Crim Pro Module 1 End of Module Questions

The police obtained a warrant to arrest the defendant for the murder of his girlfriend. When they arrived at the defendant's house to serve the arrest warrant, the defendant's neighbor informed the police that the defendant had left last week to visit his sister. The police drove to the sister's home and saw the defendant standing on the sidewalk in front of the house. The police promptly arrested the defendant and placed him in the car. The police then asked the defendant's sister for permission to search the house, but she refused. Nevertheless, believing that the sister would likely dispose of any evidence, the police searched the guest room, where the defendant had been staying for the past week, without a warrant. During the search, the police found a knife that was later determined to be the murder weapon.

The defendant was subsequently charged with murder. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress evidence of the knife found during the search.

How should the court rule on the defendant's motion to suppress?

Deny it, because the search was performed incident to a lawful arrest.

Deny it, because there were exigent circumstances justifying the search.

Grant it, because the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the guest room.

Grant it, because the defendant's arrest was invalid.

Answer choice C is correct. The primary remedy for Fourth Amendment violations is the "exclusionary rule," which prevents the introduction at a subsequent criminal trial of evidence seized pursuant to an unlawful search. An unreasonable search occurs when the government, without a search warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement, either (i) invades a place protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy or (ii) physically intrudes upon a constitutionally protected area (persons, houses, papers, or effects) for the purpose of gathering information. While an overnight guest in a home does not have an ownership interest in the home, such a guest does have a reasonable expectation of privacy, at least as to the areas of the home to which the guest has permission to enter. Here, the defendant was an overnight guest at his sister's home, and had permission to enter and stay in the guest room. Thus, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in that room. And since the police did not have a search warrant to search that room nor did the sister or the defendant give consent for the police to search that room, the police conducted an unlawful search. Answer choice A is incorrect because a lawful arrest justifies only a warrantless contemporaneous search of the arrestee's wingspan and areas immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be launched. Here, the defendant was already in the police car, and the search occurred in the home, where he was no longer present. Accordingly, the search exceeded the scope of a lawful search incident to an arrest. Answer choice B is incorrect because the exigent circumstances doctrine would not allow the police to search the sister's home without a warrant under these circumstances. The exigent circumstances doctrine allows for a search without a warrant if the delay required in obtaining the warrant could result in the immediate danger of evidence destruction. Otherwise, police can secure the premises for a reasonable time to enable officers to obtain a warrant when the police have reason to believe that the failure to do so could result in the destruction of evidence. In this case, the police would have been able to secure the premises to prevent the sister from destroying any evidence; however, the police did not simply secure the premises while waiting for a warrant, but instead conducted a full search. Answer choice D is incorrect. The police had an arrest warrant to arrest the defendant and did so on the sidewalk in front of his sister's house. Therefore, the defendant's arrest was valid.

A defendant was in jail for an aggravated assault charge after his attorney was unable to post bail for that offense. The police believed that the defendant had also been involved with other criminals in executing an unrelated series of bank robberies, and they placed an undercover officer in the jail to pose as the defendant’s cellmate. They hoped to acquire information that might prevent further robberies from occurring. One afternoon, the undercover officer mentioned that he knew the victim of the assault with which the defendant had been charged. The defendant said that the victim had a beating coming to him, and that he was glad he had been the one to complete that task. The next day, the undercover officer mentioned the bank robberies. The defendant began bragging that he had a substantial amount of cash waiting for him once he got out of jail, noting that “all those bankers would hardly miss it.”

Which of the defendant’s statements to the undercover officer are admissible against him at trial?

The statements regarding the assault and the bank robbery are both admissible.

The statement regarding the assault is admissible, but the statement regarding the robbery is not admissible.

The statement regarding the robbery is admissible, but the statement regarding the assault is not admissible.

Neither the statement regarding the assault nor the statement regarding the bank robbery is admissible.

Answer choice C is correct. Once the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, statements that a defendant makes to a police informant are inadmissible when the police intentionally create a situation likely to induce the defendant into making incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel. In this case, the police created a situation likely to induce the defendant into making a statement about the assault without the presence of counsel; that statement would thus be inadmissible. That protection would not apply to the statement about the robbery, however. Under the Sixth Amendment offense-specific standard, the requirement for counsel to be present applies only to interrogations about the offense charged. In this case, the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not apply to questioning about the bank robberies. Moreover, the Fifth Amendment protections are implicated only in the context of a custodial interrogation, and not in the case of questioning by an undercover police officer, as long as the suspect does not know that the interrogator is a police officer. Thus, the statement about the robberies would be admissible. Answer choice A is incorrect because the statement about the assault was taken in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and it would thus be inadmissible. Answer choice B is incorrect because the statement regarding the robbery did not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel as related to the robbery. However, he had been charged with assault and had an attorney for that offense, so attempting to induce him to make statements about the assault without his attorney present did violate his rights. Answer choice D is incorrect because the statement about the robbery was not taken in violation of the defendant’s rights and would thus be admissible.

A local convenience store was robbed and the clerk on duty was shot. The next day, the police arrested a suspect and brought her into the police station for questioning. An officer read the suspect her Miranda rights, which she stated she understood. For an hour, a police officer questioned the suspect about her involvement in the robbery. The suspect did not respond to the questions, remaining silent. Learning that the clerk had died, the officer informed the suspect of the clerk’s death, and told her that she should start talking if she wanted to get the best possible plea deal. She confessed to the robbery and shooting. At trial, the suspect sought to suppress her confession.

Is the confession likely to be suppressed for violation of Miranda rights?

No, because the suspect waived her Miranda rights by making the statement.

No, because the suspect’s statement was not made in response to a question from police.

Yes, because the suspect did not receive fresh Miranda warnings before she was told of the clerk’s death.

Yes, because the suspect invoked her Miranda rights by remaining silent in the face of police questioning for over an hour.

Answer choice A is correct. A defendant may knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive her Miranda rights. While silence alone is not sufficient to waive those rights, a suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not expressly invoked her Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police. In this case, the suspect waived her rights when she confessed. Answer choice B is incorrect because Miranda applies not only to express questioning by police but also to words or actions that the police know or should know are likely to elicit an incriminating response. Consequently, the suspect confession was made in response to police interrogation. Answer choice C is incorrect because the police are not required to provide the suspect with fresh Miranda warnings where there has been no break in the interrogation. Answer choice D is incorrect because a suspect who has not expressly invoked her Miranda rights waives her right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement.

A police officer spotted a middle-aged male sitting on a bench in a public park. The officer did not recognize the man, but was aware that the park was frequently used as a site for illegal drug transactions. The officer approached the man who remained seated on the bench. The officer asked the man about his day, and the man attempted to leave without answering. The officer told the man to stay seated and asked the man for his name. When the man refused to provide his name, the officer arrested him. Under state law, it is a misdemeanor for an individual to intentionally refuse to give his name to a police officer who, having lawfully detained the person, has requested it. Although a search of the man revealed that he did not possess any drugs, he was charged and convicted of violating the law and fined. The man appealed, challenging his conviction as a violation of his rights under the federal constitution.

Should the appellate court rule in favor of the man?

No, because the officer had probable cause to arrest the man for violating the state law.

No, because the state identification requirement did not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Yes, because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain the man.

Yes, because the officer arrested the man for a misdemeanor without an arrest warrant.

Answer choice C is correct. A temporary detention for the purpose of a criminal investigation (i.e., a Terry stop) is a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes. The test for a Terry stop is whether the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority (to which the subject has submitted), has in some way restrained the liberty of the citizen. Here, the officer detained the man when the officer told the man to stay seated when the man attempted to leave. However, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that the man had committed a crime because the officer simply saw the man sitting in a public park that the officer knew was frequently used for illegal drug transactions. As a consequence, under the Fourth Amendment, the encounter was not a valid Terry stop. Therefore, by the terms of the statute, the man was not lawfully detained. Accordingly, his conviction should be overturned. Answer choice A is incorrect. Although the officer did have probable cause to arrest based on the man's refusal to identify himself, the initial detention of the man was unlawful because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion. Therefore, the subsequent arrest and conviction under the statute were invalid. Answer choice B is incorrect. A statute that requires a person to identify himself (such as this statute) does not violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, at least where the person does not have a reasonable belief that, by doing so, the person would be incriminating himself. However, the statute here requires the person to have first been lawfully detained. And the man was not lawfully detained since the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that the man had committed a crime. Answer choice D is incorrect because a warrantless arrest of a person for a misdemeanor punishable only by a fine is not an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment provided that the misdemeanor was committed in the officer's presence, as in this case.

After being indicted for attempted murder, an indigent defendant was brought into the police station. While at the police station, the victim identified the defendant in a lineup. After the lineup but prior to trial, the defendant was appointed counsel. The lineup identification was admitted and used as evidence at trial. The jury found the defendant guilty of attempted murder. The defendant appealed this conviction, arguing that he was denied his right to counsel in the lineup.

Can the court reverse the conviction?

Yes, because the defendant had a right to counsel upon indictment.

Yes, because a violation of the right to counsel warrants an automatic reversal of a conviction.

No, because the defendant waived his right to counsel by not invoking it.

No, because the right to counsel does not attach until trial.

Answer choice A is correct. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies at all critical stages of a prosecution, after formal proceedings have begun. The right automatically attaches when formal judicial proceedings have begun, whether that be at a post-arrest initial appearance before a judicial officer, or by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. When a defendant is indigent, he is entitled to appointment of counsel. Here, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached immediately upon the defendant’s indictment for attempted murder. As a result, the indigent defendant was entitled to the presence of appointed counsel at the post-indictment lineup. Answer choice B is incorrect. While the court can reverse this conviction, only the failure to provide counsel at trial results in automatic reversal of a conviction. At other non-trial stages, the denial of counsel is subject to the harmless-error test. Answer choice C is incorrect. Unlike the Fifth Amendment right to counsel, the defendant does not need to invoke the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Answer choice D is incorrect. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel automatically attaches when the State initiates prosecution with an indictment or formal charge.

A suspect was detained for questioning at a police station in connection with a murder. After being properly advised of his Miranda rights, the suspect said, "My cousin is an attorney; should I call him before we continue speaking?" The police responded by telling the suspect that he could continue speaking to them if he had relevant information to provide. In fact, the suspect’s cousin had found out that the suspect had been detained, and was at the police station trying to reach him. The police continued questioning the suspect about the murder, and the suspect eventually confessed.

If the suspect files a motion to exclude the confession, how should the court rule?

Admit the confession, because the suspect did not unambiguously request an attorney.

Admit the confession, because the suspect had not been arrested.

Exclude the confession, because the police did not immediately cease questioning the suspect when he asked about an attorney.

Exclude the confession, because the police did not advise the suspect that his attorney was trying to reach him.

Answer choice A is correct. To invoke the right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment, the defendant must make a specific, unambiguous statement asserting his desire to have counsel present. If a suspect makes an ambiguous statement regarding the right to counsel, the police are not required to end the interrogation or to ask questions or clarify whether the suspect wants to invoke the right. In this case, after being properly advised of his Miranda rights, the suspect asked the police if he should request an attorney. This was a question, not an unambiguous request for counsel and did not constitute an assertion of the right to have counsel present. Accordingly, the police were permitted to continue questioning the suspect regarding the murder, and his confession is thus admissible. Answer choice B is incorrect. The suspect need not have been formally arrested in order for the Fifth Amendment right to counsel to apply. The Fifth Amendment right to counsel applies whenever a person is subject to custodial interrogation. Here, the suspect was detained (i.e., in custody) and being questioned by police (i.e., interrogated). However, the Fifth Amendment right to counsel must be specifically invoked, and the suspect’s unambiguous question regarding counsel is not sufficient to invoke that right. Answer choice C is incorrect because the police did not have to cease questioning unless the suspect unambiguously invoked his right to counsel, which he failed to do in this case. Answer choice D is incorrect because the police do not have an obligation to inform a suspect that his attorney is trying to reach him.

A police officer had probable cause to believe that a defendant was involved in a robbery. The officer obtained a valid arrest warrant and went to the defendant's apartment to execute it. The officer decided to go to the defendant's apartment right when he believed the defendant would be home from work, so he could search the defendant's apartment before he had a chance to hide the stolen goods. When the officer arrived at the defendant's apartment, the door was ajar, but nothing else seemed out of the ordinary.

The officer slowly opened the door and entered the apartment. He walked toward the back of the apartment, and when he heard the defendant in a bedroom, pushed open the door, loudly told the defendant to freeze, and arrested him.

Did the officer properly execute the arrest warrant?

Yes, because the officer went to the defendant's home when he had a reasonable belief that the defendant would be home.

Yes, because the officer obtained a valid arrest warrant, which gives the officer the right to arrest the defendant in his home.

No, because the officer failed to "knock and announce" before he entered the defendant's apartment.

No, because the officer had no consent to enter the defendant's apartment.

Answer choice C is correct. Even with a warrant, most states and federal law mandate that a police officer who is making an arrest in a home must generally knock and announce his purpose before entering the home. Answer choice D is incorrect because a police officer does not need an individual's consent to enter his apartment, if he has a valid arrest warrant and a reasonable belief that the individual is home. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while having a reasonable belief that the individual is home is a requirement to entering an individual's home to arrest him, that is not enough, and the officer would still need to knock and announce. Answer choice B is incorrect, again, because absent exigent circumstances, an officer must knock and announce before entering an individual's apartment.

Two police officers stopped a car for a minor traffic violation. While one of the officers dealt with the driver and the traffic violation, the other officer talked with the passenger. Seeking to question the passenger about gang involvement, but lacking reasonable suspicions of criminal activity, the officer ordered the passenger out of the car. As the passenger exited the car, the officer saw a bulge in the passenger's coat which the officer suspected might be a gun. Upon patting down the passenger, the officer felt the handle of a revolver and removed the gun. The passenger, who was a convicted felon, was charged with the possession of a gun by a prohibited possessor. Prior to trial, the defendant sought to suppress the gun as evidence, contending that its seizure was unconstitutional.

Should the court suppress the gun as evidence?

Yes, because, since the car had been stopped for a traffic violation, the officer could not order the passenger, who had not committed the violation, to exit the car.

Yes, because, since the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that the passenger was engaged in criminal activity, the officer could not pat down the passenger.

No, because a valid traffic stop gives an officer the right to pat down a passenger.

No, because the gun was discovered as a consequence of a valid Terry stop and frisk.

Answer choice D is correct. The traffic violation gave the police officers a valid reason for stopping the car. As part of the stop, the police officer could order the passenger to exit the vehicle. As the passenger did so, the police officer gained a reasonable suspicion that the passenger was armed and dangerous. Consequently, the officer could pat down the passenger for weapons. Answer choice A is incorrect because the police may order a passenger to exit a car that is legitimately stopped for a traffic violation, even though the passenger is not responsible for the traffic violation. Compelling the passenger to exit the car constitutes a de minimis additional intrusion. Answer choice B is incorrect because the officer's justification for ordering the passenger to exit the car arose from the traffic violation. The fact that the officer also had another reason for doing so that was not supported by a reasonable suspicion as constitutionally required does not prevent the officer from ordering the passenger to exit the car. Answer choice C is incorrect because an officer may not conduct a pat-down as a consequence of a valid traffic stop. The officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the passenger is armed and dangerous.

A computer programmer for a local software company was upset by the loud parties held in the apartment next door by a college student whenever her father, with whom she was living for the summer, went out of town. One day, while no one was home, the programmer broke into the apartment and installed a video camera. Operating the camera from his apartment, the programmer recorded the college student’s next party. The recording contained evidence of the sale and use of illegal drugs by the college student. The programmer provided that recording to the police, who arrested the college student for the distribution of illegal drugs. The college student has moved to suppress the recording as a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.

How should the court rule?

Grant the motion, because the programmer illegally gained access to the college student’s apartment.

Grant the motion, because the college student had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment.

Deny the motion, because the recording establishes that the college student was distributing illegal drugs.

Deny the motion, because the police had no role in making the recording.

Answer choice D is correct. Since the recording was not made by or at the behest of the police but by a private individual, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the government’s use of the recording at the college student’s trial. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while the college student has a private cause of action against the programmer for trespass and invasion of privacy, the illegality of the programmer’s acts to not prevent the use of the recording at trial. Because the recording is not the product of police conduct or conduct engaged in by a private citizen under the direction of the police, the Fourth Amendment does not require its suppression. Answer choice B is incorrect because, while even a temporary resident of a dwelling has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the dwelling, here the recording was produced by the programmer, a private citizen, and not by the police. Answer choice C is incorrect because the relevance of the recording to charges brought against the college student would permit the recording, if properly authenticated, to be introduced at trial; however, relevancy is not at issue in this motion. Instead, the issue is whether the recording was produced in violation of the college student’s Fourth Amendment rights, which it was not.

A defendant is on trial for cocaine possession. The cocaine was found during a warrantless search of the defendant’s car by a police officer. The search occurred immediately after the defendant was arrested for driving a car with an inoperative taillight, a misdemeanor punishable only by a fine. The defendant had been placed in a police car prior to the search. The cocaine was found inside a closed bag on the back seat of the passenger compartment of the defendant’s car. The defendant now moves to suppress the cocaine.

Will the defendant’s motion be granted?

Yes, because the defendant was in the police car at the time of the search.

Yes, because the arrest was unreasonable and the cocaine seized was a fruit of the poisonous tree.

No, because the police may search a car without a warrant under the automobile exception.

No, because the search was a lawful search incident to arrest.

Answer choice A is correct. In order to qualify as a lawful search incident to arrest, a search of a car in which the defendant was an occupant must be made at the time that the defendant has access to the car or to uncover evidence of the crime for which the defendant was arrested. Here, neither of those circumstances is applicable. Consequently, answer choice D is incorrect. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although the automobile exception permits a police officer to search a car without a warrant, the exception only applies when the police officer has probable cause to conduct the search. Answer choice B is incorrect because a police officer’s arrest of an individual for a misdemeanor that is punishable only by a fine is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

A police officer obtained a valid warrant to arrest a woman for felonious credit card fraud. Having probable cause to believe that the woman was spending the afternoon at a friend's house, the officer went to the friend's house to serve the warrant. No one responded to the officer's knocking or to his identification of himself as a police officer. The officer, finding the door unlocked, opened the door and entered the house. Once in the house, the officer did not find the woman, but, while searching for her, did find illegal drugs in plain view on a kitchen counter. The friend was charged with the possession of illegal drugs. The friend challenged the officer's seizure of the drugs as unconstitutional.

Will the court deny the challenge?

Yes, because the officer was attempting to serve a valid arrest warrant and had probable cause to believe that the woman was at the house.

Yes, because the officer saw the drugs in plain view.

No, because the officer's search of the house was unreasonable.

No, because the woman did not have a valid privacy interest in the friend's house.

Answer choice C is correct because an officer cannot rely on an arrest warrant to effect the arrest in the home of a third party. The officer may enter the home only with a warrant to search for the person named in the arrest warrant or under a valid warrant exception, such as consent or exigent circumstances. Probable cause alone is not sufficient justification for an officer to search for a person in the home of another. For this reason, answer choice A is incorrect. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although the officer did see the drugs in plain view while searching for the woman, the officer did not have the authority to be in the friend's house searching for the woman. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although a person does not generally have a privacy interest in a third party's dwelling, the defendant in this case is the third party whose dwelling was searched.

On the basis of an eyewitness description, a student was arrested in connection with the murder of a security guard who was killed during a protest at a college. The police brought the student to the police station and gave him his Miranda warnings. The student then asked to speak with his attorney. Before the attorney could arrive, the eyewitness walked into the station, saw the student, and told the police that this was the person she had seen kill the security guard. The prosecution sought to introduce at trial evidence of the eyewitness identification. The defense moved to have evidence of the identification suppressed.

The court should:

Grant the motion because the student's Sixth Amendment rights were violated.

Grant the motion because this was a corporeal identification procedure.

Deny the motion because there was no Sixth Amendment violation.

Deny the motion because this was a non-corporeal identification procedure.

Answer choice C is correct. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply to any pre-indictment eyewitness identification. This identification was pre-indictment and therefore the motion to suppress should be denied. Answer choice A is incorrect for the reason just stated, that this was a pre-indictment identification to which the Sixth Amendment does not apply. Answer choice B is incorrect because even though this was a corporeal identification procedure in that it was an in-person identification, it occurred pre-indictment. Answer choice D is incorrect factually, as this was in fact a corporeal identification.

A reliable informant gave police a tip that she had witnessed two men dealing drugs out of a car in a grocery store parking lot ten minutes earlier. She gave the police a detailed description of the men and their car, a white sedan. The police sent a cruiser to the grocery store. About ten minutes later, the patrol officers saw a white sedan like the one the informant had described. Both of the occupants of the car fit the general description that the informant had given. The officers observed several individuals approach the sedan, engage with the occupants, and then quickly leave, which the officers believed was indicative of drug dealing.

The police pulled the white sedan over. One officer searched a locked steel box in the trunk and found bags of cocaine. The other officer then arrested the driver and searched the driver's pockets and coat. In the driver's coat pocket, he found a bag of marijuana. At his trial for drug possession, the driver's attorney moves to suppress evidence of both the marijuana and the cocaine.

How should the court rule on the motion?

Grant the motion as to both the marijuana and the cocaine.

Grant the motion as to the marijuana, but deny it as to the cocaine.

Deny the motion as to the marijuana, but grant it as to the cocaine.

Deny the motion as to both the marijuana and the cocaine

Answer choice D is correct. The Fourth Amendment does not require police to obtain a warrant to search a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or evidence of a criminal activity. So long as they have probable cause to do so, the police may search anywhere in a car that they believe there to be contraband, including the trunk and locked containers that could reasonably hold the evidence sought. In this case, based on the reliable informant's tip and the officers' observations, the police had probable cause to believe that a drug deal had occurred and that there were drugs in the car. Therefore, they could search the driver and the locked box in the trunk. Answer choices A and C are incorrect, as they exclude the cocaine found in the trunk. Answer choice B is incorrect. The right to search incident to a lawful arrest includes the right to search pockets of clothing and to open containers found inside the pockets. Because the arrest of the driver was lawful due to the discovery of the cocaine in the trunk, the marijuana found in the subsequent search of the driver's pocket is admissible.

A man was properly arrested under suspicion of murder. While continuing their investigation of the case in preparation for trial, the police invited the man’s brother to the station for an interview. The brother agreed and spent four hours in an interview room with two officers, sipping coffee and discussing the events surrounding the murder. The officers told the brother that they had not located the murder weapon yet. After some time, the brother said, “You seem like decent fellows, so I’m gonna tell it to you straight. I know my brother is innocent, but I also know he was scared that he would be a suspect. I know because he gave me a gun the day after the murder. He didn’t tell me anything, but he didn’t need to. I knew he wanted me to get rid of it, and I did.” The officers immediately arrested the brother as an accomplice after the fact and read him his Miranda rights. At the brother’s trial as an accomplice to murder, the defense attorney seeks to suppress the brother’s statement as a violation of the brother’s privilege against self-incrimination.

Should the court grant the motion to suppress the brother’s statement?

No, because the brother did not make the statement during a custodial interrogation.

No, because the brother waived his Miranda rights by voluntarily speaking to the officers.

Yes, because the brother’s confession is inadmissible as a violation of his Miranda rights.

Yes, because the officers’ interview was likely to elicit an incriminating response.

Answer choice A is correct. Custodial interrogation is questioning initiated by law-enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody. Once a custodial interrogation begins, anything the defendant says is inadmissible until the defendant is informed of the Miranda rights and the defendant waives those rights. Here, the brother was not subject to custodial interrogation when he voluntarily came to the police station and decided on his own to confess. Therefore, the prosecution’s use of this voluntary confession in his trial is not a violation of his Miranda rights. Answer choice B is incorrect. Although a defendant may waive his Miranda rights, there can be no effective waiver until the Miranda warnings are properly given. Therefore, the brother in this situation has not effectively waived his Miranda rights. Answer choice C is incorrect because the brother’s confession was a voluntary statement made freely to the officers outside the context of a custodial interrogation. Therefore, it is admissible even though it was made before the brother was read his Miranda rights. Answer choice D is incorrect because an officer is permitted to ask a person questions that may elicit an incriminating response without reading the person his Miranda rights, as long as this interrogation is not occurring while the person is in custody.

A wife was having an affair with her neighbor. The wife and her husband had a prenuptial agreement that prevented the wife from receiving any of the husband’s sizable fortune in the event of a divorce. The wife and her neighbor formed a plan to murder the husband and run away together with the wife’s inheritance. The neighbor shot the husband one evening, killing him instantly, then drove to a town 100 miles away and checked into a motel. Later that night, the police showed up at the motel with a valid warrant for the neighbor’s arrest. After the neighbor was arrested and placed in a police car, the police asked the motel clerk for permission to search the room, and the clerk granted the request. The police found the gun hidden in the tank of the toilet. The wife and the neighbor were each charged with first-degree murder and tried separately. At her trial, the wife sought to suppress any evidence of the gun, arguing that it was seized illegally.

What is the prosecution’s strongest response to this argument?

The motel clerk gave the police permission to search the room.

The wife was not staying in the motel room where the gun was found.

The gun was found in a search incident to a lawful arrest.

The neighbor did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the motel room.

Answer choice B is correct. Fourth Amendment rights are personal and may not be asserted vicariously. A defendant cannot successfully challenge governmental conduct as a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures unless the defendant himself has been seized or he has a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the place searched or the item seized. Here, the wife had not checked into the hotel room, was not present there, and therefore had no expectation of privacy there. Her rights were therefore not violated by the search of the neighbor’s motel room, and thus the gun likely will not be suppressed in her trial. (Note that this question does not address whether the neighbor himself would have a claim based upon this search and seizure.) Answer choice A is incorrect because the search of a motel room by a government agent may be unreasonable. A motel clerk’s consent to a governmental search of a room during the time it is rented is insufficient to justify the search. Answer choice C is incorrect because a lawful arrest justifies only a warrantless contemporaneous search of the arrestee’s wingspan and areas immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be launched. In this case, the search was not contemporaneous with the arrest, as it occurred when the neighbor was already in the police car, and it exceeded the scope of a lawful search incident to an arrest. Answer choice D is incorrect because an individual may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a motel room.

Which of the following situations would NOT implicate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, or Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution?

A state police officer arrests an individual without probable cause.

A store security guard detains a shoplifting suspect for one hour.

A federal agent directs a private citizen to enter a suspected felon’s house and obtain evidence.

A private defense attorney is accused of failing to provide a criminal defendant with effective counsel.

A store security guard detains a shoplifting suspect for one hour.

Which of the following situations most likely constitutes an improper seizure?

An officer witnesses an individual commit a misdemeanor in a public place, and places that individual under arrest, even though the officer does not have an arrest warrant for that person.

With the consent of a suspect’s wife who lives with the suspect, an officer enters a suspect’s home and arrests him based on probable cause, even though the officer does not have an arrest warrant.

An officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has just committed a misdemeanor in a public place, though he did not see her do anything illegal. The officer arrests the woman for the misdemeanor, though he does not have an arrest warrant.

After watching a man “case” a closed electronics store, an officer confronts the man and pats him down for weapons. While doing so, the officer feels what he can easily recognize as narcotics in the man’s pocket. The officer arrests the man, even though he does not have an arrest warrant.

An officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has just committed a misdemeanor in a public place, though he did not see her do anything illegal. The officer arrests the woman for the misdemeanor, though he does not have an arrest warrant.

Which of the following is required for police to conduct a “Terry stop”?

Any suspicion of illegal activity

A reasonable suspicion of illegal activity

Probable cause to believe there was illegal activity

Clear and convincing evidence of illegal activity

A reasonable suspicion of illegal activity

Which of the following evidence would most likely NOT be admissible at trial?

A weapon concealed in an individual’s jacket, found when a police officer stopped him on the street, based on a hunch that he was involved in illegal activity.

A weapon found in an open duffel bag, sitting on the street immediately next to an individual who was being lawfully arrested.

A weapon found in the top desk drawer of an individual who was arrested, pursuant to a valid warrant, while sitting at his desk.

Drugs found in the trunk of a car that had been impounded, while the police made an inventory of the car.

A weapon concealed in an individual’s jacket, found when a police officer stopped him on the street, based on a hunch that he was involved in illegal activity.

Which of the following statements is FALSE regarding searches incident to arrest?

A search incident to a lawful arrest allows an arresting officer to search both the arrested person and the surrounding area.

Evidence obtained as a result of a search that was not conducted pursuant to a valid arrest must generally be excluded at trial.

A search of a person validly arrested in a car will always extend to the entire car.

A search incident to a lawful arrest allows the arresting officer to search for both potential weapons and potential evidence.

A search of a person validly arrested in a car will always extend to the entire car.

In which of these locations is an individual most likely to have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

An open field directly behind her home

A hotel room she has rented in a town other than her own

A bag of garbage she has put in a garbage can in a public alley

A public street

A hotel room she has rented in a town other than her own

Which of the following searches would most likely be illegal under the Fourth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution?

A random search of lockers at a private high school by the school’s principal

A search by city police pursuant to a warrant issued for “evidence of a crime in locations subject to the suspect’s control”

A warrantless search of an individual who has just been arrested for robbing a bank, conducted by the arresting officer at the time of arrest

A search by a store security guard of a customer’s bag as she is leaving the store

A search by city police pursuant to a warrant issued for “evidence of a crime in locations subject to the suspect’s control”

In which of the following circumstances would an exception to the search warrant requirement NOT apply to the evidence?

While searching a suspect’s home for drugs pursuant to a valid search warrant, police officers find a pistol hidden under the suspect’s mattress.

While acting on a reliable tip that a suspect has stolen home stereo equipment in his car, police officers open a small vial found in the glove compartment, which contains cocaine.

While patting down a suspect stopped on reasonable suspicion of having just robbed a convenience store, a police officer feels what he can immediately identify as a gun in the suspect’s jacket pocket.

While randomly searching an individual planning to board an airplane, an airport security officer finds marijuana in the individual’s jeans pocket.

While acting on a reliable tip that a suspect has stolen home stereo equipment in his car, police officers open a small vial found in the glove compartment, which contains cocaine.

Which of the following statements regarding requirements for a search warrant is FALSE?

In describing items to be seized, it is sufficient to refer in general to fruits, instrumentalities, and evidence of a particular crime.

To be valid, the search warrant must be issued by a neutral magistrate based on probable cause.

A search warrant is not required for search of an automobile as long as the police have probable cause to believe it contains contraband.

Items seized pursuant to an invalid search warrant will be excluded from the prosecution’s case-in-chief.

In describing items to be seized, it is sufficient to refer in general to fruits, instrumentalities, and evidence of a particular crime.

Which of the following pieces of evidence violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination?

A DNA sample that puts the suspect at the scene of the crime

A handwriting sample indicating that the suspect wrote a ransom note

Corporate records, under the suspect’s control, that would prove the suspect had been embezzling money from the corporation

Answers to police questions from a suspect in custody after the right to counsel was invoked

Answers to police questions from a suspect in custody after the right to counsel was invoked

In which of the following situations could the Fifth Amendment properly be invoked?

A witness for the prosecution refuses to testify to her part in a criminal enterprise, though she has been granted immunity from prosecution for anything she may say

A defendant invokes her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in order to prevent her mother from testifying to an incriminating statement the defendant had made to her

A witness refuses to testify against the defendant at trial, believing that her testimony may incriminate her in another criminal matter, though she has not yet been charged with any crime

A defendant refuses to supply a blood sample to the police, believing the blood sample will link her to another crime for which she has not yet been charged

A witness refuses to testify against the defendant at trial, believing that her testimony may incriminate her in another criminal matter, though she has not yet been charged with any crime

Which of the following statements about the Fifth Amendment in a police interrogation context is FALSE?

The test for determining if interrogation is “custodial” is whether a reasonable person would believe he is not free to leave.

If a defendant’s lawyer is trying to reach the defendant, the police must stop questioning and inform the defendant his lawyer is waiting.

“Interrogation” can include words or acts that the police know or should know will elicit an incriminating response.

After the right to counsel is invoked, all questioning must stop until the lawyer is present or the defendant initiates contact with the police.

If a defendant’s lawyer is trying to reach the defendant, the police must stop questioning and inform the defendant his lawyer is waiting.

Which of the following is a FALSE statement with regard to the consequences of a Fifth Amendment violation?

A statement obtained by police through threats or coercion is never admissible against the defendant.

Physical evidence obtained as a result of an involuntary statement is presumptively inadmissible against the defendant.

Physical evidence obtained as a result of a voluntary statement that was given without proper Miranda warnings is inadmissible against the defendant.

A statement that was obtained voluntarily, but without proper Miranda warnings, is not admissible in the prosecution’s case in chief.

Physical evidence obtained as a result of a voluntary statement that was given without proper Miranda warnings is inadmissible against the defendant.

If an individual is charged with a felony, which of the following proceedings does NOT constitute a critical proceeding to which the Sixth Amendment applies?

A discretionary appeal

A post-indictment interrogation related to the crime

A proceeding to enter a guilty plea

An evidentiary hearing

A discretionary appeal

At which of the following identifications is a defendant charged with a felony or a misdemeanor requiring jail time entitled to have counsel present under the Sixth Amendment?

A pre-indictment line-up

A post-indictment line-up

A post-indictment line-up related to a separate, uncharged crime

A post-indictment photo array

A post-indictment line-up

Which of the following identifications is most likely to be admissible?

A post-indictment line-up at which the defendant’s attorney is not present

A pre-indictment line-up at which the witness could not say for sure whether the first or third individuals was the suspect, to which the police officer replied, “didn’t the man you saw have a beard like number three?” The witness then identified number three

A photo array that featured the suspect, an older white man, with a young Chinese man, three young black men, and a young Indian man

A pre-indictment line-up at which the police officer tried to influence the witness, but the witness was positive of the identification regardless of the officer’s suggestion, as she sees the suspect walking his dog almost every morning

A pre-indictment line-up at which the police officer tried to influence the witness, but the witness was positive of the identification regardless of the officer’s suggestion, as she sees the suspect walking his dog almost every morning