Multistate Bar Exam Criminal Procedure 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under Arizona v. Gant, police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the lawful arrest of an occupant when:
- The arrest is lawful, regardless of the arrestee's location relative to the vehicle
- 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 (Correct answer)
- The officer believes contraband may be anywhere in the vehicle
- The vehicle is being impounded following the arrest
Correct 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.
Question 2: 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:
- The officer had a warrant specifically authorizing a drug search
- The officer is lawfully present and the incriminating character of the item is immediately apparent (Correct answer)
- The officer suspected drug activity before making the traffic stop
- The driver does not affirmatively object to the seizure
Correct 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.
Question 3: Police have probable cause to believe a vehicle contains stolen weapons. The car is parked in a public lot. Under the automobile exception:
- Police must obtain a warrant before searching because the car is stationary
- Police may search the vehicle and any containers within it that could contain the weapons (Correct answer)
- Police may search only the trunk and locked compartments
- Police may search only areas visible through the windows
Correct 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.
Question 4: 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:
- Inadmissible because any reference to a lawyer requires cessation of questioning
- Admissible because the invocation of counsel must be unambiguous and unequivocal (Correct answer)
- Inadmissible because the suspect expressed a desire for counsel before confessing
- Admissible because the suspect impliedly waived the right by continuing to speak
Correct 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.
Question 5: 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:
- Admissible because the confession was entirely voluntary
- Potentially excludable as a product of the unlawful arrest (Correct answer)
- Admissible because Miranda warnings cured any Fourth Amendment violation
- Admissible because the Fifth Amendment governs confessions independently of the Fourth Amendment
Correct 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.
Question 6: Under Crawford v. Washington, the Confrontation Clause bars admission of out-of-court statements that are testimonial unless:
- The statements fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception
- The declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant (Correct answer)
- The statements were made under oath or before a government official
- The statements are corroborated by independent evidence of reliability
Correct 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.
Question 7: 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:
- Inadmissible because inventory searches require a warrant
- Admissible if the search followed standardized, non-discretionary police procedures (Correct answer)
- Inadmissible because the search was not incident to the arrest
- Admissible only if police had probable cause to suspect the presence of drugs
Correct 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.
Multistate Bar Exam Criminal Procedure 2
Under Arizona v.
Gant, police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the lawful arrest of an occupant when: