Question 1

In United States v. Karo, the police planted a beeper in a can of ether so they could electronically monitor the beeper once the can was taken inside the home. The police wanted to verify that the can remained in the home while they obtained a search warrant. How did the U.S. Supreme Court view the police use of technology?

Accepted Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court found that using a beeper to monitor the inside of a home without a warrant was equivalent to a physical intrusion, thus violating the Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

Question 2

Which of the following are not considered a public place?

Accepted Answer

Streets, parks, and monuments are all considered public places because they are accessible to the general public and are typically owned and maintained by governmental entities.

Question 3

In which of the following places can the police enter without a warrant?

Accepted Answer

Police can enter a business that is open to the public without a warrant as it is accessible to the general public.

Question 4

Factors considered by the court in determining whether or not property was abandoned include:

Accepted Answer

The court considers various factors in determining if property was abandoned, including where the property was found, its condition, and the type of property. These factors help assess the owner's intent to relinquish ownership.

Question 5

In the following situations, which of the actions by the police officer would not constitute a search?

Accepted Answer

Going through someone's trash is generally not considered a search in the legal sense because once trash is put out for collection, it is no longer considered private property and does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Question 6

To determine if an interaction between a police officer and a civilian is an encounter or a seizure, the courts apply the ____________ test.

Accepted Answer

The courts apply the "Totality of the Circumstances" test to determine if an interaction between a police officer and a civilian is an encounter or a seizure. This test considers all the facts and circumstances surrounding the interaction to decide if the civilian's freedom to walk away was restricted by the police officer.

Question 7

Circumstances that might indicate a seizure under the Fourth Amendment include:

Accepted Answer

All of the choices listed can indicate a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that a seizure does not depend solely on physical restraint but can also occur if a reasonable person would feel that they are not free to leave due to the police's actions, such as the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon, or the tone of voice used by an officer.

Question 8

A(n) ___________________ occurs when a police officer intentionally takes physical hold of the individual with the intent to prevent the individual from leaving.

Accepted Answer

A physical seizure occurs when a police officer intentionally takes physical hold of an individual to prevent them from leaving, which directly matches the definition provided in the question.

Question 9

A(n) ____________________ occurs when law enforcement officers demonstrate their authority through conduct that would lead a reasonable person not to feel free to leave or terminate the encounter.

Accepted Answer

A show of force seizure occurs when the actions or conduct of law enforcement officers are such that a reasonable person would feel they are not free to leave the encounter, due to the demonstration of authority by the officers, not necessarily involving physical contact or an explicit command.

Question 10

In Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado, the Court held that the actions by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment because:

Accepted Answer

The Court reasoned that the actions did not constitute a seizure because the workers were not restrained and could move freely; their decision to stay was related to their employment, not because of any coercive or detaining actions by the INS agents.

Question 11

In Florida v. Bostick, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the proper inquiry to make to determine if Bostick was seized by the agents who boarded the bus and searched Bostick's luggage after Bostick gave them consent to do so is:

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court in Florida v. Bostick established that the correct way to determine if a person has been seized in a police encounter is to consider whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.

Question 12

The primary purpose of searches and seizures of law enforcement officers is to collect items that will assist law enforcement in the investigation of unlawful activity.

Accepted Answer

Searches and seizures by law enforcement officers are primarily conducted to collect evidence of unlawful activity, which assists in the investigation and prosecution of crimes.

Question 13

The contents of a conversation in the office break room with several colleagues are protected by the Fourth Amendment reasonable expectation of privacy.

Accepted Answer

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, not private conversations between individuals in places like an office break room.

Question 14

The Fourth Amendment is directed at searches and seizures by the government and by anyone who conducts these activities in a manner that invades your right to privacy

Accepted Answer

The Fourth Amendment is specifically directed at searches and seizures by the government or its agents, not by private individuals or entities acting independently of government direction or authority.

Question 15

The police enter Craig's office while he is busy with a customer and take a peek at Craig's accounting records. Craig's accounting records are protected by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Accepted Answer

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures, which includes personal documents such as accounting records. Without a warrant or probable cause, the police's actions would be considered a violation of this protection.

Question 16

The issue before the Court in Katz was whether Katz had a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a glass-enclosed telephone booth.

Accepted Answer

In Katz v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court considered whether Katz had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public phone booth, ultimately ruling that the Fourth Amendment protected people, not places, and Katz's privacy had been violated by wiretapping without a warrant.

Question 17

In Katz v. United States, Justice Harlan wrote a dissenting opinion in which he established a two-part test for a Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy.

Accepted Answer

Justice Harlan wrote a concurring opinion, not a dissenting one, in which he proposed what became known as the two-pronged test for determining an expectation of privacy: a person must exhibit an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and the expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.

Question 18

In the so-called false friend cases, the Court took the position that a person assumes the risk that the person he or he is communicating with may be working as a government agent or informant.

Accepted Answer

In cases involving "false friends," courts have generally held that individuals assume the risk that the person they are communicating with could be a government agent or informant, meaning there is no expectation of privacy in those communications under the Fourth Amendment.

Question 19

An individual who exposes an object to plain view loses his or her reasonable expectation of privacy.

Accepted Answer

When an individual exposes an object to plain view, they forfeit any reasonable expectation of privacy regarding that object because it is accessible and visible to the public or others without intrusion.

Question 20

In addition to the plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirements, courts have also recognized the plain smell exception.

Accepted Answer

Courts have recognized the "plain smell" exception as part of the plain view doctrine, allowing law enforcement officers to seize evidence without a warrant if the illicit nature of the substance is immediately apparent through its smell during a lawful presence in the area where the smell is detected.

Quiz 12: Searches and Seizure and Privacy