Question 1

Suspicionless drug searches of high school students are permitted if there is evidence of an existing drug problem in the school.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has ruled that while schools can conduct drug tests of students participating in extracurricular activities or those who park on school grounds, any search, including drug searches, must be based on individualized suspicion unless it's part of a broader policy affecting a group not targeted based on prior behavior (e.g., athletes). Blanket suspicionless searches without specific evidence targeting an individual student violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

Question 2

Officer Bob knocked on your door late on Saturday night,told you they are investigating a kidnapping,and asked if he may come in to talk and "look around." You hesitated a moment but when Officer Bob stated that he hates to use the warrant because it will seem like you are being uncooperative and judges hate defendants who do not cooperate,you agreed to let him enter.While he was talking to you,Officer Bob casually opened the desk in your living room and found a two-ounce bag of marijuana.Officer Bob seized the drugs and arrested you for possession.The search and seizure described will withstand judicial scrutiny under the consent exception to the warrant requirement.

Accepted Answer

You voluntarily consented to let Officer Bob enter and look around, which includes opening areas like desks where evidence could be found, making the search and seizure lawful under the consent exception to the warrant requirement.

Question 3

A search by a private citizen may be considered state action if done with the knowledge and for the purpose of the government.

Accepted Answer

If a private citizen conducts a search with the knowledge and purpose of assisting the government or law enforcement, it can be viewed as state action and thus be subject to constitutional restrictions on searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.

Question 4

Bert is having dinner with his associates in a private room at a local steakhouse.The room has doors that close it off to the general public.Bert had asked that once dinner was served that the doors be closed and that the wait staff not enter the room until summoned by Bert.These instructions are followed just as Bert requested and once dinner is served and the staff has left,Bert and his associates begin to discuss their human trafficking business.In the middle of the conversation,another patron,Karen,mistakenly opens the door looking for a group she is joining for dinner.Karen hastily withdraws,but as she did she heard one of Bert's associates how much they can expect to profit from the sale of each child.Karen is shocked and calls the police.The subsequent investigation yields sufficient evidence to arrest and charge Bert and his associates.Prior to trial,Bert's attorney challenges the use of Karen's statement at trial claiming that Bert had a reasonable expectation of privacy which was violated when Karen opened the door and overheard the conversation.The judge will find in favor of Bert as Karen's action and subsequent statements violate Bert's Fourth Amendment rights.

Accepted Answer

Although Bert requested privacy during dinner, his discussion of illegal activity does not fall under the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Karen's actions of accidentally opening the door and overhearing the conversation do not violate Bert's Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, her statement can be used at trial.

Question 5

A stop and frisk is not an arrest.

Accepted Answer

A stop and frisk is a brief detention and search of an individual by a police officer, but it does not result in an arrest. It is a preventive measure used to investigate suspicious behavior and determine if the individual is carrying illegal weapons or contraband. An arrest, on the other hand, is a formal process where a person is taken into custody and charged with a crime.

Question 6

In a search incident to a lawful arrest,the officers may search only the defendant's person and nothing else.

Accepted Answer

In addition to searching the defendant's person, officers may also conduct a search of the immediate area within the defendant's control, which could include items such as bags or containers. However, a warrant would be required for a search beyond this scope.

Question 7

If your roommate answers the door one day to find the police asking to search the home you share,your roommate cannot give permission for the police to search the home unless you agree.

Accepted Answer

Your roommate cannot legally give permission for the police to search a home that you share without your consent or a warrant. Both roommates must agree for a search to be authorized.

Question 8

California v.Acevedo declared highway sobriety checkpoints constitutional.

Accepted Answer

California v. Acevedo (1991) dealt with the Fourth Amendment and the search of containers within a vehicle without a warrant, not with the constitutionality of highway sobriety checkpoints. The case that upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints was Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990).

Question 9

A search incident to arrest involving a vehicle extends to the entire passenger area and closed containers in it.

Accepted Answer

According to the Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. Gant, a search incident to arrest involving a vehicle extends to the entire passenger area and closed containers in it. This includes the trunk of the vehicle if it is accessible from the passenger area.

Question 10

One of the reasons given for the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement is that the police need to be protected from damage claims that might be brought by the owner of the impounded vehicle.

Accepted Answer

This is one of the justifications for the inventory search exception recognized by the US Supreme Court in Colorado v. Bertine (1987). The Court held that the purpose of an inventory search is not to discover evidence of a crime, but to protect the owner's property while it is in police custody, to protect the police against false claims of lost or stolen property, and to protect the police from potential danger (e.g. from weapons or drugs left in the vehicle). The Court reasoned that these interests are sufficiently weighty to justify a limited intrusion into the driver's Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

Question 11

The scope of a "Terry" type search is to enable the officers to look for weapons on the detainee and thus protect themselves and others in the area.

Accepted Answer

A "Terry" type search, also known as a pat-down search, is a limited search for weapons that is conducted when an officer has reasonable suspicion that the person being detained may be armed and dangerous. Its scope is to protect the officers and others in the area, and it does not extend beyond a search for weapons.

Question 12

A vehicle is not subject to search incidental to arrest if the arrested driver was not in the car when the officer first made contact.

Accepted Answer

A vehicle may be searched without a warrant if the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the vehicle's passenger compartment at the time of the search, or if the officer has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made. The fact that the arrested driver was not in the car when the officer first made contact does not necessarily prevent a search incidental to arrest.

Question 13

A search incident to arrest is limited to the area within the immediate grasp of the arrestee.

Accepted Answer

As per the Supreme Court ruling in Chimel v. California, a search incident to arrest is limited to the area within the immediate control or reach of the arrestee. This is also known as the "Chimel Rule." Therefore, the correct statement is true, and the answer is A.

Question 14

A warrant to inspect a building for regulatory compliance does not require probable cause.

Accepted Answer

A warrant to inspect a building for regulatory compliance typically requires probable cause or a similar standard, such as a reasonable belief that a regulation has been violated, unless the inspection falls under an exception such as routine inspections in highly regulated industries.

Question 15

If there is a possibility that evidence is or will be destroyed by the suspect,the courts will not require the police to get a search warrant,but will use the exception to the warrant requirement known as the evanescent evidence exception.

Accepted Answer

The evanescent evidence exception allows police to search without a warrant if there is a possibility that evidence will be destroyed. This exception is recognized by the courts in certain circumstances.

Question 16

In effecting a border search,the officers involved do not have to have probable cause to search your vehicle or belonging as they are given the authority by the federal government based on concerns of national security,the war on drugs,and immigration laws.

Accepted Answer

This is true. Border searches are conducted under the authority of the federal government and do not require probable cause because of concerns of national security, the war on drugs, and immigration laws.

Question 17

The "stop and frisk" exception to the search warrant requirement is based on the Supreme Court holding that this police activity is not a search and seizure and falls outside the scope of the Fourth Amendment.

Accepted Answer

The "stop and frisk" exception to the search warrant requirement is based on the Supreme Court holding that this police activity is a limited search and seizure and is therefore subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

Question 18

A warrantless search may be made incident to a traffic citation.

Accepted Answer

A warrantless search incident to a traffic citation alone is not justified unless there is another basis for the search, such as the officer's safety being at risk or probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

Question 19

If the police are on the premises in response to an emergency call,they may seize contraband that is in plain view during the course of their emergency response.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the plain view doctrine, which allows police officers to seize any illegal items that are in plain view during the course of their emergency response, without a warrant or probable cause.

Question 20

Evanescent evidence is not subject to warrant because its use at trial is unlikely.

Accepted Answer

Evanescent evidence is subject to warrant; however, due to its fleeting nature, law enforcement may act to secure it without a warrant under exigent circumstances to prevent its destruction or loss.

Quiz 10: Search and Seizure: Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement