Question 1 (1 point)
Saved
Officer Franklin has stopped a car driven by Zola, because the officer observed the car weaving across
two lanes of traffic. As the officer approaches the driver's side of the car, she sees a female driver,
with another female sitting in the front passenger seat, and a third female sitting behind the front
passenger. On the back seat behind the driver, Officer Franklin sees a container, with part of a plastic
baggie sticking out the side. There appears to be a white powdery substance in the baggie. She
observes the driver and two passengers appear to be highly nervous, with dilated pupils, and speaking
rapidly when the officer asks questions.
Officer Franklin may search an automobile without a search warrant, as justified by five
considerations. Which of the following is NOT one of these considerations?
Question 1 options:
The mobility of motor vehicles often makes obtaining a judicial warrant impractical.
A diminished expectation of privacy surrounds the automobile.
A car is used for transportation, not as a residence or a repository of personal effects.
The car's occupants are not in plain view.
Question 2 (1 point)
Saved
The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply in:
Question 2 options:
vehicles.
immigration and border searches.
public.
homes.
Question 3 (1 point)
Saved
Officer Smith has stopped a motor home because the left rear taillight is not working. He approaches
the driver's side window, and is able to see the driver, but he is not able to see into the passenger
compartment. The driver appears nervous, his pupils are dilated, and he is constantly looking into the
mirror from which he can see into the passenger compartment. The officer smells an odor of
marijuana – an odor with which he is familiar because of the two-week long drug training course he
completed last month. Officer Smith wants to search the motor home, so he asks for the driver's
consent to enter the motor home.
, Officer Smith is seeking consent, rather than seeking a search warrant, because the Supreme Court has
held that motor homes are automobiles for purposes of:
Question 3 options:
the Fourth Amendment.
the Fifth Amendment.
law enforcement.
due process.
Question 4 (1 point)
Saved
An officer makes a valid traffic stop and issues a valid ticket (citation) for the traffic violation. The
officer has no additional information about criminal activity, and without permission from the driver,
the officer searches the vehicle. Under the Fourth Amendment, this search is:
Question 4 options:
a lawful version of a search incident to a lawful arrest.
invalid because vehicle searches require warrants.
invalid because there is neither probable cause nor consent.
valid because there is a risk to officer safety.
Question 5 (1 point)
Saved
Which of the following is NOT one of the three factors the Court adopted in Sitz as a balancing test to
determine the constitutionality of police actions in cases involving sobriety checkpoints?
Question 5 options:
The gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure
The amount of alcohol in the persons' bloodstream
The degree to which the seizure advances the public interest
The severity of the interference with individual liberty
Question 6 (1 point)
Saved
Saved
Officer Franklin has stopped a car driven by Zola, because the officer observed the car weaving across
two lanes of traffic. As the officer approaches the driver's side of the car, she sees a female driver,
with another female sitting in the front passenger seat, and a third female sitting behind the front
passenger. On the back seat behind the driver, Officer Franklin sees a container, with part of a plastic
baggie sticking out the side. There appears to be a white powdery substance in the baggie. She
observes the driver and two passengers appear to be highly nervous, with dilated pupils, and speaking
rapidly when the officer asks questions.
Officer Franklin may search an automobile without a search warrant, as justified by five
considerations. Which of the following is NOT one of these considerations?
Question 1 options:
The mobility of motor vehicles often makes obtaining a judicial warrant impractical.
A diminished expectation of privacy surrounds the automobile.
A car is used for transportation, not as a residence or a repository of personal effects.
The car's occupants are not in plain view.
Question 2 (1 point)
Saved
The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply in:
Question 2 options:
vehicles.
immigration and border searches.
public.
homes.
Question 3 (1 point)
Saved
Officer Smith has stopped a motor home because the left rear taillight is not working. He approaches
the driver's side window, and is able to see the driver, but he is not able to see into the passenger
compartment. The driver appears nervous, his pupils are dilated, and he is constantly looking into the
mirror from which he can see into the passenger compartment. The officer smells an odor of
marijuana – an odor with which he is familiar because of the two-week long drug training course he
completed last month. Officer Smith wants to search the motor home, so he asks for the driver's
consent to enter the motor home.
, Officer Smith is seeking consent, rather than seeking a search warrant, because the Supreme Court has
held that motor homes are automobiles for purposes of:
Question 3 options:
the Fourth Amendment.
the Fifth Amendment.
law enforcement.
due process.
Question 4 (1 point)
Saved
An officer makes a valid traffic stop and issues a valid ticket (citation) for the traffic violation. The
officer has no additional information about criminal activity, and without permission from the driver,
the officer searches the vehicle. Under the Fourth Amendment, this search is:
Question 4 options:
a lawful version of a search incident to a lawful arrest.
invalid because vehicle searches require warrants.
invalid because there is neither probable cause nor consent.
valid because there is a risk to officer safety.
Question 5 (1 point)
Saved
Which of the following is NOT one of the three factors the Court adopted in Sitz as a balancing test to
determine the constitutionality of police actions in cases involving sobriety checkpoints?
Question 5 options:
The gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure
The amount of alcohol in the persons' bloodstream
The degree to which the seizure advances the public interest
The severity of the interference with individual liberty
Question 6 (1 point)
Saved
