Question 1

In some instances, if an object is in plain view, it may be seized without a search warrant. Such a seizure is legally authorized:

Accepted Answer

The best choice is D because it accurately reflects the legal requirements for a warrantless seizure. The officer must be legitimately in a position to view the object and must have probable cause to associate it with criminal activity. This is known as the plain view doctrine and is a recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Choices A, B, and C are incorrect because they do not fully capture the legal standard for a warrantless seizure based on plain view.

Question 2

In Maryland v. King (2013), upon an arrest, the police conducted a DNA search and procured a sample of the defendant's DNA without a warrant. A routine collection of DNA following a valid arrest:

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court held in Maryland v. King (2013) that the routine collection of DNA following a valid arrest is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment since the defendant was already in custody, and the taking of a DNA sample from the mouth was similar to taking a fingerprint. The Court noted that DNA analysis is a valuable tool in solving crimes and that the minimal intrusion of taking a DNA sample does not outweigh the government's interest in identifying and prosecuting criminals. Therefore, no warrant is required for such a collection.

Question 3

When police proceed with probable cause but without a warrant, there may be some limitations on searches and seizures. Consistent with this practice: [Select the correct response.]

Accepted Answer

Generally, a suspected intoxicated driver may not have his or her blood-alcohol level tested without a warrant or some other legally recognized excuse for a warrant. While there are exceptions to this rule, such as exigent circumstances, the general rule is that a warrant is required for blood-alcohol testing. Choice A is incorrect because a warrant or other recognized exception is required for police to administer an alcohol or drug test, even if they have probable cause. Choice B is incorrect because the well-known carnage on public highways does not override the requirement for a warrant or recognized exception for searches and seizures. Choice C is incorrect because the use of a warrant is generally required for automobile searches, unless an exception applies.

Question 4

While the United States Constitution protects houses, including the curtilage, evidence obtained outside the curtilage may be admissible. In considering extent-of-curtilage questions, the courts have decided that:

Accepted Answer

Courts have ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not protect garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home, meaning evidence obtained from such garbage can be admissible.

Question 5

In Mapp v. Ohio, decided in 1961, the United States Supreme Court:

Accepted Answer

In Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that evidence obtained by an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not admissible in either state or federal court. This established the "exclusionary rule," which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials.

Question 6

A police officer, who possessed probable cause that a resident of a detached home had received possession of a stolen motorcycle, entered the driveway of defendant's home, and lifted a tarp to check on the vehicle's identification number (VIN). Regarding the conduct of the police officer:

Accepted Answer

The officer's actions constitute a Fourth Amendment search because it involved physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area (the curtilage of the home) to obtain information. The Supreme Court has held that the area immediately surrounding and associated with the home is part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes, and officers typically need a warrant to enter and search such areas. Lifting the tarp to reveal the VIN was not something that could be observed from a public vantage point without physically intruding upon the defendant's property, thus a warrant would generally be required.

Question 7

If an automobile has been lawfully impounded:

Accepted Answer

When a vehicle has been lawfully impounded, an officer may perform a routine inventory search as required by department policy. During this search, if the officer discovers contraband or illegally possessed evidence in plain view, or within a container within the automobile, it may be lawfully seized without a warrant. This is based on the Supreme Court case of Colorado v. Bertine, which established that inventory searches are a reliable means of protecting an owner's property and protecting police departments against claims of lost or stolen property.

Question 8

Wiretapping and eavesdropping:

Accepted Answer

Since the cases of Katz v. United States and Berger v. United States, wiretapping and eavesdropping have been considered within the protection of the Fourth Amendment. This means that law enforcement officers must obtain a warrant before engaging in these activities, except in certain emergency situations.

Question 9

Law enforcement officials often wish to track suspect's movements with a global positioning satellite (GPS) tracking device that may or may not be connected to a reporting device such as a cell phone. In order to lawfully attach, collect information, or admit that information in court:

Accepted Answer

The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution requires a warrant for searches and seizures, including attaching a GPS tracking device to a suspect's vehicle. Law enforcement officers must procure a warrant that specifically allows the attachment of the device in the jurisdiction where the officers work. Without a warrant, the use of GPS tracking may violate the suspect's constitutional rights.

Question 10

In a situation where police investigators want to obtain historical cell phone location data from a potential defendant's cell phone usage:

Accepted Answer

In the United States, the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Therefore, a warrant is required to obtain historical cell phone location data if the evidence is expected to be introduced against a suspect or defendant at trial. This is because the data is considered to be part of an individual's private information and is protected under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that a warrant is required to access this information because it involves a search and seizure of an individual's property.

Question 11

The free and voluntary rule, as it relates to the admissibility of a confession in a federal prosecution:

Accepted Answer

The free and voluntary rule, also known as the Miranda rule, prohibits the use of a confession if it was not made voluntarily. This includes confessions obtained during an unreasonable delay in bringing the accused before a magistrate, as stated in choice A. Choice B is incorrect as the free and voluntary rule is based on the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination. Choice C is also incorrect as the rule applies in both federal and state cases. Choice D is incorrect as the rule applies to all officials and courts, both state and federal.

