Question 1

Which of the following is NOT correct about plain-view searches?

Accepted Answer

The plain-view doctrine does not apply to all situations. It is specifically applicable when law enforcement officers are lawfully present in a place and inadvertently discover evidence, contraband, or criminal activity in plain view. There are limitations and conditions under which this doctrine can be applied, making it not universally applicable to all situations.

Question 2

The requirement that a plain view seizure be based, in part, on probable cause that the item can be seized is known as the ________ requirement.

Accepted Answer

The "immediately apparent" requirement means that it must be immediately apparent to the police that the items they observe in plain view are evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. This is part of the plain view doctrine, which allows officers to seize evidence without a warrant if it is immediately apparent that the items are connected to criminal activity.

Question 3

In which cases did the Supreme Court declare the ?inadvertency? is NOT a requirement for a valid plain view seizure?

Accepted Answer

In Horton v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that inadvertency is not a requirement for a valid plain view seizure, overturning the suggestion in Coolidge v. New Hampshire that inadvertency was necessary.

Question 4

In which cases did the Supreme Court declare the ?inadvertency? is NOT a requirement for a valid plain view seizure?

Accepted Answer

In Horton v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that inadvertency is not a requirement for a valid plain view seizure, overturning the suggestion in Coolidge v. New Hampshire that inadvertency was a necessary condition.

Question 5

In Horton v. California, the Supreme Court dispensed with the:

Accepted Answer

In Horton v. California, the Supreme Court eliminated the inadvertency requirement for the plain view doctrine, meaning that the police do not need to come across evidence inadvertently for it to be lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine.

Question 6

Warrantless searches and seizures include:

Accepted Answer

All of the options listed (A through D) are instances where warrantless searches and seizures may be legally permissible under certain conditions, according to U.S. law. Searches incident to arrest allow officers to search a person and the immediate area for weapons or evidence to prevent its concealment or destruction. Arrests in public places can be made without a warrant if there is probable cause. The plain view doctrine allows officers to seize evidence without a warrant if it is immediately apparent as contraband or evidence of a crime and the officer is lawfully present. Automobile searches can be conducted without a warrant under circumstances such as consent, probable cause, or exigent circumstances, given the reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles and their inherent mobility.

Question 7

A ?frisk? is included in the warrantless search category.

Accepted Answer

The answer of A ?frisk? is included in the warrantless...

Question 8

Searches incident to arrest, in the presence of exigent circumstances, involving automobiles, and those based on the ?plain view? doctrine all require probable cause justifying the search.

Accepted Answer

These types of searches are exceptions to the warrant requirement but still require probable cause to justify the search. Probable cause exists when there is a reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been committed and that evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched.

Question 9

Any valid arrest justifies a warrantless search incident to arrest.

Accepted Answer

A valid arrest justifies a warrantless search incident to arrest because it is considered a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

Question 10

The case of United States v. Rabinowitz was the first to set limits on the scope of a search incident to arrest.

Accepted Answer

The case of United States v. Rabinowitz was the first to set limits on the scope of a search incident to arrest, holding that the search must be limited to the area within the arrestee's immediate control.

Question 11

In Maryland v. Buie, the Supreme Court ruled that the police may not, as part of a search incident to arrest, look in areas immediately adjoining the place of arrest for other persons who might attack the officers.

Accepted Answer

In Maryland v. Buie, the Supreme Court ruled that the police may, during a lawful arrest, conduct a protective sweep of the area if they have a reasonable belief that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. This includes looking in areas immediately adjoining the place of arrest for other persons who might attack the officers.

Question 12

Hot pursuit, escape and endangerment to others, and evanescent evidence are examples of exigent circumstances.

Accepted Answer

Exigent circumstances are situations that allow law enforcement to enter a property without a warrant due to an immediate need, such as hot pursuit of a suspect, preventing a suspect's escape or harm to others, and securing evidence that is quickly disappearing.

