The police helicopter was flying at about 400 hundred feet when it passed over Mark's yard. The passenger in the helicopter, also a police officer, looked down and saw marijuana growing in a greenhouse that was in Mark's fenced back yard, located about 10 yards from Mark's house. The police officer took photos of the marijuana, which she then used to obtain a search warrant. The police executed the warrant and seized the marijuana. Can the evidence be used against Mark at trial?
A) Yes, because the evidence relied on to obtain the warrant, while located in the curtilage of Mark's home and in a fenced yard, was in plain view of the police officer when the officer flew over the home.
B) Yes, because the marijuana was in an open field, and Mark had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the open field.
C) No, because the greenhouse was located in the curtilage of Mark's home, where Mark had a reasonable expectation of privacy, prompting the need for a warrant before the area could be searched.
D) No, because the warrant lacked probable cause, and the search was illegal under the Fourth Amendment.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q12: In addition to the plain view doctrine,
Q13: The U.S. Supreme Court has divided a
Q14: The U.S. Supreme Court has identified four
Q15: Which of the following statements is true
Q16: Which of the following statements is correct?
A)
Q18: Ken was growing marijuana in his back
Q19: Which of the following statements is correct?
A)
Q20: Which of the following reflects the U.S.
Q21: In United States v. Karo, the police
Q22: Which of the following are not considered
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents