Automobile Exception (1)-3

.pdf

School

Georgia State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3415

Subject

Industrial Engineering

Date

May 6, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

10

Uploaded by queennile9 on coursehero.com

1 - FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS 81 Automobile Exception Searches 146. A state trooper on routine patrol noticed a car pulled over by the side of the highway. The car was raised on a jack and one of the car’s rear wheels had been removed and was propped up against the side of the car. The trooper parked his cruiser behind the car, ex- pecting to help the driver finish changing her tire. Instead, as the trooper approached the car, he found the driver lying down on the backseat, smoking marijuana from a pipe. When the driver saw the officer, she sat up and tried to hide the pipe, but the officer grabbed it from her hand. He then searched the car and found a baggie of marijuana in the console be- tween the two front seats. Later, after the woman was charged with marijuana possession, she filed a motion to suppress the drugs found in her car. At the suppression hearing, the officer admitted on cross-examination that he could’ve called the district magistrate for a warrant to search the car—but he didn’t. ‘What is the most likely ruling from the court gemihe suppression motion? “ he motion will be denied because the of- cer was permitted to search the car with- out a warrant. B. The motion will be denied because the of- * ficer reasonably feared the driver could have fixed her tire and driven away while he obtained a warrant to search the car. C. The motion will be denied because the of- ficer conceded that he could have gotten a warrant to search the car. D. The motion will be denied because the of- ficer reasonably feared the destruction of evidence, which is a recognized exigent circumstance. A 147. Early one evening, a patrol officer pulled a car over for rolling through a stop sign and approached the car to ask the driver for her li- cense and registration. When the officer got to the car, he smelled an odor that he believed was burning marijuana. The officer asked the driver whether she had been smoking mari- juana and she admitted that she had “smoked just a little” to help her “mellow out after work.” The officer searched the driver’s car and found a stubbed-out marijuana cigarette in the ashtray. At the pre-trial suppression hearing, the woman’s attorney introduced testimony that in this jurisdiction, a magistrate is always on- call for telephonic warrants and that the tele- phonic warrant process takes, on average, four minutes. What best supports the prosecutor’s argument that this testimony is irrelevant? A.|] The driver’s car was readily mobile and she could have driven it away during the time the officer obtained the warrant. B. The driver was high and could have be- come belligerent and dangerous during the time the officer obtained the warrant. C. The officer did not have backup and so could not turn his attention from the woman to call the magistrate for a war- rant. D. The officer had no guarantees that the warrant process in this case would take four minutes, and it could have taken longer than that. ’ A
82 1 - FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS 148. A traveling salesman was driving down the road one day when he was stopped for speeding. While the officer was speaking with the driver, she smelled marijuana. The officer asked the driver if he had been smoking mar- ijuana or if he had any marijuana in the car and the driver admitted that he had some mar- ijuana in the glove box. The officer looked in the glove box and found the marijuana. The driver was charged with marijuana pos- session and his attorney filed a motion to sup- press. At the suppression hearing, the driver testified that his sales territory included four states and that he usually spent between 12 and 14 hours a day in his car. For these reasons, the driver’s attorney argued that the driver had a heightened expectation of privacy in his car relative to other people and so the officer should have obtained a warrant to search the car. In consideration of this argument, how should the court rule on the driver’s motion? A. The motion should be denied because the driver cannot claim any expectation of pri- vacy in a car with windows and that travels on public roads. The motion should be denied because drivers have a reduced expectation of pri- vacy in their cars. C. The motion should be granted because the - driver in this case has an increased expec- tation of privacy in his car. D. The motion should be granted because the driver took steps to hide his drugs, which demonstrates his increased expectation of privacy. 149, Police developed probable cause to be- lieve that a middle-aged man was using drugs to lure teenagers into his parked motor home, and was trading the drugs for sex. After waiting to make sure the man was alone in the motor home, two officers walked up to it and knocked on the side door. The man answered and the officers stepped inside and searched it. The officers found drugs and drug para- phernalia. i After the man was charged with various crimes, his attorney filed a motion to suppress. In the memorandum of law filed in support of the motion, the defense attorney argued that since the motor home was capable of being a home, the police were required to get a warrant for the search. What is the most likely ruling on the suppres- sion motion? A. The motion will be granted because the motor home was capable of being a home and was thus deserving of higher protec- tion under the Fourth Amendment. B. The motion will be granted because the motor home was parked and immobile, so the police should have obtained a war- rant or consent for the search. C.] The motion will be denied because the motor home was capable of mobility, so it should be treated as an automobile under the Fourth Amendment. D. The motion will be denied because the danger associated with sexual abuse of mi- nors outweighs the man’s privacy interests in his motor home.
