MTA Constitutional Rights 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A suspect in custody says 'Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.' How should officers respond?
- Continue questioning because the request was ambiguous and not an unequivocal invocation (Correct answer)
- Immediately stop all questioning and arrange for counsel
- Ask the suspect to clarify whether they want a lawyer before continuing
- Provide a list of attorneys and continue questioning while the suspect decides
Correct answer: Continue questioning because the request was ambiguous and not an unequivocal invocation
Per Berghuis v. Thompkins, an ambiguous or equivocal request for counsel does not require cessation of questioning; the invocation must be unequivocal.
Question 2: What is the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule?
- To deter police misconduct by removing the incentive to conduct unlawful searches (Correct answer)
- To punish officers who violate constitutional rights
- To compensate suspects for violations of their Fourth Amendment rights
- To ensure all evidence at trial is reliable and accurate
Correct answer: To deter police misconduct by removing the incentive to conduct unlawful searches
The exclusionary rule's primary purpose is deterrence of future constitutional violations by law enforcement, not punishment or compensation.
Question 3: Under the First Amendment, which type of speech receives the LEAST constitutional protection?
- Obscenity that meets the Miller v. California three-part test (Correct answer)
- Political speech critical of government officials
- Symbolic speech such as flag burning as protest
- Commercial speech advertising lawful products
Correct answer: Obscenity that meets the Miller v. California three-part test
Obscenity as defined by Miller v. California is categorically unprotected speech under the First Amendment.
Question 4: An officer arrests a suspect without a warrant for a felony committed outside the officer's presence. This arrest is valid if:
- The officer had probable cause to believe the suspect committed the felony (Correct answer)
- At least one witness confirms the suspect committed the crime
- The suspect is attempting to flee the jurisdiction
- A supervisor authorizes the arrest by radio
Correct answer: The officer had probable cause to believe the suspect committed the felony
Officers may make warrantless felony arrests in public when they have probable cause, regardless of whether the offense was witnessed.
Question 5: The 'inevitable discovery' exception to the exclusionary rule allows admission of illegally obtained evidence when:
- The prosecution proves the evidence would have been discovered through lawful means independent of the illegal conduct (Correct answer)
- A second legal search would likely have found the same evidence
- The evidence is necessary to prevent serious harm to the public
- The violation was minor and technical rather than deliberate
Correct answer: The prosecution proves the evidence would have been discovered through lawful means independent of the illegal conduct
Nix v. Williams established that evidence is admissible if the government proves by a preponderance that lawful discovery was inevitable.
Question 6: A police officer may conduct a warrantless search of a probationer's home if:
- The probationer agreed to a search condition as a term of probation and reasonable cause exists (Correct answer)
- The probationer has previously violated probation terms
- The officer has reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity
- The parole board authorizes the search in writing
Correct answer: The probationer agreed to a search condition as a term of probation and reasonable cause exists
Probationers have reduced Fourth Amendment expectations; searches are valid under a probation search condition with at least reasonable suspicion.
Question 7: Which statement best describes the 'independent source' exception to the exclusionary rule?
- Evidence is admissible if it was obtained through a separate, untainted legal investigation independent of the illegal conduct (Correct answer)
- Evidence discovered by a different officer than the one who committed the violation is admissible
- Evidence is admissible if it was found before the illegal search began
- An independent grand jury finding can cure an illegal search
Correct answer: Evidence is admissible if it was obtained through a separate, untainted legal investigation independent of the illegal conduct
The independent source doctrine allows admission of evidence obtained through a genuinely separate lawful investigation not connected to the constitutional violation.
MTA Constitutional Rights 5
A suspect in custody says 'Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.' How should officers respond?