OR Bar Constitutional Rights and Liberties 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under the Fourth Amendment, the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test established in Katz v. United States requires:
- That the person own the property searched
- A subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as objectively reasonable (Correct answer)
- Physical intrusion by law enforcement into a constitutionally protected area
- Actual knowledge by the suspect that surveillance was occurring
Correct answer: A subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as objectively reasonable
The Katz two-part test asks whether the individual had a subjective expectation of privacy and whether society is prepared to recognize that expectation as objectively reasonable.
Question 2: Police conduct a warrantless search of a car after a lawful traffic stop and find contraband on the back seat in plain view. The plain view doctrine allows seizure if:
- Officers had prior suspicion the item would be there before the stop
- Officers were lawfully present, the incriminating nature was immediately apparent, and they had lawful access (Correct answer)
- The driver consented to the traffic stop and implied consent to search
- The item was within the wingspan of the arrested driver
Correct answer: Officers were lawfully present, the incriminating nature was immediately apparent, and they had lawful access
Plain view seizure is lawful when officers are in a lawful vantage point, the incriminating character is immediately apparent, and they have a lawful right to access the object.
Question 3: Which exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows police to search an arrestee's person and the area within immediate control without a warrant?
- Exigent circumstances exception
- Search incident to lawful arrest (Correct answer)
- Automobile exception
- Consent exception
Correct answer: Search incident to lawful arrest
The search incident to lawful arrest exception permits warrantless searches of the arrestee's person and the area within their immediate control to prevent destruction of evidence and officer safety.
Question 4: The exclusionary rule established in Mapp v. Ohio applies to:
- Only federal prosecutions for federal crimes
- Both federal and state criminal proceedings, barring unlawfully obtained evidence (Correct answer)
- Civil proceedings where the government seeks forfeiture of property
- Grand jury proceedings to determine probable cause for indictment
Correct answer: Both federal and state criminal proceedings, barring unlawfully obtained evidence
Mapp v. Ohio incorporated the exclusionary rule to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, requiring both federal and state courts to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Question 5: Under the Third-Party Doctrine, which type of information shared with third parties generally lacks Fourth Amendment protection?
- Contents of letters stored in a locked safe-deposit box
- Bank records and phone numbers dialed voluntarily conveyed to a bank or phone company (Correct answer)
- Contents of sealed packages delivered by the postal service
- Medical records shared only with a treating physician under professional obligation
Correct answer: Bank records and phone numbers dialed voluntarily conveyed to a bank or phone company
Under Smith v. Maryland and Miller, information voluntarily conveyed to third parties like banks and phone companies loses Fourth Amendment protection because the person assumes the risk the third party will disclose it.
Question 6: An officer stops a pedestrian based on reasonable articulable suspicion and conducts a pat-down for weapons. This is permitted under:
- Probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment
- Terry v. Ohio's stop-and-frisk doctrine (Correct answer)
- The automobile exception extended to pedestrians
- The inventory search exception
Correct answer: Terry v. Ohio's stop-and-frisk doctrine
Terry v. Ohio allows brief investigatory stops and pat-downs for weapons when an officer has specific, articulable facts giving rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and armed danger.
Question 7: The 'good faith' exception to the exclusionary rule created in United States v. Leon permits admission of evidence when:
- Police genuinely believed they acted lawfully even though no warrant existed
- Officers relied in objective good faith on a facially valid warrant later found defective (Correct answer)
- The prosecutor independently discovered the evidence through lawful means
- The violation was a minor technical defect in the warrant application
Correct answer: Officers relied in objective good faith on a facially valid warrant later found defective
Leon's good faith exception allows admission of evidence obtained by officers who reasonably and objectively relied on a search warrant that was subsequently found to be invalid.
OR Bar Constitutional Rights and Liberties 3
Under the Fourth Amendment, the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test established in Katz v.
United States requires: