Question 1

An exception to the warrant requirement was first decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1925 in which case?

Accepted Answer

The case of Carroll v. United States established the principle of the "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, which allows law enforcement officers to conduct a warrantless search of an automobile if they have probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is located inside.

Question 2

In United States v. Ross, the Court clarified the rule relating to searches of:

Accepted Answer

The Court clarified the rule relating to searches of containers found in an automobile, ruling that if police have probable cause to believe a container found in a car contains evidence of illegal activity, they may search the container without a warrant, even if the container is locked. This expanded the scope of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

Question 3

In an Oregon decision, the court warned that the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement of the state constitution applies if the automobile:

Accepted Answer

The automobile exception to the search warrant requirement of the state constitution applies if the automobile is operable and constructively occupied. It does not require the presence of fruits of a crime or more than just the driver.

Question 4

In California v. Carney the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that privacy expectations are reduced in automobiles, not only because some parts of the vehicle are open to plain view, but also because:

Accepted Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court in California v. Carney concluded that privacy expectations are reduced in automobiles because they are heavily regulated by the government, which diminishes the expectation of privacy.

Question 5

What is the general rule for searching and seizing things in a person's body without a warrant as established by the Court in Schmerber v. California?

Accepted Answer

The general rule, as established by the Court in Schmerber v. California, is that a warrantless search and seizure of things in a person's body is allowed only in exigent circumstances where the delay to obtain a warrant would result in the destruction of evidence or risk the safety of the public or the officer conducting the search. Additionally, the search and seizure must be conducted in a reasonable and non-intrusive manner. The legality of the item being searched for is not a determining factor in the decision to conduct a warrantless search and seizure.

Question 6

In which case did the Court emphasize that an inventory search serves a governmental interest in protecting the owner's property while it is in police custody; ensuring against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property; and guarding the police from danger?

Accepted Answer

Colorado v. Bertine emphasized the governmental interests served by inventory searches, including protecting the owner's property in police custody, ensuring against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and protecting police from danger.

Question 7

In the case of U.S. v. Place, the U.S. Supreme Court sanctioned the use of which law enforcement tool as within the provisions of the Fourth Amendment?

Accepted Answer

In the case of U.S. v. Place, the U.S. Supreme Court authorized the use of dog sniffs as a permissible law enforcement tool under the Fourth Amendment. The court ruled that the use of a well-trained drug-detection dog to sniff for contraband in public areas does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, evidence discovered during a dog sniff does not require a warrant or probable cause.

Question 8

An officer is required by statute or policy to seize a car. That car has been ____________.

Accepted Answer

When an officer seizes a car, it is typically impounded, which means it is taken into police custody and stored in a secured lot until further action is taken. Towing and legally transporting may be part of the impoundment process, but they do not fully capture the nature of the seizure. Arrested is not an appropriate term for vehicles.

Question 9

The Court has held that there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment when officers wear a small microphone and antenna concealed in an overcoat to allow a second officer stationed outside with a radio receiver to over hear the conversation, so long as:

Accepted Answer

The Court has upheld that as long as one party to a conversation consents to police listening in, there is no Fourth Amendment violation. Therefore, option C is the correct choice. None of the other options are required for the use of a concealed microphone and antenna to be constitutional.

Question 10

Which of the following is a requirement that must be met for electronic eavesdropping required by the Court in Berger v. New York?

Accepted Answer

In Berger v. New York, the Supreme Court ruled that electronic eavesdropping must meet certain requirements, including naming the suspects in the judicial order, showing probable cause for a specific crime, and terminating the wiretapping when the desired information has been obtained. All of the above factors are necessary to ensure that electronic eavesdropping does not violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Question 11

In which case did the U.S. Supreme Court hold that any form of electronic surveillance constitutes a search, and therefore must meet the requirements of the Fourth Amendment?

Accepted Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Katz v. United States that any form of electronic surveillance constitutes a search, and therefore must meet the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

Question 12

In the 1983 case of United States v. Knotts, the use what technology in a search came to the U.S. Supreme Court?

Accepted Answer

The case of United States v. Knotts involved the use of a GPS device to track a suspect's vehicle, which was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional.

Question 13

If an officer is using a recorder or microphone, that officer is by nature utilizing a(n) _______________.

Accepted Answer

An officer using a recorder or microphone is conducting an electronic search, as it involves the use of electronic devices to gather information.

Question 14

Which U.S. Supreme Court case dealt with the issue of the use of thermal imaging on a defendant's home to determine whether the amount of heat emanating from it was consistent with the high-intensity lamps used for indoor marijuana growth?

Accepted Answer

This case specifically deals with the use of thermal imaging on a defendant's home without a warrant to determine whether the amount of heat emanating from it was consistent with the high-intensity lamps used for indoor marijuana growth. The court ruled that such use of thermal imaging constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment and required a warrant.

Question 15

Although not the first case involving the search of a cell phone, which case provided the U.S. Supreme Court with the opportunity to lay out in detail its philosophy on cell phones (and computers) and the information contained on them?

Accepted Answer

Riley v. California provided the U.S. Supreme Court with the opportunity to lay out in detail its philosophy on cell phones and computers and the information contained on them.

Question 16

It is not uncommon for drug transports to use certain types of vehicles to disguise their activities.

Accepted Answer

It is true that drug transports often use certain types of vehicles, such as trucks or boats, to conceal their illegal activities and avoid detection by law enforcement.

Question 17

If a motor home is permanently parked in a space designated for such vehicles and is not readily movable, it is a "home" protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Accepted Answer

In the case of California v. Carney (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that a motor home permanently parked in a designated area is considered a home and is protected by the Fourth Amendment. However, if the motor home is readily movable or used for a commercial purpose, it may not be considered a home and may not have the same level of protection.

Question 18

The purpose of an inventory search is to uncover criminal evidence.

Accepted Answer

The primary purpose of an inventory search is to protect an owner's property while it is in police custody, to ensure officer safety, and to protect the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property. It is not primarily conducted to uncover criminal evidence.

Question 19

The first Supreme Court cases addressing luggage searches involved a search by a dog.

Accepted Answer

The first Supreme Court cases addressing luggage searches did not involve a search by a dog but rather focused on the legality of manual searches and the expectation of privacy individuals have regarding their luggage.

Question 20

Essentially, if there is probable cause of illegality, officers may search a vehicle without the requirement of a warrant.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. If officers have probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a crime, they may search the vehicle without a warrant. However, if the vehicle is on private property, officers generally need a warrant unless they have obtained the owner's consent or there are exigent circumstances.

Quiz 8: Specialized Searches Without a Warrant: Vehicles, Dogs, and Technology