150. An officer stopped a car that was being driven erratically. When the officer approached the driver, she readily offered that she had a glass of wine about an hour before. But the driver insisted that she’d only had one glass, no more, and that she was no longer feeling the effects of the alcohol. As proof of her claim, the driver pulled a receipt of out her purse; the receipt was from a nearby restau- rant, and it showed that the driver had paid for three glasses of wine an hour before—not one. When the officer asked the driver about this discrepancy, she could not provide an ex- planation. The officer then searched the driver’s car and found a small baggie of mar- ijuana in the glove box. If the driver is charged with marijuana pos- session and if she moves to suppress the bag- gie of marijuana, how should the court rule on the motion? A. The motion should be denied because the woman’s lie gave the officer probable cause to believe evidence could be found in the car, g B.. The motion should be denied because the : woman’s lie gave the officer reasonable sus- picion to believe evidence could be found ~ in the car. C. The motion should be granted because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to believe he would find evidence in the car. m The motion should be granted because the officer did not have probable cause to be- lieve he would find evidence in the car. 1 - FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS 83 151. An officer pulled a driver over for speed- ing. When the officer asked the driver where she was going in such a hurry, she replied that she was on her way to the shooting range. The officer asked the driver if she had a weapon in the car and she admitted that she had a loaded revolver in the glove box. She also told the of- ficer that she didn’t have a weapons permit but that she was planning on getting one the fol- lowing week. The officer retrieved the revolver from the glove box and then using the fob on the driver’s keychain, unlocked the trunk of the car. In the trunk, the officer found a kilo of cocaine and several rifles. If the driver moves to suppress the evidence seized from her car, what is her strongest ar- gument in support of the motion? A. The motion should be granted because the officer did not have probable cause to be- lieve that any evidence of crime would be found in the car. B. § The motion should be granted in part be- cause the officer’s probable cause was re- stricted to the glove compartment and he searched the trunk. C. The motion should be granted because the officer should have asked the driver for consent to search car before beginning the search. D. The motion should be granted because the officer had no reason to believe that the driver posed a specific threat to him,
i %, e A R K3 S AL B L e N O L S L N 152. Police received an anonymous tip thata young man was selling marijuana from his car. According to the tip, the young man would park his car outside a certain dry cleaning store on a pre-arranged day, for a two hour block of time. The young man’s customers would then come to the car and buy drugs from him; the tipster claimed that the young man stored his drugs in the glove box and trunk of the car. An officer assigned to investigate the tip watched as a young man parked his car in front of the dry cleaning store—just as the tipster had predicted. The officer also saw several peo- ple approach the car and give cash to the young man. Each time he received cash, the young man would retrieve something from either the glove box or the trunk, and then hand it to the other person. While waiting between cus- tomers, the young man would sit in the driver’s seat and listen to the car radio. After about an hour of watching, the officer approached the young man and searched his car. The officer discovered cocaine in the glove box and methamphetamine in the trunk and under the driver’s seat. The young man was charged with drug pos- session and distribution. If he files a motion to suppress, how should the court rule on the motion? A. The motion should be granted because the officer had probable cause to search for marijuana, not cocaine or methampheta- mine. B. The motion should be granted in part be- cause the officer did not have probable cause to search under the driver’s seat. @The motion should be denied because the bfficer had probable cause to search the entire car for drugs. D. The motion should be denied because the officer witnessed the drug sales first hand, and did not rely on the anonymous tip. 1 - FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS . 153. The day before an air traveler was schéd- uled to fly across the country, police developed probable cause to believe that he would be transporting heroin in his suitcase. An under- cover officer was posted at the airport and she watched as the traveler checked his bag. Six hours later, a second undercover officer at the traveler’s destination city watched as he re- trieved the bag from the baggage claim and walked to the parking garage, wheeling the suitcase behind him. The traveler placed the suitcase in the trunk of his car and drove away. A third officer then pulled the traveler over and searched the trunk of the car, including the suitcase. Inside the suitcase, the officer* found the suspected heroin. The traveler has been charged with various crimes associated with the heroin, and filed a motion to suppress. How should the court rule on the motion? A. The motion should be granted because the police manipulated the law by purpose- fully waiting for the traveler to put the suitcase into the car. B. The motion should be granted because the police clearly had ample time to obtain a warrant to search the suitcase. C. The motion should be denied because the suitcase contained evidence of a crime. D. [The motion should be denied because the suitcase and the suitcase was located in the traveler’s car. police had probable cause to search the - e a0 e i
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help