CAS Bar Criminal Procedure — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Officers stop a vehicle for a broken taillight. Upon approaching, an officer smells marijuana coming from inside the car. Without obtaining a warrant, the officers search the entire vehicle and find illegal weapons. The search is most likely:
- Valid under the automobile exception if officers had probable cause to believe contraband was present (Correct answer)
- Invalid because a warrant is required for all searches of vehicles during traffic stops
- Valid as a search incident to a lawful arrest, regardless of whether an arrest was made
- Invalid because the initial stop was a pretext to search the vehicle
Correct answer: Valid under the automobile exception if officers had probable cause to believe contraband was present
The automobile exception permits a warrantless search of a vehicle when officers have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime. The smell of marijuana provides probable cause, and the exception extends to the entire vehicle — including the trunk — if there is probable cause to believe contraband may be found anywhere in it.
Question 2: Police arrest Defendant and, before administering Miranda warnings, ask him where he hid the stolen money. Defendant tells them it is under his mattress. At trial, the prosecution seeks to admit Defendant's statement. The statement is:
- Admissible because Defendant made it voluntarily without coercion
- Admissible because Defendant was not formally charged at the time
- Inadmissible because police failed to give Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation (Correct answer)
- Inadmissible only if Defendant later invokes his right to remain silent
Correct answer: Inadmissible because police failed to give Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation
Miranda v. Arizona requires that before any custodial interrogation, police must inform the suspect of the right to remain silent, that statements may be used against them, and of the right to counsel. Custodial interrogation without these warnings renders any resulting statements inadmissible under the exclusionary rule, regardless of whether they were voluntarily made.
Question 3: Police obtain a valid warrant to search Defendant's apartment for stolen jewelry. While executing the warrant, officers spot a bag of methamphetamine in plain view on the kitchen counter. The meth was not listed in the warrant. The drugs are:
- Inadmissible because the warrant only authorized a search for jewelry, not drugs
- Admissible under the plain view doctrine (Correct answer)
- Inadmissible because seizing them exceeded the scope of the warrant
- Admissible only if officers then obtained a second warrant before seizing the drugs
Correct answer: Admissible under the plain view doctrine
The plain view doctrine allows officers to seize evidence not named in a warrant if: (1) the officer is lawfully present at the location, (2) the item is in plain view, and (3) its incriminating nature is immediately apparent. All three conditions are met here — officers were lawfully executing a valid warrant, the drugs were visible, and the incriminating character of methamphetamine is obvious.
Question 4: Defendant is charged with a misdemeanor carrying a maximum sentence of six months in jail. He cannot afford an attorney and requests appointed counsel. Under the Sixth Amendment, Defendant:
- Has no right to appointed counsel for any misdemeanor offense
- Has the right to appointed counsel only if the offense carries more than six months
- Has the right to appointed counsel if the court actually sentences him to any period of incarceration (Correct answer)
- Has an absolute right to appointed counsel for any criminal charge, regardless of potential sentence
Correct answer: Has the right to appointed counsel if the court actually sentences him to any period of incarceration
Under Argersinger v. Hamlin, the Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel extends to any offense for which the defendant is actually sentenced to imprisonment, even a single day. A court may not impose a sentence of incarceration unless the defendant was provided counsel or validly waived it — but if the court imposes only a fine, counsel is not constitutionally required.
Question 5: Officers believe Defendant committed a serious felony and follow him to his home. Without a warrant, they knock, and when Defendant opens the door, they push inside and arrest him in his living room. Assuming no exigent circumstances existed and Defendant did not consent, the arrest is:
- Valid because officers had probable cause to believe Defendant committed a felony
- Valid because Defendant opened the door, effectively consenting to their entry
- Invalid because the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless arrests inside a person's home absent exigent circumstances or consent (Correct answer)
- Invalid only if officers used excessive force during the arrest
Correct answer: Invalid because the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless arrests inside a person's home absent exigent circumstances or consent
In Payton v. New York, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from making a warrantless, nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home to make a routine felony arrest. Even with probable cause, officers must obtain an arrest warrant (or face exigent circumstances or valid consent) before entering the home.
Question 6: Defendant is tried for first-degree murder and the jury returns a verdict of not guilty. Investigators later discover compelling new evidence that Defendant did in fact commit the murder. The state may:
- Retry Defendant for first-degree murder if the new evidence is conclusive and was unavailable at trial
- Charge Defendant with second-degree murder or manslaughter as lesser offenses
- Not retry Defendant for any greater or lesser included homicide offense (Correct answer)
- Retry Defendant if the original trial was fundamentally unfair due to prosecutorial error
Correct answer: Not retry Defendant for any greater or lesser included homicide offense
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides an absolute bar to retrial after an acquittal. Once jeopardy attaches and a jury acquits, the state may not retry the defendant for the same offense or any lesser included offense, regardless of new evidence discovered afterward or alleged unfairness in the original proceeding.
CAS Bar Criminal Procedure
Officers stop a vehicle for a broken taillight.
Upon approaching, an officer smells marijuana coming from inside the car.
Without obtaining a warrant, the officers search the entire vehicle and find illegal weapons.
The search is most likely: