IN Bar Criminal Procedure 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Police stop a driver for a broken taillight and, without any additional suspicion, extend the stop 20 minutes to wait for a drug-sniffing dog. Under Rodriguez v. United States, the resulting dog alert and search are:
- Unconstitutional, because prolonging a stop beyond its mission requires independent reasonable suspicion (Correct answer)
- Constitutional, because a dog sniff is not a search under the Fourth Amendment
- Constitutional, because the initial stop was lawful
- Unconstitutional only if the delay exceeded 30 minutes
Correct answer: Unconstitutional, because prolonging a stop beyond its mission requires independent reasonable suspicion
Rodriguez holds that police may not extend a traffic stop beyond the time needed to complete its mission absent independent reasonable suspicion.
Question 2: A suspect in custody says, 'Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.' Police continue questioning and obtain a confession. Under Davis v. United States, the confession is:
- Admissible, because the suspect's statement was ambiguous and did not unequivocally invoke the right to counsel (Correct answer)
- Inadmissible, because any mention of a lawyer requires questioning to stop
- Admissible only if police clarified the suspect's intent first
- Inadmissible, because ambiguity is construed against the government
Correct answer: Admissible, because the suspect's statement was ambiguous and did not unequivocally invoke the right to counsel
Davis requires an unambiguous request for counsel before police must cease interrogation.
Question 3: Under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C), a defendant not brought to trial within what period (excluding delays caused by the defendant or court congestion) must be discharged?
- One year from the later of arrest or charging (Correct answer)
- Six months from arrest
- 180 days from arraignment
- Two years from the filing of the information
Correct answer: One year from the later of arrest or charging
Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) requires trial within one year of the later of the charge or arrest, subject to chargeable delays.
Question 4: Officers execute a valid warrant to search a house for a stolen 60-inch television. While searching, an officer opens a small jewelry box and finds drugs. The drugs are:
- Inadmissible, because a television could not be found in a jewelry box, so the search exceeded the warrant's scope (Correct answer)
- Admissible under the plain view doctrine
- Admissible because the warrant authorized search of the entire house
- Inadmissible unless the officer had probable cause for drugs before entering
Correct answer: Inadmissible, because a television could not be found in a jewelry box, so the search exceeded the warrant's scope
A warrant permits searching only places where the named item could reasonably be found, and a large TV cannot fit in a jewelry box.
Question 5: Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution differs from Fourth Amendment analysis in that Indiana courts apply:
- A reasonableness test under the totality of the circumstances, per Litchfield v. State, which can provide greater protection than federal law (Correct answer)
- The identical two-part Katz expectation-of-privacy test
- A lesser standard deferring entirely to federal precedent
- A bright-line rule permitting all warrantless automobile searches
Correct answer: A reasonableness test under the totality of the circumstances, per Litchfield v. State, which can provide greater protection than federal law
Litchfield v. State established an independent totality-of-the-circumstances reasonableness analysis balancing suspicion, intrusion, and law enforcement needs.
Question 6: A defendant is convicted, and on appeal argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, though he did not object when the evidence was introduced at trial. Under Indiana law, the issue is:
- Waived, because a contemporaneous objection at trial is required to preserve the error (Correct answer)
- Preserved, because the pretrial motion to suppress suffices
- Reviewable de novo as a question of law
- Automatically reversible error
Correct answer: Waived, because a contemporaneous objection at trial is required to preserve the error
Indiana requires a contemporaneous objection when the evidence is offered at trial; a denied suppression motion alone does not preserve the issue.
Question 7: Police arrest a driver and secure him in a patrol car, then search his vehicle's passenger compartment and find contraband. Under Arizona v. Gant, the search is:
- Invalid unless the arrestee could access the vehicle or it was reasonable to believe it contained evidence of the offense of arrest (Correct answer)
- Valid as a search incident to any lawful custodial arrest
- Valid because vehicles carry a reduced expectation of privacy
- Invalid unless police first obtained a telephonic warrant
Correct answer: Invalid unless the arrestee could access the vehicle or it was reasonable to believe it contained evidence of the offense of arrest
Gant limits vehicle searches incident to arrest to situations where the arrestee is unsecured within reach or the vehicle likely contains evidence of the arrest offense.
IN Bar Criminal Procedure 2
Police stop a driver for a broken taillight and, without any additional suspicion, extend the stop 20 minutes to wait for a drug-sniffing dog.
Under Rodriguez v.
United States, the resulting dog alert and search are: