Question 1

Items found in plain view while properly executing a search warrant are admissible at trial even though they were not mentioned in the warrant.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the "plain view doctrine" and allows law enforcement to seize any evidence that is immediately visible during a search, even if it was not included in the warrant. However, the plain view doctrine has certain requirements, such as the officer must have a lawful right to be in the location where the evidence was found, and the officer must have probable cause to believe the item was evidence of a crime.

Question 2

Search warrants are issued by the prosecutor.

Accepted Answer

Search warrants are issued by a judge or a magistrate, not the prosecutor. The prosecutor may make a request for a search warrant, but ultimately it is up to the judge or magistrate to approve or deny it.

Question 3

Anonymous information cannot be used to obtain a warrant.

Accepted Answer

Anonymous information can be used to obtain a warrant if it is corroborated by police investigation or if the tip has a high degree of specificity indicating reliability.

Question 4

Statements obtained without coercion during questioning conducted in violation of Miranda can be used during trial to impeach the person who made the statements.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the "Miranda impeachment" exception. Although the incriminating statements obtained in violation of Miranda cannot be used as evidence of guilt, they can be used to impeach the credibility of the person who made the statements if they testify in court and give inconsistent testimony compared to their statements made during the questioning.

Question 5

Under the Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule, evidence is admissible by the prosecution at trial whenever it was seized by officers who had a good-faith belief that their actions were legal.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Under the Good Faith Exception to the...

Question 6

Officers are exempt from the knock-and-announce procedure if they are executing a valid warrant in a commercial building.

Accepted Answer

According to the Supreme Court decision in Richards v. Wisconsin (1997), officers are exempt from the knock-and-announce procedure if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that knocking and announcing their presence would be dangerous, futile, or would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime, regardless of the type of building (residential or commercial). However, the warrant must still be valid.

Question 7

If officers illegally seize evidence, that evidence is not admissible at trial even if it was inevitable that it would have been discovered.

Accepted Answer

The inevitable discovery doctrine allows evidence obtained through illegal searches to be admissible in court if it can be shown that the evidence would have inevitably been discovered by lawful means.

Question 8

A search warrant for a house gives the police authority to search all closets and cabinets in the house.

Accepted Answer

The answer of A search warrant for a house gives...

Question 9

The Public Safety Exception to the Exclusionary Rule makes evidence admissible anytime the police conduct a search with the intent to protect the public's safety.

Accepted Answer

The Public Safety Exception allows for the admissibility of statements made by a defendant in response to law enforcement questioning without Miranda warnings, but only under exigent circumstances where public safety is at risk. It does not broadly make all evidence admissible anytime the police conduct a search with the intent to protect public safety.

Question 10

A search warrant is not valid if the facts used to establish probable cause were stale.

Accepted Answer

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that search warrants be supported by probable cause, based on facts that are not stale, meaning that the information must be current and not outdated. Therefore, if the facts used to establish probable cause are stale, the search warrant would not be valid.

Question 11

Evidence officers seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is admissible if the same evidence was discovered by an independent source using appropriate methods that do not violate the suspect's constitutional rights.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the Independent Source Doctrine, and it allows evidence to be admissible if it was obtained through a separate, untainted source. This doctrine is meant to prevent the exclusion of evidence simply because it was initially obtained illegally or unconstitutionally, as long as it was ultimately obtained through lawful means.

Question 12

The Fourth Amendment only applies to the issuing of search and arrest warrants.

Accepted Answer

The Fourth Amendment applies to more than just the issuing of search and arrest warrants. It protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires that warrants be supported by probable cause and be specific in their description of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. It also covers aspects such as the use of surveillance technology and the manner in which searches and seizures are carried out.

Question 13

The affidavit for a search warrant is a document completed under oath stating facts to establish probable cause.

Accepted Answer

An affidavit for a search warrant is a document completed under oath stating facts to establish probable cause.

Question 14

Evidence derived from evidence obtained in an unconstitutional manner is never admissible as part of the prosecution's case-in-chief.

Accepted Answer

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine does allow for some exceptions where evidence derived from unconstitutional actions may still be admissible, such as the independent source doctrine, the inevitable discovery doctrine, and the attenuation doctrine.

Question 15

A "return" is filed on a search warrant only if the officers failed to execute it in the time prescribed by law.

Accepted Answer

A "return" on a search warrant is filed to document what was done with the warrant, including what was searched and what, if anything, was seized. It is required whether the warrant was executed successfully or not, not only if officers failed to execute it in the time prescribed by law.

Question 16

The erroneous admission of illegally seized evidence at trial is grounds for automatic reversal of a conviction.

Accepted Answer

The erroneous admission of illegally seized evidence at trial does not automatically lead to the reversal of a conviction. The Supreme Court has established the "harmless error" rule, which means that if the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the conviction, the conviction can stand.

Question 17

Officers may conduct a protective sweep when executing a search warrant only if they have prior authorization from a judge.

Accepted Answer

Officers may conduct a protective sweep without prior authorization from a judge if they have reasonable suspicion that there are individuals on the premises who pose a danger to officer safety. However, this does not apply to executing a search warrant, as the scope of a protective sweep is different from that of a search warrant.

Question 18

The "strict scrutiny" test is used to determine if an affidavit contains sufficient facts to establish probable cause.

Accepted Answer

The "strict scrutiny" test is not used to determine probable cause, but rather to determine if a law or government action violates a constitutional right or is discriminatory. The test used to establish probable cause is called the "totality of the circumstances" test.

Question 19

Only a person whose reasonable expectation of privacy has been violated can petition the court to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Accepted Answer

This statement is in line with the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, which allows a person whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated to petition the court to exclude evidence obtained in violation of those rights. Only the person whose rights have been violated can make this petition, not a third party who was not directly impacted by the violation. Therefore, Option A is correct.

Question 20

The Fourth Amendment mandates that police officers have probable cause in order to make an arrest.

Accepted Answer

The Fourth Amendment outlines that citizens have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that warrants must be issued based on probable cause. This applies to arrests made by police officers as well. A police officer must have probable cause to make an arrest, without which the arrest may be considered unreasonable and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Quiz 11: Developing Law of Search and Seizure