Question 1

The Supreme Court reduced law enforcement's authority to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to arrest in:

Accepted Answer

In Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court held that law enforcement's authority to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to arrest is limited to situations where the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the vehicle or where the search is necessary to preserve evidence related to the crime for which the arrest was made. This decision reduced law enforcement's authority to search vehicles incident to arrest compared to the previous precedent set in New York v. Belton.

Question 2

Which of the following would not be a legitimate factor contributing to the decision to frisk?

Accepted Answer

The decision to frisk is primarily based on the officer's reasonable belief that the person is armed and presently dangerous. Suspicion of possessing dangerous drugs, without more, does not directly indicate that the person is armed or poses a physical threat, which is the key criterion for conducting a frisk.

Question 3

Which case concerns the plain view doctrine?

Accepted Answer

Horton v. California concerned the plain view doctrine. The case established that for an officer to seize an object in plain view, three elements must be present: (1) the officer must be lawfully present at the location where the object is in plain view, (2) the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object, and (3) the incriminating character of the object must be immediately apparent.

Question 4

Searches of vehicles incident to the arrest of an occupant are allowed, only if the officer has a reasonable belief that the arrestee can gain access to the vehicle or that_______________will be found in the vehicle.

Accepted Answer

The search of a vehicle incident to arrest is limited to situations where it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.

Question 5

When government agents are lawfully executing a warrant, they:

Accepted Answer

When executing a warrant, government agents may seize any contraband that is in plain sight or that they reasonably believe is related to the crime for which the warrant was granted, even if it is not specifically listed in the warrant. However, they cannot take anything they want for any reason, and must still obey the limitations and procedures outlined in the warrant. They also cannot continue searching the premises after finding the items specified in the warrant unless they obtain another warrant or have a valid reason to believe that additional evidence is present.

Question 6

Although the Fourth Amendment generally does not restrict private citizens' actions, it does apply to all:

Accepted Answer

The Fourth Amendment applies to all government employees, including those employed by federal, state, and local governments. It does not apply to private citizens or entities, such as corporations or schools.

Question 7

Usually, the only person able to give consent in a search is the person whose constitutional rights might be threatened by the search, who is said to have:

Accepted Answer

The term used to describe the person who can give consent in a search is "standing." This refers to the legal right to bring a case to court because one's constitutional rights have been violated. Therefore, the only person who can give consent in a search is the person with standing, whose constitutional rights are at risk.

Question 8

Which of the following would be considered a violation of a person's reasonable expectation of privacy, requiring a warrant?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Which of the following would be considered...

Question 9

In 1967, the Court explained that the Constitution protects people, not places, in which landmark case?

Accepted Answer

In Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protected a person's right to privacy, even in a public phone booth, and that the government's warrantless wiretapping of the phone booth violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court stated that the Constitution protects "people, not places" and that the government's intrusion on an individual's privacy is what triggers Fourth Amendment protections.

Question 10

Searches with a warrant are:

Accepted Answer

Searches with a warrant are presumed to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, as they require probable cause and a neutral magistrate's authorization. The scope of the warrant is limited to the specific areas and items described in the warrant.

Question 11

When conducting an inventory search of a vehicle, it is important to have:

Accepted Answer

Inventory searches must be conducted according to a standard operating procedure to ensure they are not a pretext for an investigatory search and to protect the owner's property.

Question 12

Relationships in which third-party consent to search is allowed include all of the following, except:

Accepted Answer

In the context of third-party consent to searches, the landlord-tenant relationship does not generally allow the landlord to consent to a search of a tenant's leased premises. This is because the tenant has an expectation of privacy in their dwelling that the landlord cannot override by giving consent to law enforcement or other parties to conduct a search.

Question 13

Which of the following best describes the significance of Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco (1967)?

Accepted Answer

Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco (1967) is significant because it first recognized the use of administrative searches, establishing the need for a warrant for building inspections, which was a departure from previous practices that allowed such inspections without a warrant. This case set important precedents for the requirement of warrants in administrative searches, balancing the need for public safety inspections with the protection of individual privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment.

Question 14

Which of the following is not a fundamental constitutional rule that applies to Fourth Amendment cases?

Accepted Answer

The Fourth Amendment applies to both governmental action and law enforcement action, so D is not a fundamental constitutional rule that applies to Fourth Amendment cases.

Question 15

Which of the following best describes the significance of Groh v. Ramirez (2004)?

Accepted Answer

Groh v. Ramirez addressed the issue of the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement for warrants, emphasizing the importance of providing sufficient detail in a warrant before it is executed.

Question 16

General searches are:

Accepted Answer

The answer of General searches are:
...

Question 17

All searches must be:

Accepted Answer

Searches must be limited in scope to the specific area or item outlined in the warrant or consent given. This helps ensure that the search is not excessively intrusive and does not violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Question 18

Routine searches at our national borders require:

Accepted Answer

Routine searches at national borders, including airports, do not require any suspicion or justification due to the government's interest in controlling the flow of goods and people across its borders. This is known as the border search exception.

Question 19

When a person is handcuffed after being arrested, officers may search:

Accepted Answer

Officers may only search the area that was under the immediate control of the suspect prior to being arrested. This is referred to as the "incident to arrest" rule and is meant to ensure the safety of the officers and prevent the destruction of evidence. Searching all areas in which the suspect could have hidden evidence (option D) without a warrant or probable cause would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Question 20

Which of the following is not one of the criteria that must be met for plain view?

Accepted Answer

The original intrusion does not have to be legal only because it is pursuant to a valid warrant. The plain view doctrine can also apply if the original intrusion is based on consent, exigent circumstances, or some other exception to the warrant requirement. The other three criteria (items are plainly observed while in the permissible scope of the original intrusion, original intrusion is legal because the officers are present legally, items are immediately recognizable as evidence or contraband) must be met for plain view to apply.

Quiz 9: Conducting Constitutional Searches