MPOETC Constitutional Law & Civil Rights 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine means that:
- Only the specific illegally obtained evidence is suppressed, not any leads derived from it
- Evidence derived from an initial illegal search or seizure is also inadmissible (Correct answer)
- Officers can use illegally obtained evidence if a second warrant is later obtained
- Physical evidence is always admissible even if testimonial evidence is suppressed
Correct answer: Evidence derived from an initial illegal search or seizure is also inadmissible
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine extends the exclusionary rule to derivative evidence obtained as a result of the original constitutional violation.
Question 2: During a lawful arrest, an officer may search the area within the arrestee's immediate control 'incident to arrest' for which purposes?
- To conduct a comprehensive investigation of the location
- To protect officer safety and prevent destruction of evidence (Correct answer)
- To document property at the scene for civil liability purposes
- To look for evidence related to any crime, regardless of the offense of arrest
Correct answer: To protect officer safety and prevent destruction of evidence
Searches incident to arrest are justified by the need to disarm the suspect and prevent evidence destruction, limited to the area of immediate control.
Question 3: Which case established that the police must inform suspects of their constitutional rights before a custodial interrogation?
- Escobedo v. Illinois
- Miranda v. Arizona (Correct answer)
- Berkemer v. McCarty
- Fare v. Michael C.
Correct answer: Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) required law enforcement to advise suspects of their rights to silence and counsel before custodial interrogation.
Question 4: A person validly consents to a search. Which of the following would make that consent legally invalid?
- The person is not under arrest at the time of consent
- Consent is given after an officer tells the person they have no choice but to allow the search (Correct answer)
- The person consents verbally rather than in writing
- The search uncovers evidence the person did not know was present
Correct answer: Consent is given after an officer tells the person they have no choice but to allow the search
Consent obtained through coercion or misrepresentation that the person must comply is involuntary and therefore legally invalid.
Question 5: Under the community caretaking doctrine, officers may conduct a warrantless search or seizure when:
- They believe drugs or weapons may be present in any vehicle on the road
- They are performing a bona fide community caretaking function, though this exception does not extend to the home (Correct answer)
- They need to enter any premises to check on a person's welfare
- They are acting in response to a 911 call about any disturbance
Correct answer: They are performing a bona fide community caretaking function, though this exception does not extend to the home
The community caretaking doctrine applies to traffic stops and public safety functions but, per Caniglia v. Strom, does not justify warrantless home entry.
Question 6: A police officer's use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect is constitutionally permissible under Tennessee v. Garner only when:
- The suspect is fleeing any felony arrest
- The officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others (Correct answer)
- The suspect has a known prior criminal history involving violence
- The officer has received authorization from a supervisor prior to using force
Correct answer: The officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others
Tennessee v. Garner prohibits use of deadly force on a fleeing felon unless the suspect poses an imminent threat of serious harm to others.
Question 7: Which of the following best describes the 'inevitable discovery' exception to the exclusionary rule?
- Evidence is admissible if the officer could not have avoided finding it during the search
- Illegally obtained evidence is admissible if it would have been discovered through lawful means independent of the illegal action (Correct answer)
- Evidence found in plain view is always admissible regardless of how officers came to be in that location
- Officers may introduce evidence if they correct the Fourth Amendment violation before trial
Correct answer: Illegally obtained evidence is admissible if it would have been discovered through lawful means independent of the illegal action
The inevitable discovery doctrine allows admission of tainted evidence if the prosecution can show it would have been lawfully discovered anyway.
MPOETC Constitutional Law & Civil Rights 5
The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine means that: