FLETC 4TH AMENDMENT PRACTICE
CORRECT 100%
Thompson is suspected of running a counterfeiting operation out of his garage. The
garage is attached to the dwelling. Without a warrant, three officers step onto his
curtilage, shine a flashlight into the garage, and take a quick look. They observe a
number of what appear to be $100 bills hanging from a clothesline. Was the observation
into the garage lawful? - ANSWERNo, because the officers physically intruded on a
constitutionally protect location without either a warrant or an exception to the 4th
Amendment
Agents develop reasonable suspicion that Wooster is operating a stolen credit card ring.
Upon seeing Wooster driving in his car one afternoon, the agents follow him. When he
arrives at a shopping mall, the agents approach him, identify themselves, and tell him to
put his hands on his automobile. One of the agents frisks him and, in the upper left hand
pocket, feels what is immediately apparent to him as a stack of credit cards bound by a
rubber band. The agent removes the credit cards and, ultimately, determines that they
are stolen. Wooster's motion to suppress the credit cards will be - - ANSWERGranted,
because the agents performed an illegal "frisk" of Wooster
Johnson is arrested for drunk driving and failing to pay child support. He agrees to
share information with the police to avoid prosecution. Having been personally involved
in every aspect of an ongoing stolen paycheck operation, Johnson explained the
intimate details to the police of what he saw and did with Fred, a co-criminal. Based on
his statements alone, the officers seek a search warrant for the co-criminal's premises
where Johnson stated he saw many of the stolen checks the day before. Can Johnson's
statement alone establish Probable Cause to support a warrant application? -
ANSWERyes, because Johnson's statements amount to probable cause under a totality
of the circumstances using the Illinois v. Gates test
An officer is walking down a public sidewalk in the early evening hours, just after dark.
Glancing in the direction of Sweeney's home, the officer notices that, while Sweeney
has drawn the curtains in the front window, there is a gap through which the officer sees
what he knows to be a large marijuana plant. The following morning, based solely upon
this information, the officer seeks a search warrant for Sweeney's home. The request for
a search warrant will be - - ANSWERGranted, because the officer did not violate
Sweeney's reasonable expectation of privacy in making the observation on which the
search warrant will be based
Marsh checked a suitcase at the airline counter and got onto an airplane. Before the
suitcase was placed on the airplane, it was sniffed by a drug detection dog. The dog
indicated that drugs were located inside which established probable cause to search the
suitcase. With this knowledge, two DEA agents entered the airplane, approached
Marsh, identified themselves, and asked him if they could look in the suitcase he had
, checked at the counter. Marsh stated, "I'm not traveling with a suitcase." Because the
plane wasn't scheduled to take off for an hour (and Marsh didn't think he would miss the
plane), Marsh voluntarily agreed to accompany the agents to the suitcase, was shown
the suitcase, and was asked again if they could open it. Again, Marsh denied ever
seeing the suitcase. The agents opened the suitcase and discovered contraband inside.
At trial, the contraband should be - - ANSWERAdmitted, because Marsh abandoned the
suitcase.
(By denying the suitcase was his, Marsh abandoned any REP he had in the suitcase
and therefore, there was no 4th Amendment intrusion.)
Perry is a paid police informant and has provided reliable information to officers on
seven out of seven occasions. On January 7, 2000, Perry personally witnessed four
personal-use drug transactions take place in Joe Clark's apartment. On November 28,
2000, Perry tells the officer about these observations. The officer applies for a search
warrant for drugs based solely on this information. The request for the search warrant
should be - - ANSWERDenied, because the information provided by Perry is inadequate
to establish probable cause.
(The information is stale because almost eleven months has passed since the drugs
were seen in Clark's apartment and therefore there is no PC there are drugs there
NOW)
Police approach the home of Adams, whom they reasonably suspect is involved in a
larceny. Adams is not there, but his wife is home. The officers explain they are looking
for Adams and would like to talk to him about his clothing he was wearing the day
before. Adams' wife states, "Those things are right here. I took them out of his duffel
bag. Here they are" and hands them to the officer. The officers accepted the items. At
trial, this evidence should be - - ANSWERAdmitted, as the items were procured through
private action, and thus, were not a search under the 4th Amendment
Two officers develop reasonable suspicion that Smith is about to rob a convenience
store. The officers approach Smith, place him under arrest, and search him. The officer
conducting the search feels what is immediately apparent to him to be crack cocaine.
The officer then retrieved the substance. At trial, Smith makes a motion to suppress the
crack cocaine found during the search. According to the law, this motion should be: -
ANSWERGranted, because the officers acted illegally
(the officers arrested Smith when they only had R/S. PC is required to arrest and
therefore the search of Smith was illegal.)
An officer receives a report from the dispatcher about an armed robbery in the area,
along with a description of the vehicle and the three men believed to have committed
the crime. Spotting a vehicle matching the description, with three male occupants
inside, the officer stops the vehicle to investigate. She directs the three occupants from
the vehicle, and examines the vehicle for weapons. Under the front passenger seat, the
CORRECT 100%
Thompson is suspected of running a counterfeiting operation out of his garage. The
garage is attached to the dwelling. Without a warrant, three officers step onto his
curtilage, shine a flashlight into the garage, and take a quick look. They observe a
number of what appear to be $100 bills hanging from a clothesline. Was the observation
into the garage lawful? - ANSWERNo, because the officers physically intruded on a
constitutionally protect location without either a warrant or an exception to the 4th
Amendment
Agents develop reasonable suspicion that Wooster is operating a stolen credit card ring.
Upon seeing Wooster driving in his car one afternoon, the agents follow him. When he
arrives at a shopping mall, the agents approach him, identify themselves, and tell him to
put his hands on his automobile. One of the agents frisks him and, in the upper left hand
pocket, feels what is immediately apparent to him as a stack of credit cards bound by a
rubber band. The agent removes the credit cards and, ultimately, determines that they
are stolen. Wooster's motion to suppress the credit cards will be - - ANSWERGranted,
because the agents performed an illegal "frisk" of Wooster
Johnson is arrested for drunk driving and failing to pay child support. He agrees to
share information with the police to avoid prosecution. Having been personally involved
in every aspect of an ongoing stolen paycheck operation, Johnson explained the
intimate details to the police of what he saw and did with Fred, a co-criminal. Based on
his statements alone, the officers seek a search warrant for the co-criminal's premises
where Johnson stated he saw many of the stolen checks the day before. Can Johnson's
statement alone establish Probable Cause to support a warrant application? -
ANSWERyes, because Johnson's statements amount to probable cause under a totality
of the circumstances using the Illinois v. Gates test
An officer is walking down a public sidewalk in the early evening hours, just after dark.
Glancing in the direction of Sweeney's home, the officer notices that, while Sweeney
has drawn the curtains in the front window, there is a gap through which the officer sees
what he knows to be a large marijuana plant. The following morning, based solely upon
this information, the officer seeks a search warrant for Sweeney's home. The request for
a search warrant will be - - ANSWERGranted, because the officer did not violate
Sweeney's reasonable expectation of privacy in making the observation on which the
search warrant will be based
Marsh checked a suitcase at the airline counter and got onto an airplane. Before the
suitcase was placed on the airplane, it was sniffed by a drug detection dog. The dog
indicated that drugs were located inside which established probable cause to search the
suitcase. With this knowledge, two DEA agents entered the airplane, approached
Marsh, identified themselves, and asked him if they could look in the suitcase he had
, checked at the counter. Marsh stated, "I'm not traveling with a suitcase." Because the
plane wasn't scheduled to take off for an hour (and Marsh didn't think he would miss the
plane), Marsh voluntarily agreed to accompany the agents to the suitcase, was shown
the suitcase, and was asked again if they could open it. Again, Marsh denied ever
seeing the suitcase. The agents opened the suitcase and discovered contraband inside.
At trial, the contraband should be - - ANSWERAdmitted, because Marsh abandoned the
suitcase.
(By denying the suitcase was his, Marsh abandoned any REP he had in the suitcase
and therefore, there was no 4th Amendment intrusion.)
Perry is a paid police informant and has provided reliable information to officers on
seven out of seven occasions. On January 7, 2000, Perry personally witnessed four
personal-use drug transactions take place in Joe Clark's apartment. On November 28,
2000, Perry tells the officer about these observations. The officer applies for a search
warrant for drugs based solely on this information. The request for the search warrant
should be - - ANSWERDenied, because the information provided by Perry is inadequate
to establish probable cause.
(The information is stale because almost eleven months has passed since the drugs
were seen in Clark's apartment and therefore there is no PC there are drugs there
NOW)
Police approach the home of Adams, whom they reasonably suspect is involved in a
larceny. Adams is not there, but his wife is home. The officers explain they are looking
for Adams and would like to talk to him about his clothing he was wearing the day
before. Adams' wife states, "Those things are right here. I took them out of his duffel
bag. Here they are" and hands them to the officer. The officers accepted the items. At
trial, this evidence should be - - ANSWERAdmitted, as the items were procured through
private action, and thus, were not a search under the 4th Amendment
Two officers develop reasonable suspicion that Smith is about to rob a convenience
store. The officers approach Smith, place him under arrest, and search him. The officer
conducting the search feels what is immediately apparent to him to be crack cocaine.
The officer then retrieved the substance. At trial, Smith makes a motion to suppress the
crack cocaine found during the search. According to the law, this motion should be: -
ANSWERGranted, because the officers acted illegally
(the officers arrested Smith when they only had R/S. PC is required to arrest and
therefore the search of Smith was illegal.)
An officer receives a report from the dispatcher about an armed robbery in the area,
along with a description of the vehicle and the three men believed to have committed
the crime. Spotting a vehicle matching the description, with three male occupants
inside, the officer stops the vehicle to investigate. She directs the three occupants from
the vehicle, and examines the vehicle for weapons. Under the front passenger seat, the
