FLETC LEGAL EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS GRADED A+ 100% GUARANTEED SUCCESS.
1. 1. 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?
a. No, because the officers physically intruded on a constitutionally protect
location without either a warrant or an exception to the 4th Amendment.
b. No, because the use of a flashlight violated Thompson's reasonable expec-
tation of privacy.
c. Yes, because the garage does not have curtilage because it is not a dwelling.
d. Yes, because the garage itself was not within the curtilage of Thompson's
dwelling.: a. No, because the oflcers physically intruded on a constitutionally protect location without either a
warrant or an exception to the 4th Amendment.
CORRECT: The root of the question says that the oflcers were on Thompson's curtilage. The oflcers did not have a
warrant to be there and there is no 4th Amendment exception. Accordingly, the observation was unlawful and the
information they obtained cannot be lawfully used to obtain a warrant.
b. No, because the use of a flashlight violated Thompson's reasonable expectation of privacy.
INCORRECT: Using a flashlight, by itself, does not violate a person's REP.
c. Yes, because the garage does not have curtilage because it is not a dwelling.
INCORRECT: Curtilage is not limited to dwellings and includes areas surrounding a dwelling. (Review your student text.)
d. Yes, because the garage itself was not within the curtilage of Thompson's dwelling.
mailto:https://www.stuvia.com/en-us/user/techgrades
, INCORRECT: The garage was attached to the house so it was very likely on the curtilage. More importantly, the oflcers
were unlawfully on the curtilage when they made their observations.
2. 2. 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
mailto:https://www.stuvia.com/en-us/user/techgrades
, 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 -
a. Denied, because the agents had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
b. Denied, because the agents had probable cause to remove the cards from
his pocket under the "plain touch" doctrine.
c. Granted, because the agents performed an illegal "frisk" of Wooster.
d. Granted, because a "frisk" may result only in the discovery of weapons on a
suspect.: a. Denied, because the agents had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
INCORRECT: The oflcers only had reasonable suspicion criminal activity was afoot which would allow them to make a
Terry stop and direct Wooster out of his car. The oflcers did not have reasonable suspicion that Wooster was presently
armed and dangerous making the Terry frisk illegal. The crime of operating a stolen credit card ring is not the type
of ottense which would give R/S a person is presently armed and dangerous (like one would have with R/S someone
committed a robbery or burglary.)
b. Denied, because the agents had probable cause to remove the cards from his pocket under the "plain touch"
doctrine.
INCORRECT: The Terry frisk was illegal. (See a above.) The credit cards were discovered during an illegal frisk. If the
oflcers had R/S Wooster was presently armed and dangerous, they could have frisked Wooster.
Even then the plain touch doctrine would not apply because it was not immediately apparent that the credit cards were
stolen (just that they were credit cards.)
c. Granted, because the agents performed an illegal "frisk" of Wooster.
CORRECT: The oflcers only had reasonable suspicion criminal activity was afoot which would allow them to make a
Terry stop and direct Wooster out of his car. The oflcers did not have reasonable suspicion that Wooster was presently
armed and dangerous making the Terry frisk illegal. Remember: just because you have a Terry Stop doesn't mean you
automatically get a Terry Frisk! In order to lawfully do a Terry Frisk on a detained person you have to articulate facts to
mailto:https://www.stuvia.com/en-us/user/techgrades
, establish a reasonable suspicion that the person is presently armed in dangerous.
d. Granted, because a "frisk" may result only in the discovery of weapons on a suspect.
INCORRECT: A lawful Terry frisk is a pat down of the outer clothing to look for weapons or hard objects that may used
as a weapon. In a lawful Terry frisk, not only may the oflcer retrieve weapons, he/she may also retrieve hard objects
that might be a weapon and soft objects that are immediately apparent to be contraband. (Review plain touch in your
student text.)
3. 3. 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?
a. Yes, because Johnson's statements amount to probable cause under a total-
ity of the circumstances using the Illinois v. Gates test.
b. Yes, because Johnson has never provided false information to the officers in
the past.
c. No, because the officers did not corroborate Johnson's statements.
d. No, because statements alone can never establish probable cause.: a. Yes,
because Johnson's statements amount to probable cause under a totality of the circumstances using the Illinois v. Gates
test.
CORRECT: The information known to the oflcers show both that Johnson was reliable and had a basis of knowledge in
what he told the oflcers. Furthermore, because he is a co-criminal, the information he provided is presumed reliable.
Under a totality of the circumstances this is enough to establish probable cause.
b. Yes, because Johnson has never provided false information to the oflcers in the past.
INCORRECT: Even if true, this would go to Johnson's reliability. It would not, however, establish a basis of knowledge.
mailto:https://www.stuvia.com/en-us/user/techgrades
1. 1. 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?
a. No, because the officers physically intruded on a constitutionally protect
location without either a warrant or an exception to the 4th Amendment.
b. No, because the use of a flashlight violated Thompson's reasonable expec-
tation of privacy.
c. Yes, because the garage does not have curtilage because it is not a dwelling.
d. Yes, because the garage itself was not within the curtilage of Thompson's
dwelling.: a. No, because the oflcers physically intruded on a constitutionally protect location without either a
warrant or an exception to the 4th Amendment.
CORRECT: The root of the question says that the oflcers were on Thompson's curtilage. The oflcers did not have a
warrant to be there and there is no 4th Amendment exception. Accordingly, the observation was unlawful and the
information they obtained cannot be lawfully used to obtain a warrant.
b. No, because the use of a flashlight violated Thompson's reasonable expectation of privacy.
INCORRECT: Using a flashlight, by itself, does not violate a person's REP.
c. Yes, because the garage does not have curtilage because it is not a dwelling.
INCORRECT: Curtilage is not limited to dwellings and includes areas surrounding a dwelling. (Review your student text.)
d. Yes, because the garage itself was not within the curtilage of Thompson's dwelling.
mailto:https://www.stuvia.com/en-us/user/techgrades
, INCORRECT: The garage was attached to the house so it was very likely on the curtilage. More importantly, the oflcers
were unlawfully on the curtilage when they made their observations.
2. 2. 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
mailto:https://www.stuvia.com/en-us/user/techgrades
, 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 -
a. Denied, because the agents had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
b. Denied, because the agents had probable cause to remove the cards from
his pocket under the "plain touch" doctrine.
c. Granted, because the agents performed an illegal "frisk" of Wooster.
d. Granted, because a "frisk" may result only in the discovery of weapons on a
suspect.: a. Denied, because the agents had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
INCORRECT: The oflcers only had reasonable suspicion criminal activity was afoot which would allow them to make a
Terry stop and direct Wooster out of his car. The oflcers did not have reasonable suspicion that Wooster was presently
armed and dangerous making the Terry frisk illegal. The crime of operating a stolen credit card ring is not the type
of ottense which would give R/S a person is presently armed and dangerous (like one would have with R/S someone
committed a robbery or burglary.)
b. Denied, because the agents had probable cause to remove the cards from his pocket under the "plain touch"
doctrine.
INCORRECT: The Terry frisk was illegal. (See a above.) The credit cards were discovered during an illegal frisk. If the
oflcers had R/S Wooster was presently armed and dangerous, they could have frisked Wooster.
Even then the plain touch doctrine would not apply because it was not immediately apparent that the credit cards were
stolen (just that they were credit cards.)
c. Granted, because the agents performed an illegal "frisk" of Wooster.
CORRECT: The oflcers only had reasonable suspicion criminal activity was afoot which would allow them to make a
Terry stop and direct Wooster out of his car. The oflcers did not have reasonable suspicion that Wooster was presently
armed and dangerous making the Terry frisk illegal. Remember: just because you have a Terry Stop doesn't mean you
automatically get a Terry Frisk! In order to lawfully do a Terry Frisk on a detained person you have to articulate facts to
mailto:https://www.stuvia.com/en-us/user/techgrades
, establish a reasonable suspicion that the person is presently armed in dangerous.
d. Granted, because a "frisk" may result only in the discovery of weapons on a suspect.
INCORRECT: A lawful Terry frisk is a pat down of the outer clothing to look for weapons or hard objects that may used
as a weapon. In a lawful Terry frisk, not only may the oflcer retrieve weapons, he/she may also retrieve hard objects
that might be a weapon and soft objects that are immediately apparent to be contraband. (Review plain touch in your
student text.)
3. 3. 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?
a. Yes, because Johnson's statements amount to probable cause under a total-
ity of the circumstances using the Illinois v. Gates test.
b. Yes, because Johnson has never provided false information to the officers in
the past.
c. No, because the officers did not corroborate Johnson's statements.
d. No, because statements alone can never establish probable cause.: a. Yes,
because Johnson's statements amount to probable cause under a totality of the circumstances using the Illinois v. Gates
test.
CORRECT: The information known to the oflcers show both that Johnson was reliable and had a basis of knowledge in
what he told the oflcers. Furthermore, because he is a co-criminal, the information he provided is presumed reliable.
Under a totality of the circumstances this is enough to establish probable cause.
b. Yes, because Johnson has never provided false information to the oflcers in the past.
INCORRECT: Even if true, this would go to Johnson's reliability. It would not, however, establish a basis of knowledge.
mailto:https://www.stuvia.com/en-us/user/techgrades
