Question 1

When a suspect is arrested in a car or other vehicle, police as part of the search incident to the arrest may search the vehicle's trunk

Accepted Answer

The answer of When a suspect is arrested in a...

Question 2

The major issue of contention between the Supreme Court majority opinion and the dissenting opinion in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, the case involving the consent search of the defendant's car, was:

Accepted Answer

The major issue of contention between the Supreme Court majority opinion and the dissenting opinion in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte was whether the police must inform a suspect of her right to refuse consent to a consent search. The majority opinion held that informing suspects of their right to refuse consent is not necessary for a search to be considered voluntary, while the dissenting opinion argued that without such information, consent cannot be considered truly voluntary.

Question 3

Police officers at the scene of a fire:
I. do not need a warrant to remain in a burned building to look for injured victims.
II. do not need a warrant to remain in a burned building to investigate the cause of the fire or explosion.
III. must get a warrant to search for evidence of crime once they determine the cause of the fire.
IV. can search suspicious onlookers without a warrant.

Accepted Answer

Police officers do not need a warrant to remain in a burned building to look for injured victims (I) or to investigate the cause of the fire (II). However, once the cause is determined, they need a warrant to search for evidence of a crime (III). They cannot search onlookers without a warrant (IV).

Question 4

A search warrant must specifically identify "the things to be seized." This particularity requirement may not be met by specifying an entire class of items.

Accepted Answer

The answer of A search warrant must specifically identify "the...

Question 5

The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all "no-knock" entries.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has recognized certain circumstances where a no-knock entry is justified, such as in cases where announcing the intention to enter would result in danger to the officers, destruction of evidence, or escape of a suspect. However, the use of no-knock entries is still subject to a reasonableness standard under the Fourth Amendment.

Question 6

Concerning third party consent to search, in which of the following situations can one person consent to a search for the other person?

Accepted Answer

A factory owner can consent to a search of items on top of an employee's workbench because the workbench is likely considered part of the employer's premises and within the owner's control.

Question 7

The vehicle exception to the warrant requirement is based upon:
I. the inherent mobility of the vehicle.
II. the impracticality of impounding the vehicle and getting a warrant.
III. convenience of the police.
IV. the reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles.

Accepted Answer

The vehicle exception to the warrant requirement is primarily based on the inherent mobility of vehicles, which can quickly be moved out of the jurisdiction, and the reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles compared to homes.

Question 8

According to the Supreme Court opinion in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, involving a search of a car obtained by consent:
I. the question of whether consent was voluntary is a question of fact to be determined by the totality of all the circumstances.
II. the government need not prove that citizens know they have a right to refuse consent.
III. probable cause is required to conduct consent searches.
IV. consent searches can only be conducted if it is inconvenient to get a warrant.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte held that the voluntariness of consent is determined by the totality of circumstances and that the government does not need to prove that individuals knew they could refuse consent.

Question 9

Which of the following items may be considered containers for purposes of Fourth Amendment searches without warrants?
I. a brown paper bag
II. a small briefcase
III. a sport duffel bag
IV. a backpack

Accepted Answer

All listed items (a brown paper bag, a small briefcase, a sport duffel bag, and a backpack) can be considered containers under the Fourth Amendment, as they can hold personal items and thus may be subject to search.

Question 10

In Wyoming v. Houghton, concerning the search of a passenger's purse for drugs based on probable cause that drugs are in the vehicle, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that:

Accepted Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if there is probable cause to search a vehicle for contraband, police may inspect passengers' belongings that are capable of concealing the object of the search.

Question 11

The scope of a search incident to arrest includes the entire place where the suspect is
arrested.

Accepted Answer

The scope of a search incident to arrest is limited to the area within the immediate control of the suspect, which is generally defined as the area within the suspect's reach or where the suspect could potentially grab a weapon or destroy evidence. It does not extend to the entire place where the suspect is arrested.

Question 12

Who among the following can give consent for a third person?
I. parents for their minor children.
II. roommates, consenting to searches of the common areas, for those who share apartments with them.
III. wife consents to a search of house she shares with spouse.
IV. janitor consents to a search of his suspect employer's premises.

Accepted Answer

Parents can give consent for their minor children, roommates can consent to searches of common areas, and a wife can consent to a search of a house she shares with her spouse. A janitor cannot consent to a search of an employer's premises.

Question 13

Regarding consent searches:
I. they require probable cause.
II. they may be authorized by persons other than the owner of the property searched.
III. the scope of the search may be limited by the person consenting.
IV. according to recent case law, the consent to search may be withdrawn at any time.

Accepted Answer

Consent searches do not require probable cause (I is incorrect). They can be authorized by someone with apparent authority over the property (II is correct). The person consenting can limit the scope of the search (III is correct). Consent can be withdrawn at any time (IV is correct).

Question 14

Law enforcement officers often prefer searches without warrants because of the time or effort it takes to get a warrant issued.

Accepted Answer

While some officers may prefer searches without warrants, it is important to follow proper legal procedures to protect individual rights and prevent illegal searches. Obtaining a warrant may take some time and effort, but it ensures that searches are conducted within the boundaries of the law.

Question 15

If the police come across containers and believe that the containers contain evidence of crime:
I. they can briefly detain the containers to prevent their loss or destruction.
II. they can search them without a warrant or probable cause.
III. they may seize and search containers when they have probable cause to believe the containers in vehicles contain evidence of crime.
IV. they cannot seize or search a closed opaque container without a search warrant.

Accepted Answer

The police can briefly detain containers to prevent their loss or destruction (I) and may seize and search containers in vehicles when they have probable cause (III).

Question 16

In Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990), the police conducted the consent search of the suspect's apartment based on the consent of the suspect's former girlfriend. According to the Supreme Court's opinion:

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court held that a warrantless entry to search based on third party consent is valid if the officer reasonably believes that the person consenting had authority to consent. This means that as long as the officer has a reasonable belief that the third party has the authority to consent, the search will not violate the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the court found that the police officer had acted reasonably since the former girlfriend had recently lived with the suspect and still had a key to the apartment. Therefore, the consent search conducted by the police based on her consent was valid.

Question 17

In Arizona v. Gant (2009), the Supreme Court ruled:

Accepted Answer

In Arizona v. Gant (2009), the Supreme Court ruled that police may search a vehicle incident to an occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it's reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence related to the offense of arrest. This decision limited the scope of warrantless vehicle searches by law enforcement.

Question 18

According to the empirical research about consent searches:

Accepted Answer

Empirical research indicates that lower courts generally find that consent searches were voluntary in all but the most extreme cases. This is supported by numerous studies on the issue.

Question 19

According to the waiver test of consent:

Accepted Answer

The waiver test of consent states that a consent search is valid only if the person consenting voluntarily and knowingly waives his or her Fourth Amendment rights. This means that the person must be aware that they have a right to refuse consent and fully understand the implications of giving consent. Once consent is given, it can be retracted at any time before the search is completed. Therefore, choices A, B, and C are incorrect.

Question 20

Concerning the scope of consent searches:
I. consent searches are unreasonable if they exceed the scope of the consent.
II. consent searches are unreasonable if they exceed the apparent authority of the person giving the consent.
III. the test to determine the reasonableness of a consent search is based on the totality of the circumstances.
IV. the test to determine the reasonableness of a consent search is whether the officers reasonably believe that the search is within the scope of consent obtained.

Accepted Answer

Consent searches must not exceed the scope of the consent given, must be within the apparent authority of the person giving consent, and are judged based on the totality of the circumstances and the officers' reasonable belief regarding the scope of consent.

Quiz 6: Arrests and Use of Force

When a suspect is arrested in a car or other vehicle, police as part of the search incident to the arrest may search the vehicle's trunk

The major issue of contention between the Supreme Court majority opinion and the dissenting opinion in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, the case involving the consent search of the defendant's car, was:

A search warrant must specifically identify "the things to be seized." This particularity requirement may not be met by specifying an entire class of items.

The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all "no-knock" entries.

Concerning third party consent to search, in which of the following situations can one person consent to a search for the other person?

The vehicle exception to the warrant requirement is based upon: I. the inherent mobility of the vehicle. II. the impracticality of impounding the vehicle and getting a warrant. III. convenience of the police. IV. the reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles.

Which of the following items may be considered containers for purposes of Fourth Amendment searches without warrants? I. a brown paper bag II. a small briefcase III. a sport duffel bag IV. a backpack

In Wyoming v. Houghton, concerning the search of a passenger's purse for drugs based on probable cause that drugs are in the vehicle, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that:

The scope of a search incident to arrest includes the entire place where the suspect is arrested.

Regarding consent searches: I. they require probable cause. II. they may be authorized by persons other than the owner of the property searched. III. the scope of the search may be limited by the person consenting. IV. according to recent case law, the consent to search may be withdrawn at any time.

Law enforcement officers often prefer searches without warrants because of the time or effort it takes to get a warrant issued.

In Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) , the police conducted the consent search of the suspect's apartment based on the consent of the suspect's former girlfriend. According to the Supreme Court's opinion:

In Arizona v. Gant (2009) , the Supreme Court ruled:

According to the empirical research about consent searches:

According to the waiver test of consent: