Criminal Procedure Flashcards
7 cards from real Multistate Bar Exam practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 Criminal Procedure flashcards as text
Under Arizona v. Gant, police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the lawful arrest of an occupant when:
Answer: The arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the car, or it is reasonable to believe evidence of the offense of arrest is in the vehicle
Arizona v. Gant (2009) narrowed the search-incident-to-arrest exception for vehicles: police may search the passenger compartment only when the arrestee is within reaching distance or when there is reason to believe evidence of the arrest offense is inside.
An officer lawfully stops a vehicle for a traffic violation and sees a bag of marijuana in plain view on the passenger seat. Under the plain view doctrine, the officer may seize the marijuana if:
Answer: The officer is lawfully present and the incriminating character of the item is immediately apparent
The plain view doctrine permits warrantless seizure when the officer is lawfully present at the location and the incriminating nature of the item is immediately apparent without further manipulation or investigation.
Police have probable cause to believe a vehicle contains stolen weapons. The car is parked in a public lot. Under the automobile exception:
Answer: Police may search the vehicle and any containers within it that could contain the weapons
The automobile exception, established in Carroll v. United States and refined in California v. Acevedo, allows a warrantless search of a vehicle and any containers within it when police have probable cause to believe it contains contraband, regardless of whether the vehicle is moving.
After receiving Miranda warnings, a suspect under interrogation says, 'I think maybe I need a lawyer or something.' Police continue questioning and the suspect confesses. Under Davis v. United States, the confession is:
Answer: Admissible because the invocation of counsel must be unambiguous and unequivocal
Under Davis v. United States (1994), a suspect must unambiguously invoke the right to counsel; an ambiguous or equivocal request does not require police to cease questioning.
Police arrest a suspect without probable cause and, while he is in custody, obtain a voluntary confession after proper Miranda warnings. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the confession is:
Answer: Potentially excludable as a product of the unlawful arrest
Under Wong Sun v. United States, evidence derived from an unlawful arrest — including a subsequent confession — may be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree; voluntariness alone does not automatically purge the taint of an illegal arrest.
Under Crawford v. Washington, the Confrontation Clause bars admission of out-of-court statements that are testimonial unless:
Answer: The declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant
Crawford v. Washington (2004) held that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine — reliability alone is not sufficient.
Police impound a vehicle after a lawful arrest. During a routine inventory search conducted pursuant to standardized departmental procedures, an officer discovers cocaine. Under Colorado v. Bertine, the cocaine is:
Answer: Admissible if the search followed standardized, non-discretionary police procedures
Colorado v. Bertine (1987) upheld warrantless inventory searches of lawfully impounded vehicles when conducted pursuant to standardized procedures that limit officer discretion, serving the government interests of protecting the owner's property and shielding police from false claims.