Deck 5: Searches and Arrests Without Warrants

Question 1

Which of the following is a type of warrantless search or seizure?

A) Search incident to arrest
B) Investigative detention
C) Consensual encounter
D) Looking for evidence in an open field

Answer 1

Search incident to arrest

Question 2

Which of the following is a requirement for a valid search incident to arrest?

A) The arrest must be lawful.
B) Probable cause must be in place in advance of the arrest.
C) The search should take place soon after the arrest.
D) All of the above

Answer 2

All of the above

Question 3

The ?armspan? rule applies to what type of search?

A) Incident to arrest
B) Automobile
C) Plain view
D) Hot pursuit

Answer 3

Incident to arrest

Question 4

Concerning the scope of a search incident to arrest, a police officer may search:

A) Only the arrestee.
B) The area within the immediate control of the arrestee.
C) The arrestee and all of his or her personal effects.
D) All of the above

Question 5

The ________ rule announced in Chimel provides that, pursuant to a valid arrest, the police may search the area ?within the immediate control? of the arrestee.

A) Armspan
B) Immediate control
C) Protective sweep
D) Exigent circumstance

Question 6

A warrantless search based on a hot pursuit exigency will be upheld if:

A) The police have probable cause to believe the person they are chasing committed a crime.
B) The pursuit originates at a lawful point.
C) The underlying offense is ?serious.?
D) All of the above

Question 7

The Supreme Court first permitted warrantless hot pursuit searches in:

A) Chimel v. California.
B) Sibron v. New York.
C) Warden v. Hayden.
D) Welsh v. Wisconsin.

Question 8

Evanescent evidence refers to evidence that is likely to:

A) Be hidden.
B) Spoil.
C) Disappear.
D) Be transferred to another location.

Question 9

A warrantless search for evanescent evidence is permissible when:

A) There is probable cause to believe that evidence will be destroyed, lost, or devalued.
B) The procedures employed are reasonable.
C) The exigency was not police-created.
D) All of the above

Question 10

Emergency situations allowing for searches without a warrant are referred to as:

A) Emergency circumstances.
B) Dangerous circumstances.
C) Immediate circumstances.
D) Exigent circumstances.

Question 11

A valid hot pursuit must originate from a ________ starting point.

A) Public
B) Private
C) Lawful
D) Public or private

Question 12

A warrantless search for evanescent evidence is permissible when:

A) There is adequate time to obtain a warrant.
B) There is a possible indication that the search will result in obtaining the evidence sought.
C) The search is conducted in a reasonable manner.
D) The evidence is related to the investigation.

Question 13

Which of the following is NOT a recognized reason for a warrantless search based on exigent circumstances?

A) There is no time to obtain a warrant.
B) Getting a warrant would be inconvenient and costly.
C) There is a ?clear indication? that the search will result in obtaining the evidence sought.
D) The search is conducted in a ?reasonable manner.?

Question 14

Which of the following is NOT a type of exigency recognized by the courts that authorizes the police to act without a warrant?

A) Hot pursuit
B) Likelihood of escape
C) ?Evanescent? evidence
D) Inconvenient to obtain a warrant

Question 15

Which of the following is NOT a reason articulated by the Supreme Court as a reason allowing automobile searches without a warrant?

A) Automobiles are not subject to the probable cause requirement.
B) Automobiles travel on public roads.
C) Automobiles are subject to state regulations and licensing requirements.
D) Automobiles are subject to other strict regulations.

Question 16

The term ?automobile? includes which of the following?

A) Trucks
B) Boats
C) Tractor trailers with sleeper cabs
D) Automobiles
E) All of the above

Question 17

The plain view doctrine first emerged from the Supreme Court's decision in:

A) Whren v. United States.
B) Yick Wo v. Hopkins.
C) State v. Carty.
D) Coolidge v. New Hampshire.

Question 18

A plain view seizure is authorized when:

A) The police are lawfully in the area where the evidence is located.
B) The items are immediately apparent as subject to seizure.
C) The discovery of the items to be seized is inadvertent.
D) All of the above

Question 19

For an item to be lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine, it must be ?immediately apparent? to the officer that the item is subject to seizure. This means that the officer must:

A) Be absolutely certain the item is contraband.
B) Be reasonably certain that the item is contraband.
C) Have probable cause that the item is contraband.
D) Have a hunch that the item is contraband.

Question 20

In which case did the Supreme Court create the ?immediately apparent? requirement for a valid plain view seizure?

A) Arizona v. Hicks
B) Horton v. California
C) Minnesota v. Dickerson
D) Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Question 21

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

A) Is evidence that can be seen without having to search for it
B) First emerged in the Supreme Court case Coolidge v. New Hampshire
C) Has a very specific meaning in criminal procedure
D) The doctrine applies to all situations.

Question 22

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.

A) Inadvertency
B) Immediately apparent
C) Valid plain view
D) Lawful access

Question 23

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

A) Coolidge v. New Hampshire
B) Horton v. California
C) Minnesota v. Dickerson
D) Arizona v. Hicks

Question 24

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

A) Coolidge v. New Hampshire
B) Horton v. California
C) Minnesota v. Dickerson
D) Arizona v. Hicks

Question 25

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

A) Probable cause requirement for plain view seizures.
B) Immediately apparent requirement for plain view seizures.
C) Inadvertency requirement for plain view seizures.
D) Lawful access requirement for plain view seizures.

Question 26

Warrantless searches and seizures include:

A) Searches incident to arrest.
B) Arrests in public places.
C) Searches based on the plain view doctrine.
D) Automobiles.
E) All of the above

Question 27

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

Question 28

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.

Question 29

Any valid arrest justifies a warrantless search incident to arrest.

Question 30

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

Question 31

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.

Question 32

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

Question 33

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.

Question 34

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

Question 35

Planes are considered automobiles for Fourth Amendment warrantless search purposes.

Question 36

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.

Question 37

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

Question 38

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.

Question 39

Inadvertency is a requirement for a valid plain view seizure.

Question 40

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

Question 41

Even in emergency circumstances, warrantless entry into a private home for the purpose of making an arrest are unjustified.

Question 42

The Supreme Court in Chimel v. California established the ________ rule.

Question 43

In order for a search incident to arrest to be justified the arrest must be ________.

Question 44

A search of an arrested person made contemporaneously with the arrest is a search ________ to arrest.

Question 45

The reason for the rule allowing a search incident to arrest is that an arrest always creates a(n) ________.

Question 46

Hot pursuit is one type of ________ circumstance.

Question 47

Warden v. Hayden was the first Supreme Court case to recognize the hot pursuit ________ exception.

Question 48

Evidence that may disappear if not captured quickly is known as ________ evidence.

Question 49

The Supreme Court has explained that warrantless automobile searches are permissible in part because by driving automobiles in public drivers have a lesser expectation of ________.

Question 50

The Supreme Court in Carroll v. United States carved out a(n) ________ exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.

Question 51

The ________ view doctrine first emerged in the Supreme Court's decision in Coolidge v. New Hampshire.

Question 52

Wives and husbands ________ give consent to have their partners' property searched.

Question 53

Arrests made in ________ do not require warrants.

Question 54

Match the case with the correct ruling with regard to exigent circumstances.

-Warden v. Hayden

A) Court ruled police could seize dried blood from a suspect because they had probable cause to believe that ?highly evanescent evidence? was in the process of being destroyed.
B) First case to recognize the hot pursuit exception.
C) Police were authorized to make warrantless entry into apartment as long as they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe an occupant is ?seriously injured or threatened with such injury.?
D) Upheld the warrantless intrusion (via a needle. into a man's body for the purpose of drawing blood to see if he had been drinking.

Question 55

Match the case with the correct ruling with regard to exigent circumstances.

-Brigham City v. Stuart

A) Court ruled police could seize dried blood from a suspect because they had probable cause to believe that ?highly evanescent evidence? was in the process of being destroyed.
B) First case to recognize the hot pursuit exception.
C) Police were authorized to make warrantless entry into apartment as long as they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe an occupant is ?seriously injured or threatened with such injury.?
D) Upheld the warrantless intrusion (via a needle. into a man's body for the purpose of drawing blood to see if he had been drinking.

