CRJ 123 - Final Study Guide Questions
and Answers Graded A+
Defendant operated a marijuana farm in a rural and mountainous area. Based on
uncorroborated tip to that effect, Officer used a helicopter to get a view of
Defendant's property. Officer's job was made difficult by the isolated nature of the
property, but the Officer was able to secure a view of the property while the
helicopter remained in lawful airspace often used by helicopters flown by fire,
police and emergency personnel. They recognized Defendant's crop as marijuana.
Officer secured a search warrant, which the Officer and other officers executed.
They discovered close to a ton of marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana
with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How
should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? - Correct answer-As long
as it is clear that the helicopter was in public airways at an altitude at which
members of the public travel with sufficient regularity, the court should deny the
motion because there would have been no violation of a reasonable expectation of
privacy.
©COPYRIGHT 2025, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1
,Officer suspected Defendant of conducting an illegal marijuana operation in his
suburban home. Absent probable cause to secure a warrant, Officer and another
officer, a member of the K-9 unit, brought a drug sniffing dog up to the front door
of Defendant's home. After the dog signaled the presence of marijuana, Officer
filled out a search warrant application and got it approved by a magistrate.
Pursuant to the warrant, Officer searched Defendant's home, where Officer found a
large stash of marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to
distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court
rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? - Correct answer-The officers' conduct in
bringing a drug-sniffing dog onto the curtilage of the home amounted to a trespass,
rendering their conduct a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court should
grant the motion.
Defendant boarded a bus in Florida. Aware that Florida was the entry point for
illegal drugs, the local police department routinely had officers get on buses to see
if they could locate narcotics. Consistent with departmental policy, Officer got on
the bus in which Defendant was riding and felt luggage that passengers had placed
in the overhead luggage rack. When Officer squeezed Defendant's bag, he
recognized immediately, from his many years of experience in drug trafficking, the
distinctive brick-like shape of packaged marijuana. A subsequent search confirmed
that the brick was marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to
©COPYRIGHT 2025, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2
, distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court
rule on the motion to suppress? - Correct answer-Because the squeezing of the
luggage was a search without any justification, Officer's conduct was unlawful.
The court should grant the motion.
Defendant lived in a rural area at the end of a country road. He installed a chain
link fence around the property; he planted bushes along the fence and obscured the
view from the roadway; and he placed "No Trespassing" signs on the fence. Inside
the fenced area, in the middle of a field not far from his house, Defendant grew a
sizeable amount of marijuana. Based on an uncorroborated tip that Defendant was
growing marijuana, Officer drove to the edge of Defendant's property and entered
the property. Once on the property, he noticed the marijuana plants. Thereafter,
Officer secured a search warrant for Defendant's property. During the execution of
the warrant, Officer and fellow officers seized the marijuana. Charged with
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress
the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion in light of Supreme
Court precedent? - Correct answer-The marijuana was not in an area associated
with the intimate activities of the home. As a result, entry onto the property was not
a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court should deny the motion.
©COPYRIGHT 2025, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 3
and Answers Graded A+
Defendant operated a marijuana farm in a rural and mountainous area. Based on
uncorroborated tip to that effect, Officer used a helicopter to get a view of
Defendant's property. Officer's job was made difficult by the isolated nature of the
property, but the Officer was able to secure a view of the property while the
helicopter remained in lawful airspace often used by helicopters flown by fire,
police and emergency personnel. They recognized Defendant's crop as marijuana.
Officer secured a search warrant, which the Officer and other officers executed.
They discovered close to a ton of marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana
with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How
should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? - Correct answer-As long
as it is clear that the helicopter was in public airways at an altitude at which
members of the public travel with sufficient regularity, the court should deny the
motion because there would have been no violation of a reasonable expectation of
privacy.
©COPYRIGHT 2025, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1
,Officer suspected Defendant of conducting an illegal marijuana operation in his
suburban home. Absent probable cause to secure a warrant, Officer and another
officer, a member of the K-9 unit, brought a drug sniffing dog up to the front door
of Defendant's home. After the dog signaled the presence of marijuana, Officer
filled out a search warrant application and got it approved by a magistrate.
Pursuant to the warrant, Officer searched Defendant's home, where Officer found a
large stash of marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to
distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court
rule on Defendant's motion to suppress? - Correct answer-The officers' conduct in
bringing a drug-sniffing dog onto the curtilage of the home amounted to a trespass,
rendering their conduct a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court should
grant the motion.
Defendant boarded a bus in Florida. Aware that Florida was the entry point for
illegal drugs, the local police department routinely had officers get on buses to see
if they could locate narcotics. Consistent with departmental policy, Officer got on
the bus in which Defendant was riding and felt luggage that passengers had placed
in the overhead luggage rack. When Officer squeezed Defendant's bag, he
recognized immediately, from his many years of experience in drug trafficking, the
distinctive brick-like shape of packaged marijuana. A subsequent search confirmed
that the brick was marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to
©COPYRIGHT 2025, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2
, distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court
rule on the motion to suppress? - Correct answer-Because the squeezing of the
luggage was a search without any justification, Officer's conduct was unlawful.
The court should grant the motion.
Defendant lived in a rural area at the end of a country road. He installed a chain
link fence around the property; he planted bushes along the fence and obscured the
view from the roadway; and he placed "No Trespassing" signs on the fence. Inside
the fenced area, in the middle of a field not far from his house, Defendant grew a
sizeable amount of marijuana. Based on an uncorroborated tip that Defendant was
growing marijuana, Officer drove to the edge of Defendant's property and entered
the property. Once on the property, he noticed the marijuana plants. Thereafter,
Officer secured a search warrant for Defendant's property. During the execution of
the warrant, Officer and fellow officers seized the marijuana. Charged with
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress
the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion in light of Supreme
Court precedent? - Correct answer-The marijuana was not in an area associated
with the intimate activities of the home. As a result, entry onto the property was not
a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court should deny the motion.
©COPYRIGHT 2025, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 3
