Automobile Exception (1)-3
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Georgia State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
3415
Subject
Industrial Engineering
Date
May 6, 2024
Type
Pages
10
Uploaded by queennile9
1 - FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS 81 Automobile Exception Searches 146. A state trooper on routine patrol noticed a car pulled over by the side of the highway. The car was raised on a jack and one of the car’s rear wheels had been removed and was propped up against the side of the car. The trooper parked his cruiser behind the car, ex- pecting to help the driver finish changing her tire. Instead, as the trooper approached the car, he found the driver lying down on the backseat, smoking marijuana from a pipe. When the driver saw the officer, she sat up and tried to hide the pipe, but the officer grabbed it from her hand. He then searched the car and found a baggie of marijuana in the console be- tween the two front seats. Later, after the woman was charged with marijuana possession, she filed a motion to suppress the drugs found in her car. At the suppression hearing, the officer admitted on cross-examination that he could’ve called the district magistrate for a warrant to search the car—but he didn’t. ‘What is the most likely ruling from the court gemihe suppression motion? “ he motion will be denied because the of- cer was permitted to search the car with- out a warrant. B. The motion will be denied because the of- * ficer reasonably feared the driver could have fixed her tire and driven away while he obtained a warrant to search the car. C. The motion will be denied because the of- ficer conceded that he could have gotten a warrant to search the car. D. The motion will be denied because the of- ficer reasonably feared the destruction of evidence, which is a recognized exigent circumstance. A 147. Early one evening, a patrol officer pulled a car over for rolling through a stop sign and approached the car to ask the driver for her li- cense and registration. When the officer got to the car, he smelled an odor that he believed was burning marijuana. The officer asked the driver whether she had been smoking mari- juana and she admitted that she had “smoked just a little” to help her “mellow out after work.” The officer searched the driver’s car and found a stubbed-out marijuana cigarette in the ashtray. At the pre-trial suppression hearing, the woman’s attorney introduced testimony that in this jurisdiction, a magistrate is always on- call for telephonic warrants and that the tele- phonic warrant process takes, on average, four minutes. What best supports the prosecutor’s argument that this testimony is irrelevant? A.|] The driver’s car was readily mobile and she could have driven it away during the time the officer obtained the warrant. B. The driver was high and could have be- come belligerent and dangerous during the time the officer obtained the warrant. C. The officer did not have backup and so could not turn his attention from the woman to call the magistrate for a war- rant. D. The officer had no guarantees that the warrant process in this case would take four minutes, and it could have taken longer than that. ’ A
82 1 - FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS 148. A traveling salesman was driving down the road one day when he was stopped for speeding. While the officer was speaking with the driver, she smelled marijuana. The officer asked the driver if he had been smoking mar- ijuana or if he had any marijuana in the car and the driver admitted that he had some mar- ijuana in the glove box. The officer looked in the glove box and found the marijuana. The driver was charged with marijuana pos- session and his attorney filed a motion to sup- press. At the suppression hearing, the driver testified that his sales territory included four states and that he usually spent between 12 and 14 hours a day in his car. For these reasons, the driver’s attorney argued that the driver had a heightened expectation of privacy in his car relative to other people and so the officer should have obtained a warrant to search the car. In consideration of this argument, how should the court rule on the driver’s motion? A. The motion should be denied because the driver cannot claim any expectation of pri- vacy in a car with windows and that travels on public roads. The motion should be denied because drivers have a reduced expectation of pri- vacy in their cars. C. The motion should be granted because the - driver in this case has an increased expec- tation of privacy in his car. D. The motion should be granted because the driver took steps to hide his drugs, which demonstrates his increased expectation of privacy. 149, Police developed probable cause to be- lieve that a middle-aged man was using drugs to lure teenagers into his parked motor home, and was trading the drugs for sex. After waiting to make sure the man was alone in the motor home, two officers walked up to it and knocked on the side door. The man answered and the officers stepped inside and searched it. The officers found drugs and drug para- phernalia. i After the man was charged with various crimes, his attorney filed a motion to suppress. In the memorandum of law filed in support of the motion, the defense attorney argued that since the motor home was capable of being a home, the police were required to get a warrant for the search. What is the most likely ruling on the suppres- sion motion? A. The motion will be granted because the motor home was capable of being a home and was thus deserving of higher protec- tion under the Fourth Amendment. B. The motion will be granted because the motor home was parked and immobile, so the police should have obtained a war- rant or consent for the search. C.] The motion will be denied because the motor home was capable of mobility, so it should be treated as an automobile under the Fourth Amendment. D. The motion will be denied because the danger associated with sexual abuse of mi- nors outweighs the man’s privacy interests in his motor home.
150. An officer stopped a car that was being driven erratically. When the officer approached the driver, she readily offered that she had a glass of wine about an hour before. But the driver insisted that she’d only had one glass, no more, and that she was no longer feeling the effects of the alcohol. As proof of her claim, the driver pulled a receipt of out her purse; the receipt was from a nearby restau- rant, and it showed that the driver had paid for three glasses of wine an hour before—not one. When the officer asked the driver about this discrepancy, she could not provide an ex- planation. The officer then searched the driver’s car and found a small baggie of mar- ijuana in the glove box. If the driver is charged with marijuana pos- session and if she moves to suppress the bag- gie of marijuana, how should the court rule on the motion? A. The motion should be denied because the woman’s lie gave the officer probable cause to believe evidence could be found in the car, g B.. The motion should be denied because the : woman’s lie gave the officer reasonable sus- picion to believe evidence could be found ~ in the car. C. The motion should be granted because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to believe he would find evidence in the car. m The motion should be granted because the officer did not have probable cause to be- lieve he would find evidence in the car. 1 - FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS 83 151. An officer pulled a driver over for speed- ing. When the officer asked the driver where she was going in such a hurry, she replied that she was on her way to the shooting range. The officer asked the driver if she had a weapon in the car and she admitted that she had a loaded revolver in the glove box. She also told the of- ficer that she didn’t have a weapons permit but that she was planning on getting one the fol- lowing week. The officer retrieved the revolver from the glove box and then using the fob on the driver’s keychain, unlocked the trunk of the car. In the trunk, the officer found a kilo of cocaine and several rifles. If the driver moves to suppress the evidence seized from her car, what is her strongest ar- gument in support of the motion? A. The motion should be granted because the officer did not have probable cause to be- lieve that any evidence of crime would be found in the car. B. § The motion should be granted in part be- cause the officer’s probable cause was re- stricted to the glove compartment and he searched the trunk. C. The motion should be granted because the officer should have asked the driver for consent to search car before beginning the search. D. The motion should be granted because the officer had no reason to believe that the driver posed a specific threat to him,
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
i %, e A R K3 S AL B L e N O L S L N 152. Police received an anonymous tip thata young man was selling marijuana from his car. According to the tip, the young man would park his car outside a certain dry cleaning store on a pre-arranged day, for a two hour block of time. The young man’s customers would then come to the car and buy drugs from him; the tipster claimed that the young man stored his drugs in the glove box and trunk of the car. An officer assigned to investigate the tip watched as a young man parked his car in front of the dry cleaning store—just as the tipster had predicted. The officer also saw several peo- ple approach the car and give cash to the young man. Each time he received cash, the young man would retrieve something from either the glove box or the trunk, and then hand it to the other person. While waiting between cus- tomers, the young man would sit in the driver’s seat and listen to the car radio. After about an hour of watching, the officer approached the young man and searched his car. The officer discovered cocaine in the glove box and methamphetamine in the trunk and under the driver’s seat. The young man was charged with drug pos- session and distribution. If he files a motion to suppress, how should the court rule on the motion? A. The motion should be granted because the officer had probable cause to search for marijuana, not cocaine or methampheta- mine. B. The motion should be granted in part be- cause the officer did not have probable cause to search under the driver’s seat. @The motion should be denied because the bfficer had probable cause to search the entire car for drugs. D. The motion should be denied because the officer witnessed the drug sales first hand, and did not rely on the anonymous tip. 1 - FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS . 153. The day before an air traveler was schéd- uled to fly across the country, police developed probable cause to believe that he would be transporting heroin in his suitcase. An under- cover officer was posted at the airport and she watched as the traveler checked his bag. Six hours later, a second undercover officer at the traveler’s destination city watched as he re- trieved the bag from the baggage claim and walked to the parking garage, wheeling the suitcase behind him. The traveler placed the suitcase in the trunk of his car and drove away. A third officer then pulled the traveler over and searched the trunk of the car, including the suitcase. Inside the suitcase, the officer* found the suspected heroin. The traveler has been charged with various crimes associated with the heroin, and filed a motion to suppress. How should the court rule on the motion? A. The motion should be granted because the police manipulated the law by purpose- fully waiting for the traveler to put the suitcase into the car. B. The motion should be granted because the police clearly had ample time to obtain a warrant to search the suitcase. C. The motion should be denied because the suitcase contained evidence of a crime. D. [The motion should be denied because the suitcase and the suitcase was located in the traveler’s car. police had probable cause to search the - e a0 e i
1 - FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS 85 154. A police officer and his partner pulled a driver over for speeding. The officer asked the driver why he was in such a hurry and the driver replied that he and his passenger were late for a concert. In talking with the driver, the officer began to suspect that he might have been drinking alcohol and so the officer asked the driver when he had last had a drink. The driver admitted that he had snorted “a little cocaine” thirty minutes prior, but insisted that he was sober and able to drive legally. When the driver said this, the passenger began to laugh, but she quickly stopped herself, The officer ordered the driver and the pas- senger out of the car, and the partner stayed with them, several feet from the car. The of- ficer searched the glove compartment, and found a small baggie of cocaine. The officer then opened the passenger’s purse—which she had left lying on the car seat—and found mar- ijuana inside. The passenger has been charged with cocaine and marijuana possession and her attorney has filed a motion to suppress, What is the prosecutor’s strongest argument in opposition to the motion? A. The motion should be denied because the driver’s admission that he had recently snorted cocaine necessarily implicated the * passenger in his crimes. B. The motion should be denied because the passenger’s inappropriate laughter gave the officer probable cause to believe that she had been smoking marijuana. C.] The motion should be denied because the officer had probable cause to believe that drug evidence would be found inside the passenger’s purse. D." The motion should be denied because the fact that the driver and passenger were on their way to a concert gave the officer probable cause to search the car. 155, An officer pulled a young man over for speeding. While speaking with the driver, the officer developed probable cause to believe that drug evidence would be found in the car. The officer searched the car and found three kilos of heroin and two loaded semi-automatic weapons hidden in the trunk. The prosecutor charged the driver with various crimes asso- ciated with this evidence and the young man’s attorney filed a motion to have it suppressed. At the hearing on the motion, the officer testified that the young man was friendly and cooperative during the stop, and that he was the calmest person he had pulled over in 20 years of policing. At the close of the testimony, the defense attorney argued that the officer’s testimony established that there was no exi- gency on these facts and so the officer should have sought a warrant to search the car. What is the prosecutor’s strongest argument in response? A warrant was unnecessary because the officer had probable cause to search the automobile for drugs. B. A warrant was unnecessary because the driver was only acting calm because he knew he was transporting drugs and weapons. C. A warrant was unnecessary because the quantity of drugs established exigent cir- cumstances in this case. D. A warrant was unnecessary because the loaded semi-automatic weapons estab- lished exigent circumstances in this case.
86 1 - FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS 156. Based on a thorough investigation, police learned that the suspect in a jewelry store rob- bery was staying at a local motel. The investi- gation also revealed that the suspect was wary of the housekeeping staff at the motel, and so he kept the proceeds of the robbery in his car trunk, Two officers were sent to the motel to arrest the suspect; as they approached the motel, they spotted the suspect driving his car in the opposite direction. The officers pulled the suspect over and arrested him without in- cident. The officers also searched the suspect’s car and found many of the stolen pieces of jew- elry. Three hours later, after the suspect’s car had been impounded, the officers interrogated the suspect. During the interrogation, the suspect told the officers that the gun he used in the robbery was hidden in the dashboard of his car. One of the officers went to the impound lot where the car was parked and found the gun just where the suspect said it would be. If the suspect challenges the search of his car at the impound lot, what is the correct ruling frgm the court? A. | The search was justified because the police had probable cause to believe that the car contained evidence of crime. B. The search was justified because the car had been impounded and so the suspect had lost all expectation of privacy in the car, C. The search was not justified because the car had been impounded and so there was no exigency to support the search. D. The search was not justified because police are always required to obtain warrants to search cars after they are rendered immo- bile. 157. Police received a call from a mall security officer that a minivan had been parked in the corner of the mall parking lot for several days. The security officer provided information about the minivan’s make and model, as well as its license plate. From that information, po- lice were quickly able to establish that the mini- van’s owner was suspected of committing a bank robbery earlier in the week. According to police reports, the owner had been shot in the arm during the robbery and had fled in the minivan. Officers went to the mall and searched the minivan. Inside, they found a canvas bag stamped with the name of the bank and smears of blood across the back seat. Lab tech- nicians took samples of the seat upholstery and later testing revealed that the blood came from a human. Two months later, the minivan’s owner was apprehended and DNA testing es- tablished that the blood on the backseat was hers. The minivan’s owner filed a motion to sup- press, arguing that the search was unreasonable because she was nowhere near the minivan at the time it was searched. What is the prosecu- tor’s strongest argument in response? A. The search was reasonable because the woman abandoned the minivan and there- fore she lacked standing to challenge the search. B. The search was reasonable because police were responding to a legitimate exigency because they knew the woman Had been hot. C. [rhe search was reasonable because police ad probable cause to believe that evidence of crime was located in the minivan. D. The search was reasonable because the woman abandoned the minivan and there- fore had no expectation of privacy in its contents. ik
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
158. After pulling a driver over for speeding, a state trooper developed probable cause to believe the driver had been smoking marijuana while driving. While a backup officer stayed with the driver on the side of the road a short distance away from the car, the trooper searched the car. The trooper found a large bag of processed marijuana in the glove com- partment and a second bag of marijuana in the backseat, hidden in the armrest. The trooper then searched the trunk, and fgund several dozen photos of naked children scat- tered throughout the trunk compartment. The driver has been charged with possession of child pornography. If the driver files a mo- tion to suppress the photographs, what is the most likely ruling from the court? A. The motion will be denied because the government interest in catching child pornographers outweighs the driver’s pri- vacy interests in his car. i B. !The motion will be denied because the ooper found the child pornography in plain view. C. The motion will be granted because the trooper converted a routine traffic stop into a search for drugs and child pornog- raphy. D. The motion will
be granted because the trooper only had probable cause to search for marijuana, not child pornography. 1 - FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS 87 159. Early one evening, an officer on routine patrol stopped a driver for speeding. When speaking with the driver, the officer developed probable cause to believe she had been drink- ing alcohol. The officer directed the driver to get out of the car and had her perform several field sobriety tests—which she failed. At that point, the driver admitted that she'd had a few drinks after work. The officer arrested the woman, searched her incident to arrest, and discovered a handgun and a baggie of cocaine in the pocket of her jacket. After handcuffing her, the officer placed the woman in the back of his locked patrol car. He then returned to the woman’s car, searched it, and found two more guns in the trunk. After the prosecutor discovered the woman had a felony record, she was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and cocaine possessior. If the woman argues that the evidence seized from her car should be suppressed, what is the prosecutor’s strongest argument in support of the search? X he search was a reasonable automobile exception search because the officer had probable cause to believe that evidence would be found in the trunk. B. The search was a reasonable search inci- dent to arrest because the officer had rea- son to believe that evidence would be found in the trunk. C. The search was a reasonable inventory search because the officer was required to inventory the contents of the car. D. The search was reasonable Terry frisk of the car because the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that a weapon was in the trunk.
88 1 - FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS 160. Two officers stopped a driver for driving through a yellow light. The first officer wrote the driver a ticket. When she was done, the first officer and her partner asked the driver to get out of the car so the first officer could hand him the ticket. The driver complied, but as he got out of the car, the first officer saw that he was carrying a weapon in a holster in- side his jacket. The first officer frisked the driver and dis- armed him. Then, as the partner stood with the driver a few feet away, the first officer searched the passenger compartment of the car and found a second weapon in the glove box. When asked, the driver admitted that he didn’t have permits for either weapon. The first officer arrested the driver. If the driver is charged with carrying unli- censed weapons and if he challenges the search of his car, what is the prosecutor’s best argu- ment as to why the search was reasonable? A. The search was a reasonable automobile exception search because the officer had probable cause to believe that additional weapons would be found in the car. B. The search was a reasonable search inci- dent to arrest because the driver was a re- cent occupant of the car. C. The search was a reasonable inventory search because the officer was required to inventory the contents of the car. 'he search was a reasonable Terry frisk of b car because the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe the driver was armed and dangerous. 161. A police officer stopped a driver for fail- ing to wear a seatbelt. The driver didn’t contest that she wasn’t wearing her seatbelt, but she explained to the officer that she thought it was unfair that she was going to be ticketed for a something that she believed should be deter- mined by her own physical comfort and free will. The officer told the driver that he didn’t care for her attitude and so he decided to arrest her—as he was permitted to do under state law. The officer handcuffed the driver and placed her in the back of his locked cruiser. The officer also called for a tow truck. While waiting for the tow truck to arrive, the officer searched the driver’s car and found hypodermic needles in the glove compartment and heroin in the console between the driver and front passenger seats. When the officer’s supervisor found out that he had arrested a driver for failing to wear a seatbelt, she was livid. The supervisor also asked the officer to justify the search of the car, What is his most plausible response? A. The search was a reasonable search inci- dent to arrest. B. The search was a reasonable automobile exception search. The search was a reasonable inventory search. D. The search was a reasonable Terry frisk of the car. S A AT