Question 13

In Breithaupt v. Abram the Supreme Court upheld the warrantless intrusion (via a needle. into a person's body for the purpose of drawing blood to see if he had been drinking.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court in Breithaupt v. Abram (1957) ruled that taking blood samples without a warrant did not violate the 14th Amendment, as it was considered a reasonable search under the circumstances.

Question 14

In United States v. Lee the Supreme Court created the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment.

Accepted Answer

The automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment was established in Carroll v. United States, not United States v. Lee. This exception allows law enforcement to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is located in the vehicle.

Question 15

Planes are considered automobiles for Fourth Amendment warrantless search purposes.

Accepted Answer

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, there is an exception to this rule for automobiles, which includes planes. This exception allows law enforcement to search an automobile without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that it contains evidence of a crime.

Question 16

Whether a vehicle is mobile or stationary is a factor in determining whether a vehicle serves as a transportation function in searching a vehicle without a warrant.

Accepted Answer

The mobility of a vehicle can affect the application of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, which allows warrantless searches if the vehicle is readily mobile and there is probable cause.

Question 17

Automobile searches can lawfully occur without a warrant and without probable cause.

Accepted Answer

Automobile searches typically require at least probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be found in the vehicle, except in certain circumstances where specific exceptions apply, such as consent or exigent circumstances.

Question 18

The scope of a valid warrantless vehicle search is as great as a magistrate could authorize in a warrant if the police have justification to search.

Accepted Answer

The scope of a warrantless vehicle search by the police, when justified, can be as broad as what a magistrate could authorize in a warrant, based on the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, which allows searches of vehicles without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime.

Question 19

Inadvertency is a requirement for a valid plain view seizure.

Accepted Answer

A valid plain view seizure does not require inadvertency; the officer must lawfully be in the position to view the object, the object's incriminating character must be immediately apparent, and the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object.

Question 20

The general rule is that validly obtained consent does not justify a warrantless search, with or without probable cause.

Accepted Answer

Validly obtained consent is one of the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, meaning that if consent to search is freely and voluntarily given by someone with authority over the premises or objects to be searched, a search can be conducted without a warrant and regardless of probable cause.

Quiz 5: Searches and Arrests Without Warrants

Which of the following is NOT correct about plain-view searches?

The requirement that a plain view seizure be based, in part, on probable cause that the item can be seized is known as the ________ requirement.

In which cases did the Supreme Court declare the ?inadvertency? is NOT a requirement for a valid plain view seizure?

In which cases did the Supreme Court declare the ?inadvertency? is NOT a requirement for a valid plain view seizure?

In Horton v. California, the Supreme Court dispensed with the:

Warrantless searches and seizures include:

A ?frisk? is included in the warrantless search category.

Searches incident to arrest, in the presence of exigent circumstances, involving automobiles, and those based on the ?plain view? doctrine all require probable cause justifying the search.

Any valid arrest justifies a warrantless search incident to arrest.

The case of United States v. Rabinowitz was the first to set limits on the scope of a search incident to arrest.

In Maryland v. Buie, the Supreme Court ruled that the police may not, as part of a search incident to arrest, look in areas immediately adjoining the place of arrest for other persons who might attack the officers.

Hot pursuit, escape and endangerment to others, and evanescent evidence are examples of exigent circumstances.

In Breithaupt v. Abram the Supreme Court upheld the warrantless intrusion (via a needle. into a person's body for the purpose of drawing blood to see if he had been drinking.

In United States v. Lee the Supreme Court created the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment.

Planes are considered automobiles for Fourth Amendment warrantless search purposes.

Whether a vehicle is mobile or stationary is a factor in determining whether a vehicle serves as a transportation function in searching a vehicle without a warrant.

Automobile searches can lawfully occur without a warrant and without probable cause.

The scope of a valid warrantless vehicle search is as great as a magistrate could authorize in a warrant if the police have justification to search.

Inadvertency is a requirement for a valid plain view seizure.

The general rule is that validly obtained consent does not justify a warrantless search, with or without probable cause.