supreme Court ruled that such searches were justified as they were necessary for maintaining institutional security and did not violate inmates' Fourth Amendment rights.

Question 12

After officers have obtained their search warrant and gained entrance, they can search only areas in which they reasonably believe the specified items might be found.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the "plain view doctrine," which means officers can only search areas where they have a reasonable belief the specified items might be found, as stated in the Fourth Amendment.

Question 13

While the terms may be similar, legally there is no overlap between the trespass and privacy doctrines.

Accepted Answer

While the doctrines of trespass and privacy may sometimes be related, they are distinct legal concepts with some overlap. For example, entering someone's property without their permission could constitute both trespass and invasion of privacy. Similarly, taking photographs of someone in a private setting may violate their privacy rights but not necessarily involve trespassing.

Question 14

Police officers who have established probable cause that evidence is likely to be at a certain place and who do not have time to get a search warrant may conduct a warrantless search based on exigent circumstances.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the "exigent circumstances exception" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. It allows police to conduct a warrantless search if there is a pressing need to do so, such as to prevent the destruction of evidence or to apprehend a fleeing criminal. However, the police must still have probable cause to believe that evidence is at the location they wish to search.

Question 15

If an individual gives voluntary consent for the police to search his or her person or property, the police may do so without a warrant, and any evidence found will be admissible in court.

Accepted Answer

If someone voluntarily consents to a search, the police do not need a warrant and any evidence found can be used in court. However, if someone is coerced or forced into giving consent, the search may be considered illegal and any evidence found may be excluded from court.

Question 16

Which of the following does not deal with the rights of probationers or parolees?

Accepted Answer

Bell v. Wolfish deals with the rights of pretrial detainees, while the other cases listed all involve the rights of probationers or parolees.

Question 17

Electronic surveillance is a form of search and seizure and, as such, is governed by which of the Amendments?

Accepted Answer

Electronic surveillance is a form of search and seizure, and the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution specifically protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials.

Question 18

The concept of curtilage evolved in the Supreme Court's attempt to ascertain just how far beyond one's house the reasonable expectation of privacy extended.

Accepted Answer

The concept of curtilage was developed by the Supreme Court to establish the boundaries of a person's reasonable expectation of privacy around their home.

Question 19

The court has allowed, as reasonable, third-party consent searches in which an apparent authority existed.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has ruled that third-party consent searches are reasonable if the consenting party had apparent authority to consent to the search.

Question 20

Electronic surveillance:

Accepted Answer

Electronic surveillance is governed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Therefore, a warrant is typically required before electronic surveillance can be conducted on a person or their property.

Quiz 9: Conducting Constitutional Searches