1 | Page
MBE Question Set 16 Questions and Correct
Answers/ Latest Update / Already Graded
A thief sold some stolen goods to a dealer. Several weeks later, the police raided
the dealer's store and arrested him. In this raid, the police seized the goods the
thief sold to the dealer and a record book in which the dealer had recorded this
transaction. However, at the dealer's subsequent trial for receiving stolen goods,
the charges against him were dismissed when the court ruled that the search
warrant had been improperly issued.
The police were able to trace the stolen goods to the thief because of fingerprint
identification and the information contained in the dealer's record book.
At his trial, the thief made a motion to suppress the stolen goods and record
book.
What should the judge do?
A Grant the motion, because the evidence is the fruit of the poisonous tree in
that the search of the dealer's store was improper.
B Grant the motion, because the trial court in the dealer's case has already ruled
th
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 2 | Page
Ans: C Deny the motion, because the thief has no standing to object to the
search.
The court should deny the motion because the thief had no standing to object to
the search. A person challenging the admissibility of seized evidence must have
standing to do so. As a general rule, standing requires a person to have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in the place being searched or the item being
seized. One may not challenge a search or seizure by claiming that another
person's constitutional rights have been violated. Here, the thief had no
ownership interest in the dealer's store. He had no reasonable expectation of
privacy with respect to it; i.e., he was not present when the search was made, and
he had no ownership interest in the stolen goods. Thus, he lacks the standing to
object to their illegal seizure. (A) and (B) are incorrect because, while the dealer
does have such standing and was successful in having the evidence suppressed at
his trial, what occurred at the dealer's trial is not relevant to the thief's motion.
(D) is incorrect because the only evidence containing the thief's fingerprints were
the stolen goods. If it is found that these items were illegally seized, it would
follow that the evidence arising out of this illegal seizure, including the thief's
fingerprints, was also illegally seized.
After the release of various news stories about the President's possible violation
of political campaign funding laws, a federal grand jury investigation and an
investigation by a special Senate subcommittee were initiated. The Senate
subcommittee subpoenaed documents and records from several top officers of
the executive branch. Learning of the subpoenas, the President ordered all
executive officials to refuse to turn over materials, claiming "executive privilege."
Which of the following statements is most accurate?
A The subpoena violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
B The President's executive privilege is absolute, except in cases of impeachment.
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 3 | Page
C The presidential papers are presumptively privileged, but the privilege must
yield to a demonstrated specific need for evidence in a pending legislative
proceeding.
D The President's executive privilege applies to proceedings by Congress,
Ans: C The presidential papers are presumptively privileged, but the privilege
must yield to a demonstrated specific need for evidence in a pending legislative
proceeding.
Executive privilege is an inherent privilege necessary to protect the confidentiality
of presidential communications. Under this privilege, presidential documents and
conversations are presumptively privileged, but this privilege must yield to a
demonstrated need for such materials as evidence in a criminal case in which they
are relevant and otherwise admissible. [United States v. Nixon (1974)] Although
the Supreme Court has not expressly decided that the privilege must also yield to
a demonstrated need for evidence in a pending legislative proceeding, such an
extension of Nixon is likely, and none of the other alternatives is at all accurate.
(A) is incorrect because it is too broad. In Nixon, supra, the Court decided that
an evidentiary subpoena to the President in a criminal case does not violate the
separation of powers principle. By extension, a subpoena issued by a Senate
subcommittee, pursuant to the well-established implied power of Congress to
investigate, would not be deemed to violate separation of powers. (B) is also
incorrect because it is too broad. As stated above, although a presumptive
privilege applies to presidential documents and conversations, that privilege must
yield to a demonstrated need in criminal cases. Thus, executive privilege is not
absolute. (D) is incorrect because executive privilege does apply to proceedings
by the courts; in fact, the privilege is overridden only on a specific showing of
need for specific information.
A company that was the leading supplier of home water filtration systems had a
network of sales promoters who were under contract for two- or three-year
terms and were compensated solely by commissions earned from sales and by
occasional bonuses. Veteran promoters also earned commissions by recruiting
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
MBE Question Set 16 Questions and Correct
Answers/ Latest Update / Already Graded
A thief sold some stolen goods to a dealer. Several weeks later, the police raided
the dealer's store and arrested him. In this raid, the police seized the goods the
thief sold to the dealer and a record book in which the dealer had recorded this
transaction. However, at the dealer's subsequent trial for receiving stolen goods,
the charges against him were dismissed when the court ruled that the search
warrant had been improperly issued.
The police were able to trace the stolen goods to the thief because of fingerprint
identification and the information contained in the dealer's record book.
At his trial, the thief made a motion to suppress the stolen goods and record
book.
What should the judge do?
A Grant the motion, because the evidence is the fruit of the poisonous tree in
that the search of the dealer's store was improper.
B Grant the motion, because the trial court in the dealer's case has already ruled
th
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 2 | Page
Ans: C Deny the motion, because the thief has no standing to object to the
search.
The court should deny the motion because the thief had no standing to object to
the search. A person challenging the admissibility of seized evidence must have
standing to do so. As a general rule, standing requires a person to have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in the place being searched or the item being
seized. One may not challenge a search or seizure by claiming that another
person's constitutional rights have been violated. Here, the thief had no
ownership interest in the dealer's store. He had no reasonable expectation of
privacy with respect to it; i.e., he was not present when the search was made, and
he had no ownership interest in the stolen goods. Thus, he lacks the standing to
object to their illegal seizure. (A) and (B) are incorrect because, while the dealer
does have such standing and was successful in having the evidence suppressed at
his trial, what occurred at the dealer's trial is not relevant to the thief's motion.
(D) is incorrect because the only evidence containing the thief's fingerprints were
the stolen goods. If it is found that these items were illegally seized, it would
follow that the evidence arising out of this illegal seizure, including the thief's
fingerprints, was also illegally seized.
After the release of various news stories about the President's possible violation
of political campaign funding laws, a federal grand jury investigation and an
investigation by a special Senate subcommittee were initiated. The Senate
subcommittee subpoenaed documents and records from several top officers of
the executive branch. Learning of the subpoenas, the President ordered all
executive officials to refuse to turn over materials, claiming "executive privilege."
Which of the following statements is most accurate?
A The subpoena violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
B The President's executive privilege is absolute, except in cases of impeachment.
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 3 | Page
C The presidential papers are presumptively privileged, but the privilege must
yield to a demonstrated specific need for evidence in a pending legislative
proceeding.
D The President's executive privilege applies to proceedings by Congress,
Ans: C The presidential papers are presumptively privileged, but the privilege
must yield to a demonstrated specific need for evidence in a pending legislative
proceeding.
Executive privilege is an inherent privilege necessary to protect the confidentiality
of presidential communications. Under this privilege, presidential documents and
conversations are presumptively privileged, but this privilege must yield to a
demonstrated need for such materials as evidence in a criminal case in which they
are relevant and otherwise admissible. [United States v. Nixon (1974)] Although
the Supreme Court has not expressly decided that the privilege must also yield to
a demonstrated need for evidence in a pending legislative proceeding, such an
extension of Nixon is likely, and none of the other alternatives is at all accurate.
(A) is incorrect because it is too broad. In Nixon, supra, the Court decided that
an evidentiary subpoena to the President in a criminal case does not violate the
separation of powers principle. By extension, a subpoena issued by a Senate
subcommittee, pursuant to the well-established implied power of Congress to
investigate, would not be deemed to violate separation of powers. (B) is also
incorrect because it is too broad. As stated above, although a presumptive
privilege applies to presidential documents and conversations, that privilege must
yield to a demonstrated need in criminal cases. Thus, executive privilege is not
absolute. (D) is incorrect because executive privilege does apply to proceedings
by the courts; in fact, the privilege is overridden only on a specific showing of
need for specific information.
A company that was the leading supplier of home water filtration systems had a
network of sales promoters who were under contract for two- or three-year
terms and were compensated solely by commissions earned from sales and by
occasional bonuses. Veteran promoters also earned commissions by recruiting
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