Question 56

Match the case with the correct ruling with regard to exigent circumstances.

-Breithaupt v. Abram

A) Court ruled police could seize dried blood from a suspect because they had probable cause to believe that ?highly evanescent evidence? was in the process of being destroyed.
B) First case to recognize the hot pursuit exception.
C) Police were authorized to make warrantless entry into apartment as long as they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe an occupant is ?seriously injured or threatened with such injury.?
D) Upheld the warrantless intrusion (via a needle. into a man's body for the purpose of drawing blood to see if he had been drinking.

Question 57

Match the case with the correct ruling with regard to exigent circumstances.

-Cupp v. Murphy

A) Court ruled police could seize dried blood from a suspect because they had probable cause to believe that ?highly evanescent evidence? was in the process of being destroyed.
B) First case to recognize the hot pursuit exception.
C) Police were authorized to make warrantless entry into apartment as long as they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe an occupant is ?seriously injured or threatened with such injury.?
D) Upheld the warrantless intrusion (via a needle. into a man's body for the purpose of drawing blood to see if he had been drinking.

Question 58

Match the concept with the correct definition.

-Common authority

A) A person knowingly and voluntarily allowing a search.
B) Mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes.
C) Someone other than the authority asking for consent to search and the individual whose property he or she hopes to search.
D) The police reasonably believe he or she has authority to grant consent.

Question 59

Match the concept with the correct definition.

-Apparent authority

A) A person knowingly and voluntarily allowing a search.
B) Mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes.
C) Someone other than the authority asking for consent to search and the individual whose property he or she hopes to search.
D) The police reasonably believe he or she has authority to grant consent.

Question 60

Match the concept with the correct definition.

-Consent

A) A person knowingly and voluntarily allowing a search.
B) Mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes.
C) Someone other than the authority asking for consent to search and the individual whose property he or she hopes to search.
D) The police reasonably believe he or she has authority to grant consent.

Question 61

Match the concept with the correct definition.

-Third-party consent

A) A person knowingly and voluntarily allowing a search.
B) Mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes.
C) Someone other than the authority asking for consent to search and the individual whose property he or she hopes to search.
D) The police reasonably believe he or she has authority to grant consent.

Question 62

Match the level of intrusion with the justification required in automobile searches.

-Search the entire car, including containers

A) Probable cause to search.
B) Reasonable suspicion/fear for safety.
C) Administrative.
D) Reasonable suspicion to stop.

Question 63

Match the level of intrusion with the justification required in automobile searches.

-Search of passenger compartment and containers

A) Probable cause to search.
B) Reasonable suspicion/fear for safety.
C) Administrative.
D) Reasonable suspicion to stop.

Question 64

Match the level of intrusion with the justification required in automobile searches.

-Order occupants out of car

A) Probable cause to search.
B) Reasonable suspicion/fear for safety.
C) Administrative.
D) Reasonable suspicion to stop.

Question 65

Match the level of intrusion with the justification required in automobile searches.

-Inventory search

A) Probable cause to search.
B) Reasonable suspicion/fear for safety.
C) Administrative.
D) Reasonable suspicion to stop.

Question 66

Identify and explain the four restrictions to a search incident to an arrest.

Question 67

Explain the Hot Pursuit warrant exception and the reasons the Supreme has identified justifying the exception.

Question 68

Describe the basic reasons in which a warrantless search of an automobile is permissible.

Question 69

Explain the ʺplain viewʺ doctrine and the three-prong requirement that must be present in order for a search to be considered lawful.

Question 70

Concerning hot pursuit, has the Supreme Court decided in favor of police or in favor of police? Why do you feel this way?

Question 71

The courts have ruled that valid consent searches justify a warrantless search with or without probable cause. Do you think third-party consent should be allowed in certain situations? Why or why not?

Question 72

Write an example case in which a warrantless arrest could be made and explain why that case meets the criteria.