UCLA COMM 170 MIDTERM EXAM
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. VERIFIED
2025/2026.
Two competing interests to consider- Lawful & Unlawful arrests - ANS 1. an interest to
protect public safety and welfare
2. an interest in individual liberty
5th Amendment - ANS The Right to Remain Silent/Double Jeopardy, right to due process
-protects against self-incrimination-cannot be compelled to witness against yourself
probable cause - ANS exists when FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES within the police officers
knowledge would lead a REASONABLE PERSON to believe that a suspect has committed, is
committing, or is about to commit a crime
T/F Officer does not need probable cause to search a vehicle and arrest - ANS false
Probable cause case: - ANS -Maryland V. Pringle
-People v. Ingle (1960) 53 Cal. 2d. 407
-Brinegar V. United States (1948)
1 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
,-Ybarra v. Illinois (1979)
People v. Ingle (1960) 53 Cal. 2d. 407 (probable cause) - ANS Probable cause in California is
"such a state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and
conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person is guilty of a crime."
Brinegar V. United States (1948) (probable cause) - ANS Probable cause protects "citizens
from rash and unreasonable inferences with privacy and from unfounded charges of crime,"
while providing "fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community's protection."It is
"incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages."
Maryland v. Pringle (2003) (probable cause) - ANS -speeding, asks for license and registration,
wad of money falls out, asks to search car, they say yes (could have said no)
-find 5 bags of cocaine in back seats
-After all three men deny ownership, the officer arrests each of them for possession of cocaine
-pringle confesses to the police he and his friends were going to a party, that the cocaine
belonged to him, and that he intended to sell it or use it for sex
-Pringle gets 10 yrs in jail without the possibility of parole, meaning he cant get out earlier than
10 yrs
-Got up to supreme court, Pringle argued he was convicted based on his confession, Said officer
did not have probable cost to arrest me
-To have probable cause for a group, you need to be able to assert that the members of the
group are members of a common enterprise; thus, Pringle's friends could be arrested
2 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
, -Pringle appeals his case all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that his confession is the
fruit of an unlawful arrest, because the officer had no probable cause to arrest Pringle
-An arrest without probable cause violates: (1) the 5th Amendment provision that, "No person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," and (2) the 4th
Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures.".
-In this case, drugs and a large amount of rolled-up cash were found in a car. The three
occupants in the car, driving in the early morning hours, said nothing about who owned the
drugs or money. Based on those facts, it is reasonable to conclude that any one, or all, of the
occupants had knowledge of and control over the drugs in the car. Accordingly, an objectively
reasonable police officer could conclude that there was probable cause to arrest Pringle and his
companions.
-pringle lost
Common Enterprise - ANS -The legal doctrine holding all occupants in a vehicle liable for all
contraband found and seized inside.-small group of people in small space in coordination with
each other
An arrest w/o probable cause violates... - ANS (1) the 5th Amendment provision that, "No
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,"
(2) the 4th Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."
3 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. VERIFIED
2025/2026.
Two competing interests to consider- Lawful & Unlawful arrests - ANS 1. an interest to
protect public safety and welfare
2. an interest in individual liberty
5th Amendment - ANS The Right to Remain Silent/Double Jeopardy, right to due process
-protects against self-incrimination-cannot be compelled to witness against yourself
probable cause - ANS exists when FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES within the police officers
knowledge would lead a REASONABLE PERSON to believe that a suspect has committed, is
committing, or is about to commit a crime
T/F Officer does not need probable cause to search a vehicle and arrest - ANS false
Probable cause case: - ANS -Maryland V. Pringle
-People v. Ingle (1960) 53 Cal. 2d. 407
-Brinegar V. United States (1948)
1 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
,-Ybarra v. Illinois (1979)
People v. Ingle (1960) 53 Cal. 2d. 407 (probable cause) - ANS Probable cause in California is
"such a state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and
conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person is guilty of a crime."
Brinegar V. United States (1948) (probable cause) - ANS Probable cause protects "citizens
from rash and unreasonable inferences with privacy and from unfounded charges of crime,"
while providing "fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community's protection."It is
"incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages."
Maryland v. Pringle (2003) (probable cause) - ANS -speeding, asks for license and registration,
wad of money falls out, asks to search car, they say yes (could have said no)
-find 5 bags of cocaine in back seats
-After all three men deny ownership, the officer arrests each of them for possession of cocaine
-pringle confesses to the police he and his friends were going to a party, that the cocaine
belonged to him, and that he intended to sell it or use it for sex
-Pringle gets 10 yrs in jail without the possibility of parole, meaning he cant get out earlier than
10 yrs
-Got up to supreme court, Pringle argued he was convicted based on his confession, Said officer
did not have probable cost to arrest me
-To have probable cause for a group, you need to be able to assert that the members of the
group are members of a common enterprise; thus, Pringle's friends could be arrested
2 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
, -Pringle appeals his case all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that his confession is the
fruit of an unlawful arrest, because the officer had no probable cause to arrest Pringle
-An arrest without probable cause violates: (1) the 5th Amendment provision that, "No person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," and (2) the 4th
Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures.".
-In this case, drugs and a large amount of rolled-up cash were found in a car. The three
occupants in the car, driving in the early morning hours, said nothing about who owned the
drugs or money. Based on those facts, it is reasonable to conclude that any one, or all, of the
occupants had knowledge of and control over the drugs in the car. Accordingly, an objectively
reasonable police officer could conclude that there was probable cause to arrest Pringle and his
companions.
-pringle lost
Common Enterprise - ANS -The legal doctrine holding all occupants in a vehicle liable for all
contraband found and seized inside.-small group of people in small space in coordination with
each other
An arrest w/o probable cause violates... - ANS (1) the 5th Amendment provision that, "No
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,"
(2) the 4th Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."
3 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
