TX Bar Criminal Law and Procedure 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: 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:
- A permissible investigation in a public-facing area not protected by the Fourth Amendment
- A valid use of specialized equipment that does not implicate the Fourth Amendment
- A Fourth Amendment search because the curtilage of a home receives the same protection as the interior (Correct answer)
- A Terry stop equivalent requiring only reasonable suspicion
Correct 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.
Question 2: 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:
- Search only the passenger compartment without a warrant
- Search every part of the vehicle and any container within it that may contain the item sought (Correct answer)
- Search the trunk only after obtaining a separate warrant for the locked container
- Search only items in plain view without a warrant
Correct 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.
Question 3: 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:
- Valid because the officer was lawfully conducting a Terry frisk
- Valid because crack cocaine is per se contraband
- Invalid because the officer exceeded the frisk's scope by manipulating the object beyond identifying weapons (Correct answer)
- Invalid because drugs can never be seized during a Terry frisk
Correct 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.
Question 4: 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:
- Inadmissible because a physically present co-tenant's refusal cannot be overridden by another occupant's consent (Correct answer)
- Admissible because the wife as co-tenant had authority to consent to the search
- Admissible because police reasonably relied on the wife's apparent authority
- Inadmissible only if the husband had a greater possessory interest in the home
Correct 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.
Question 5: 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:
- Valid because a premises warrant automatically authorizes searching everyone found inside
- Valid because anyone present during a warrant's execution is assumed connected to criminal activity
- Invalid because a premises warrant does not authorize searching persons found inside absent independent probable cause directed at those individuals (Correct answer)
- Valid if officers had reasonable suspicion the visitor was armed
Correct 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.
Question 6: 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:
- The defect was a minor technical error that did not affect the probable cause showing
- Police could not have discovered the warrant's defect before execution
- The issuing judge had personal knowledge of all relevant facts
- Officers reasonably and objectively relied in good faith on the warrant issued by a neutral magistrate (Correct answer)
Correct 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.
Question 7: 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:
- Valid because the officers had probable cause to make the arrest
- Valid because officers reasonably believed the suspect was present inside
- Invalid because the Fourth Amendment requires an arrest warrant to enter a suspect's home to effectuate a felony arrest (Correct answer)
- Valid because the home was accessible from a public area
Correct 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.
TX Bar Criminal Law and Procedure 2
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: