VA Bar Criminal Procedure 2 ā Questions and Answers
Question 1: Police obtain a warrant to search a suspect's home for stolen electronics. Upon entry, they see bags of cocaine in plain view on the kitchen table. May they seize the cocaine?
- No, because cocaine was not listed in the warrant
- Yes, under the plain view doctrine (Correct answer)
- Yes, but only after obtaining a supplemental warrant
- No, because the warrant was limited strictly to electronics
Correct answer: Yes, under the plain view doctrine
Under the plain view doctrine, officers lawfully on premises may seize contraband or evidence of crime that is immediately apparent, even if not listed in the warrant.
Question 2: An officer stops a vehicle for a broken taillight, notices nervousness and the smell of alcohol, then asks to search the trunk. The driver says 'sure, go ahead,' and the search reveals illegal firearms. Is the search valid?
- No, because the officer lacked probable cause for a trunk search
- No, because consent during a traffic stop is inherently coerced
- Yes, because the driver voluntarily consented to the search (Correct answer)
- Yes, only if the officer had reasonable suspicion of firearms specifically
Correct answer: Yes, because the driver voluntarily consented to the search
A voluntary, knowing consent to search is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, even during a traffic stop, provided the consent is not coerced.
Question 3: Officers lawfully arrest a suspect inside his home and then conduct a warrantless search of an upstairs bedroom, finding incriminating evidence. Under Chimel v. California, is this search valid?
- Yes, incident to arrest officers may search the entire premises
- No, a search incident to arrest is limited to the area within the arrestee's immediate control (Correct answer)
- Yes, because the arrest occurred inside the home
- No, because any warrantless home search is per se unconstitutional
Correct answer: No, a search incident to arrest is limited to the area within the arrestee's immediate control
Chimel limits searches incident to arrest to the person and the area within the arrestee's immediate reach, not the entire residence.
Question 4: Police receive an informant's tip that drugs are sold from a particular apartment. The tip aloneāwithout independent corroborationāis used to establish probable cause in a warrant application. Under Illinois v. Gates, how do courts evaluate this?
- Under the two-prong Aguilar-Spinelli test, requiring separate showings of reliability and basis of knowledge
- Under the totality of the circumstances test, where each factor informs the overall probable cause assessment (Correct answer)
- Only if the informant is a named, known citizen
- Only if police independently corroborate every detail the informant provides
Correct answer: Under the totality of the circumstances test, where each factor informs the overall probable cause assessment
Illinois v. Gates replaced the Aguilar-Spinelli test with a totality-of-the-circumstances standard, allowing partial corroboration to compensate for weaknesses in reliability or basis of knowledge.
Question 5: Officers arrest a suspect in a parking lot, handcuff him, and secure him in a patrol car. They then search his vehicle. Under Arizona v. Gant, is this a valid search incident to arrest?
- Yes, officers may always search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest
- No, because the suspect was secured and could not access the vehicle (Correct answer)
- Yes, if officers subjectively believe evidence may be present
- No, unless the vehicle itself was instrumentally used in the crime of arrest
Correct answer: No, because the suspect was secured and could not access the vehicle
Arizona v. Gant limits vehicle searches incident to arrest to situations where the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment, or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the arrest offense.
Question 6: A defendant challenges the validity of a search, and the government concedes the warrant was technically defective but argues officers relied on it in good faith. Which doctrine applies?
- Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
- Independent source doctrine
- Good faith exception under United States v. Leon (Correct answer)
- Inevitable discovery doctrine
Correct answer: Good faith exception under United States v. Leon
Leon's good faith exception allows evidence obtained under a facially valid warrant to be admitted even if the warrant is later found defective, as long as officers reasonably relied on it.
Question 7: An anonymous caller reports a man at a specific corner is carrying a concealed gun. Officers observe a man matching the description but see no suspicious conduct. May they stop and frisk him?
- Yes, any anonymous tip about a weapon justifies an immediate Terry stop
- No, because an anonymous tip requires independent police corroboration to establish reasonable suspicion before a stop is justified (Correct answer)
- Yes, because officer safety always permits a frisk for weapons
- No, because a frisk requires full probable cause
Correct answer: No, because an anonymous tip requires independent police corroboration to establish reasonable suspicion before a stop is justified
Florida v. J.L. held that an anonymous tip about a concealed weapon, without more, does not provide the reasonable suspicion needed for a Terry stop and frisk.
VA Bar Criminal Procedure 2
Police obtain a warrant to search a suspect's home for stolen electronics.
Upon entry, they see bags of cocaine in plain view on the kitchen table.
May they seize the cocaine?