Question 12

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court:

Accepted Answer

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court added restrictions concerning the use of confessions by requiring that warnings be given prior to attempting to engage in custodial questioning. This led to the development of the Miranda Warning, which is now standard procedure for law enforcement officers when arresting a suspect. The warning informs the suspect of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and the consequences of waiving those rights. Failure to properly administer the Miranda Warning can result in the exclusion of evidence obtained during custodial questioning. This decision only applies to confessions made while in police custody, and does not exclude all confessions from being admissible as evidence.

Question 13

Following the Miranda ruling, several cases that were necessary to interpret Miranda were decided. These decisions have pointed out that:

Accepted Answer

The Miranda warning need not be given in the exact terms as stated in the Miranda case as long as the warning reasonably conveys to the suspect his or her rights as required by Miranda. This was established in several cases that interpreted Miranda. It has also been established that the Miranda warnings are required only if the suspect is in custody at the time of questioning and that an oral statement given after the suspect has indicated a desire not to give a written statement is admissible.

Question 14

After the Supreme Court decided the Miranda case, Congress passed a law that attempted to reverse the decision in Miranda. In the view of Congress according to the statute it passed, a confession taken in violation of the teachings of the Miranda case could be used against a defendant as long as a judge ruled that the confession had been voluntarily made. In Dickerson v. United States, a defendant had been arrested for federal bank robbery, but Miranda warnings had been defectively given to the arrestee prior to the offering of incriminating statements. In Dickerson v. United States, according to the Supreme Court of the United States:

Accepted Answer

In Dickerson v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the Miranda warnings were required by the Constitution, and Congress had no power to attempt to change a decision of constitutional dimensions. Therefore, the law passed by Congress attempting to reverse the decision in Miranda was unconstitutional.

Question 15

According to the most recent interpretations of self-incrimination provisions of the Fifth Amendment by state and federal courts:

Accepted Answer

The most recent interpretations of self-incrimination provisions of the Fifth Amendment by state and federal courts have upheld that the privilege protects the accused only from being compelled to testify against himself or herself or to give evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature. This means that taking fingerprints and photographs of a suspect or giving a DNA sample does not violate the Fifth Amendment, as these actions are not testimonial or communicative in nature. Additionally, the protections of the Fifth Amendment do apply in state criminal prosecutions.

Question 16

By a series of decisions, courts have held that evidence obtained in violation of due process will not be admitted. The due process provision that limits the conduct of state officials is:

Accepted Answer

The Fourteenth Amendment includes a due process clause, which has been interpreted as prohibiting states from depriving individuals of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This includes limiting the conduct of state officials in obtaining evidence, as courts have held that such evidence obtained in violation of due process cannot be admitted. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments also contain provisions protecting individuals from government overreach, but they are not specifically tied to the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rochin v. California is a Supreme Court case that addressed due process concerns, but it did not establish the due process provision itself.

Question 17

The right to counsel provisions of the Sixth Amendment:

Accepted Answer

The Escobedo and Miranda cases established that the police must inform the suspect of their right to counsel before custodial questioning. This interpretation of the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel provision is commonly known as the Miranda warning.

Question 18

When a person is in police custody and after Miranda warnings have been given and the police want to interrogate the individual:

Accepted Answer

Once a person in police custody expresses a clear desire to talk with an attorney, no interrogation may be initiated. This is because the individual has invoked their right to counsel, which requires the police to cease questioning until the person has had an opportunity to consult with an attorney. It is crucial for law enforcement to respect this right to avoid any potential violations of the Fifth Amendment.

Question 19

The United States Supreme Court has handed down several decisions concerning the questioning of a suspect after the suspect has claimed his or her rights under the Sixth Amendment (Edwards v. Arizona, Michigan v. Jackson, and Michigan v. Harvey). In accordance with these decisions:

Accepted Answer

The correct choice is B because, according to these decisions, if a suspect has been arraigned and has claimed the right to counsel, the police may not initiate further questioning, but the suspect can initiate further discussion, and any evidence obtained from this can be admissible.

Question 20

Several cases (United States v. Wade and Kirby v. Illinois) that relate to lineups and other confrontations have been decided. According to these cases:

Accepted Answer

According to United States v. Wade and Kirby v. Illinois, if the accused has not waived counsel and counsel is not provided at the post-indictment pretrial lineup, the in-court identification could be tainted. This means that counsel must be present at the lineup or confrontation to ensure a fair identification process. However, counsel is not required at the pre-arrest, pre-indictment confrontation or the post-indictment confrontation before the lineup or identification has taken place.

Quiz 14: Evidence Unconstitutionally Obtained