1 - FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS 89 162. A police officer was called to the scene of an accident involving a car and a motorcy- cle. When the officer arrived, emergency med- ical personnel were helping the motorcyclist, who had been thrown from his bike and who appeared to have extensive injuries. The driver of the car was uninjured. The officer walked over to the motorcycle—which was lying on the ground on its side—and began to go through the contents of the bike’s saddlebags. In one of the bags, the officer found a vial of " crack cocaine, which he seized. After the motorcyclist recovered from his injuries, the prosecutor charged him with pos- session of cocaine. Prior to trial, the motor- cyclist’s lawyer filed a motion to suppress. The prosecutor responded, arguing that since the motorcycle is a type of vehicle, the search of its saddlebags was authorized by the automo- bile exception. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? A. The motion should be granted because a motorcycle is different from an automobile and as such, it cannot be searched under the automobile exception. B. JThe motion should be granted because A it S L i en though motorcycles can be searched under the automobile exception, the offi- cer lacked probable cause for the search. C. The motion should be denied because even though motorcycles cannot be searched under the automobile exception, the officer conducted a lawful inventory search. D. The motion should be denied because mo- torcycles and automobiles have enough in common that motorcycles fall within the automobile exception. 163. During the summer, local police patrol a lake north of the town center. The lake is ringed by vacation homes and motor boats are allowed to be used on the lake. Drinking and boating is strictly prohibited. One weekend afternoon, an officer on lake patrol saw a motorboat being driven by a man who was drinking from a beer bottle. The of- ficer steered his motorboat over to the man’s motorboat and boarded it. The officer noticed a closed cooler on the deck, located near where the man was standing. The officer opened the cooler and saw that it was filled with bottles of beer. The officer towed the motorboat back to the shore and wrote the man a ticket for drinking and boating. Because this was the man’s third drinking-and-boating ticket, he faced a large fine, loss of his boating license, and up to three days in jail. If the man challenges the ticket, what is the most appropriate ruling? A. The ticket should be dismissed because the officer failed to request permission to board the man’s boat and search it. B. The ticket should be dismissed because the officer had no way of knowing whether the man was drinking beer or a soda. C. The ticket was properly issued because the officer didn’t need any suspicion to board the boat or search the cooler. D. [The ticket was properly issued because the officer had probable cause to board the boat and search the cooler.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
= ':r « 90 1 - FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS 164. A police officer and his partner stopped a car for speeding; while speaking to the driver, the officer developed probable cause to believe that she had been smoking marijuana. The of- ficer directed the driver and passenger to get out of the car. Both complied. Since it was a windy day, the passenger kept her jacket on when she left the car. While the partner stood with the driver and the passenger, the officer searched the passen- ger compartment and trunk of the car, and found a small baggie of marijuana. The officer then walked over to where the driver and the passenger were standing and searched the pas- senger’s jacket. In one of the front pockets, the officer found a baggie of marijuana, rolling papers, and a lighter. The passenger was later charged with posses- sion of marijuana and drug paraphernalia and she filed a motion to suppress. If the prosecu- tor defends the search as a reasonable auto- mobile exception search, what is the most likely ruling from the court? A. The search was reasonable because the passenger had been wearing her jacket in the car and the police had probable cause to search the car. B. The search was reasonable because the of- ficer’s probable cause included both the car and its recent occupants. C. The search was unreasonable because at the time of the search, the officer did not have probable cause to believe evidence was in the passenger’s jacket. he search was unreasonable because at the time of the search, the passenger’s jacket was not located inside the car. 165. A member of the police gang surveillance unit was parked outside a residential house where a known gang member lived. The officer had probable cause to believe that the gang member sold drugs that he stored in a green backpack. The officer had considered getting a search warrant to look for the backpack in the house, but had decided that she didn’t want to deal with the “red tape” associated with obtaining a warrant. After the officer had waited for about an hour, the gang member walked out of the house carrying the green backpack over his shoulder. The officer watched as the gang member got into his parked car and pulled out of the driveway. The officer then began to fol- low the gang member, and when he failed to properly signal a right turn, the officer pulled him over. The officer then searched the back- pack and found it packed with methamphet- amine and cocaine. The prosecutor charged the gang member with various crimes associated with these drugs; in response, the gang member’s attor- ney filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the drugs were the fruits of an unreasonable search. How should the court rule on the mo- tion? A. The motion should be granted because the officer manipulated the law when she pur- posefully waited until the backpack was in the car. B. The motion should be granted because the officer had time to obtain a warrant, but she intentionally decided not to get one. glhe motion should be denied because the officer had probable cause to search the backpack and the backpack was located inside the car. i D. The motion should be denied because the officer knew the gang member was in- volved in dangerous activity. C S A E R R AR 4 = 5 52 2 = 3 % -1 | 3