1 | Page
MBE Question Set 27 Questions and Correct
Answers/ Latest Update / Already Graded
While executing a search warrant at the home of a suspected arsonist, the police
heard a knock on the door. A plain clothes officer answered the door and found a
young woman standing outside with a backpack in her hand. The woman asked
for the owner of the home by name and was told that the owner was not
available at the moment. The woman replied, "Give him this, and tell him thanks
for the $8,000," and she gave the officer the backpack. The officer opened the
backpack and found eight hi-tech delay timers. The officer then identified himself
as a police officer and placed the woman under arrest. He performed a quick
patdown of the woman's outer clothing. In her jacket pocket, the officer found a
package that appeared to be (and later proved to be) heroin. In addition to arson-
related charges, the woman was charged with possession of heroin. At trial, the
woman's attorney moved to have the heroin excluded from evidenc
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 2 | Page
Ans: D For the state, because searching the backpack was within the scope of
the warrant.
The heroin was discovered during a search incident to a lawful arrest and is
admissible. A search warrant does not authorize the police to search persons
found on the premises who are not named in the warrant. However, if the police
have probable cause to arrest a person discovered on the premises, they may
search him incident to the arrest. This search may be of the person and areas into
which he might reach to obtain weapons or destroy evidence (his "wingspan").
The arrest of the woman was lawful because the presence of the timers she
brought to the house gave the police probable cause to believe that she was
involved in the arsons being investigated. Because the arrest of the woman was
lawful, the police were entitled to conduct a search incident to that arrest. Such a
search was permissible even though the police did not actually fear for their
safety. Consequently, the heroin discovered as a result of this search is admissible,
and the motion to suppress will be denied.
(A) is incorrect because, although the warrant only authorized a search of the
premises, this does not preclude the police from also searching persons found on
the premises as to whom there exists probable cause to arrest. Once the woman
was lawfully arrested, the police were fully entitled to search her incident to the
arrest.
(B) is incorrect because, as explained above, the arrest of the woman was lawful.
Thus, the heroin cannot be suppressed as the product of an unlawful arrest.
(D) is not as good a choice as (C) because whether the backpack was covered by
the warrant to search the house is irrelevant to the woman's charge. Once the
woman relinquished possession of the backpack by giving it to the officer, she did
not have a legitimate expectation of pri
An entrepreneur opened a specialized business on her land. After using up most
of her capital to purchase inventory, however, the entrepreneur needed more
funds and asked her friend for a $30,000 loan, to be secured by the business's
inventory. The friend declined the loan. A desperate entrepreneur then told the
friend she would convey the land, which had a fair market value of $100,000, to
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 3 | Page
him if he would give her the loan at the current market rate of interest. The
friend agreed, and the entrepreneur conveyed the land to the friend the next day.
At that time, the friend gave the entrepreneur $30,000 in cash, and the parties
orally agreed that the entrepreneur would pay the friend back at the rate of
$1,000 per month, and that after the loan was paid in full, the friend would
reconvey the land to the entrepreneur. The friend immediately recorded his deed
to the land.
The entrepreneur made three $1,000 payments to t
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
MBE Question Set 27 Questions and Correct
Answers/ Latest Update / Already Graded
While executing a search warrant at the home of a suspected arsonist, the police
heard a knock on the door. A plain clothes officer answered the door and found a
young woman standing outside with a backpack in her hand. The woman asked
for the owner of the home by name and was told that the owner was not
available at the moment. The woman replied, "Give him this, and tell him thanks
for the $8,000," and she gave the officer the backpack. The officer opened the
backpack and found eight hi-tech delay timers. The officer then identified himself
as a police officer and placed the woman under arrest. He performed a quick
patdown of the woman's outer clothing. In her jacket pocket, the officer found a
package that appeared to be (and later proved to be) heroin. In addition to arson-
related charges, the woman was charged with possession of heroin. At trial, the
woman's attorney moved to have the heroin excluded from evidenc
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 2 | Page
Ans: D For the state, because searching the backpack was within the scope of
the warrant.
The heroin was discovered during a search incident to a lawful arrest and is
admissible. A search warrant does not authorize the police to search persons
found on the premises who are not named in the warrant. However, if the police
have probable cause to arrest a person discovered on the premises, they may
search him incident to the arrest. This search may be of the person and areas into
which he might reach to obtain weapons or destroy evidence (his "wingspan").
The arrest of the woman was lawful because the presence of the timers she
brought to the house gave the police probable cause to believe that she was
involved in the arsons being investigated. Because the arrest of the woman was
lawful, the police were entitled to conduct a search incident to that arrest. Such a
search was permissible even though the police did not actually fear for their
safety. Consequently, the heroin discovered as a result of this search is admissible,
and the motion to suppress will be denied.
(A) is incorrect because, although the warrant only authorized a search of the
premises, this does not preclude the police from also searching persons found on
the premises as to whom there exists probable cause to arrest. Once the woman
was lawfully arrested, the police were fully entitled to search her incident to the
arrest.
(B) is incorrect because, as explained above, the arrest of the woman was lawful.
Thus, the heroin cannot be suppressed as the product of an unlawful arrest.
(D) is not as good a choice as (C) because whether the backpack was covered by
the warrant to search the house is irrelevant to the woman's charge. Once the
woman relinquished possession of the backpack by giving it to the officer, she did
not have a legitimate expectation of pri
An entrepreneur opened a specialized business on her land. After using up most
of her capital to purchase inventory, however, the entrepreneur needed more
funds and asked her friend for a $30,000 loan, to be secured by the business's
inventory. The friend declined the loan. A desperate entrepreneur then told the
friend she would convey the land, which had a fair market value of $100,000, to
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 3 | Page
him if he would give her the loan at the current market rate of interest. The
friend agreed, and the entrepreneur conveyed the land to the friend the next day.
At that time, the friend gave the entrepreneur $30,000 in cash, and the parties
orally agreed that the entrepreneur would pay the friend back at the rate of
$1,000 per month, and that after the loan was paid in full, the friend would
reconvey the land to the entrepreneur. The friend immediately recorded his deed
to the land.
The entrepreneur made three $1,000 payments to t
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
