Question 1

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

Accepted Answer

In case B, the suspect had a reasonable expectation of privacy as an overnight guest in the home, which grants them the standing to challenge the search as unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Question 2

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

Accepted Answer

Standing and exceptions to the application of the exclusionary rule are methods used by courts to limit the impact of the exclusionary rule.

Question 3

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

Accepted Answer

The exclusionary rule is indeed a judge-made remedy aimed at deterring unreasonable searches and seizures by excluding unlawfully obtained evidence from being used in court. Exceptions to this rule are carved out when the societal costs of excluding evidence outweigh the benefits of deterrence, acknowledging the balance between enforcing constitutional rights and the practical implications of excluding evidence on the justice system.

Question 4

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

Accepted Answer

The collateral proceedings exception actually allows for the use of unlawfully seized evidence in proceedings other than the formal trial, such as bail hearings or grand jury proceedings, rather than excluding it from all criminal proceedings associated with the charges.

Question 5

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

Accepted Answer

Attenuation refers to the weakening of the connection between an unlawful search and the evidence obtained, making the evidence potentially admissible in court despite the initial illegality.

Question 6

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?

Accepted Answer

The attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule allows evidence to be admitted if the connection between the unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is sufficiently remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance. In this case, Fred's act of voluntarily throwing the narcotics out of the vehicle window constitutes an intervening act that breaks the causal chain between the initial unlawful search and the discovery of the narcotics, leading the court to likely deny the motion to suppress the evidence.

Question 7

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?

Accepted Answer

The answer of In Brown v. Illinois (1975), the U.S....

Question 8

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

Accepted Answer

The case Wong Sun v. United States tested the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule, which allows evidence to be admissible if the connection between the illegal police action and the evidence obtained is sufficiently distant or attenuated.

Question 9

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

Accepted Answer

United States v. Leon (1984) is the case where the U.S. Supreme Court established the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, allowing evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to be admitted in court if law enforcement officers were acting on a mistakenly issued warrant in good faith.

Question 10

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:

Accepted Answer

The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply when law enforcement relies on a statute that had been declared unconstitutional before the warrant was issued. This exception generally allows evidence to be admitted if law enforcement officers were acting on what they reasonably believed was a valid warrant, assurance from a judge, or consent from someone they thought had the authority to give it, even if it later turns out there was a mistake.

Question 11

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:

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court 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. The Court also 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.

Question 12

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

Accepted Answer

The independent source exception to the exclusionary rule allows for evidence to be admissible if it was obtained through means independent of the illegal search or seizure, demonstrating that the evidence could have been obtained lawfully regardless of the Fourth Amendment violation.

Question 13

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

Accepted Answer

The inevitable discovery rule was first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams, which allows evidence of a defendant's guilt that would otherwise be considered inadmissible due to improper police conduct to be admitted if it can be shown that the evidence would have inevitably been discovered without the improper conduct.

Question 14

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.

Accepted Answer

The correct answer is the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule. This doctrine allows evidence to be admitted if the prosecution can show that the evidence would have inevitably been discovered through lawful means, regardless of any initial illegal search or seizure.

Question 15

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

Accepted Answer

The independent source exception allows evidence to be admitted if it was obtained from a separate, independent source that was untainted by the illegal evidence, while the inevitable discovery exception permits the admission of evidence that would have been discovered eventually through lawful means, even if it was initially discovered through unlawful means. Both A and B accurately describe these distinctions.

Question 16

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

Accepted Answer

Impeachment is the term used to describe the process of challenging or attacking a witness's credibility during cross-examination in a legal context.

Question 17

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

Accepted Answer

The correct answers are A and B because evidence obtained from an unlawful search can be used to impeach the credibility of a witness, including the defendant, but it cannot be directly used to prove the defendant's guilt. This allows the jury to consider the evidence when evaluating the witness's (or defendant's) credibility but not for determining guilt.

Question 18

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.

Accepted Answer

The ruling in United States v. Calandra (1974) established that the exclusionary rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court, is not an absolute mandate under the Fourth Amendment but rather a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights through its deterrent effect, thus not required to be applied in all circumstances.

Question 19

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.

Accepted Answer

The exclusionary rule is primarily justified on the basis that it serves as a deterrent against unlawful police conduct by excluding improperly obtained evidence from being used in court, thereby aiming to prevent future violations rather than rectify past ones.

Question 20

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

Accepted Answer

The silver platter doctrine actually allowed federal prosecutors to use evidence seized illegally by state or local police officers, not federal agents, at trial. This doctrine was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court in the case Elkins v. United States (1960).

Quiz 11: The Exclusionary Rule