Criminal Law and Procedure Flashcards

Police bring a trained drug-detecting dog to a defendant's front porch to sniff for narcotics without a warrant. Under Florida v. Jardines, this constitutes:

Answer: A Fourth Amendment search because the curtilage of a home receives the same protection as the interior

In Florida v. Jardines, the Supreme Court held that using a drug-sniffing dog on the curtilage of a home constitutes a Fourth Amendment search because the curtilage receives the same protection as the home's interior.

Officers with probable cause that a car contains stolen merchandise stop the vehicle and wish to search a locked box in the trunk. Under the automobile exception established in United States v. Ross, officers may:

Answer: Search every part of the vehicle and any container within it that may contain the item sought

Under United States v. Ross, probable cause to search a lawfully stopped vehicle authorizes the search of every part of the vehicle and containers within it where the sought item could be concealed.

During a Terry frisk, an officer feels a small round object and must squeeze and manipulate it before determining it is crack cocaine. He then seizes it. Under Minnesota v. Dickerson, this seizure is:

Answer: Invalid because the officer exceeded the frisk's scope by manipulating the object beyond identifying weapons

Minnesota v. Dickerson's plain feel doctrine allows seizure of contraband only when its identity is immediately apparent; additional manipulation to identify the object exceeds the permissible scope of a protective frisk.

A wife consents to police searching the home she shares with her husband. The husband is physically present and explicitly objects. Officers search anyway and find evidence against the husband. Under Georgia v. Randolph, this evidence is:

Answer: Inadmissible because a physically present co-tenant's refusal cannot be overridden by another occupant's consent

Under Georgia v. Randolph, when a physically present co-occupant explicitly refuses consent, police may not rely on another co-occupant's consent to justify a warrantless search.

Police execute a search warrant for a house. A visitor with no connection to the residents is found inside. Officers search his person without additional justification. Under Ybarra v. Illinois, this search is:

Answer: Invalid because a premises warrant does not authorize searching persons found inside absent independent probable cause directed at those individuals

Under Ybarra v. Illinois, a warrant authorizing the search of premises does not automatically authorize searching every person found there; police need particularized probable cause directed at each individual.

Under United States v. Leon's good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant later found technically defective is admissible when:

Answer: Officers reasonably and objectively relied in good faith on the warrant issued by a neutral magistrate

Under United States v. Leon, the good faith exception allows admission of evidence when officers reasonably rely on a warrant later found defective, unless the warrant was facially insufficient or the affiant misled the magistrate.

Police have probable cause to arrest a suspect who is inside his home. Without a warrant, officers enter and arrest him. Under Payton v. New York, absent exigent circumstances or consent, this entry is:

Answer: Invalid because the Fourth Amendment requires an arrest warrant to enter a suspect's home to effectuate a felony arrest

Under Payton v. New York, absent exigent circumstances or consent, the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless non-consensual entry into a suspect's home to make a routine felony arrest, even with probable cause.