FLETC 4th Amendment practice
Comprehensive Questions
(Frequently Tested) with
Verified Answers Graded A+
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? - Answer: No,
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 - - Answer: Granted, 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? - Answer: yes, 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 - - Answer:
Granted, 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 - - Answer: Admitted, 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 - - Answer: Denied, because the
information provided by Perry is inadequate to establish probable cause.
Comprehensive Questions
(Frequently Tested) with
Verified Answers Graded A+
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? - Answer: No,
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 - - Answer: Granted, 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? - Answer: yes, 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 - - Answer:
Granted, 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 - - Answer: Admitted, 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 - - Answer: Denied, because the
information provided by Perry is inadequate to establish probable cause.
