What is a Search? Interactions








Officer Brady conducts an illegal search of Cartman’s home and finds crack cocaine in his mother’s room. He also finds a book containing the names of well-known townspeople who have given her money or drugs in exchange for sex. Officer Brady arrests Chef Hayes, one of the people named in the book, for soliciting prostitution. Later that day, Kenny approaches Officer Brady with photocopies he made of the book earlier in the week. Soon thereafter, Kenny is killed by an unknown assailant in retribution for his act. Is the list of names excluded as evidence because of the illegal search?
Choice 1 Yes, the evidence must be excluded, because it resulted from a warrantless search not falling within any of the exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Choice 2 Yes, the evidence must be excluded, because it contains the names of innocent persons who will be irreparably harmed by the disclosure.
Choice 3 No, the evidence is admissible, because there was an independent source for the information, i.e., Kenny’s photocopies.
Choice 4 No, the evidence is admissible, because it is being used as evidence against Chef Hayes, and not against Cartman’s mom, and Chef Hayes’ Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the illegal search of Cartman’s home.
Nick Nosy, the neighborhood snitch, is a paid confidential informant. Although not asked specifically to go looking for evidence, he knows exactly what the cops want and will pay for. Late one night he sneaks into Mark’s indoor marijuana garden and snaps some pictures on his digital camera which he then sends to his favorite cop (the one who pays the most). Is this a search which violated Mark’s Fourth Amendment rights?
Choice 1 Yes, because Nick gets paid for producing the evidence, which makes him a government agent.
Choice 2 No, because Nick was not acting at the direction of police, but rather performed the search on his own.
East Salem in Hutman County New York is horse country, and large parcels of land are common there. Elaine Marbeck owns a sizeable tract of land. Her house, her garage, and a small guest house are nestled in the northwest corner near a lake. In the northeast corner is the barn where the horses are kept and fields which are used for feeding and training the horses. The southern part of the property is unimproved land and largely goes unused. Elaine’s son, Mark, decided that he will use the summer between High School and college to grow marijuana on the southern lands. The DEA, during a random helicopter sweep, identifies the marijuana, seizes it, and arrests the entire Marbeck family. Elaine, protective mother that she is, takes the blame for Mark’s crime. Can the marijuana be used as evidence against her?
Choice 1 No, because it was not her marijuana.
Choice 2 No, because the DEA had neither a warrant nor consent to enter her airspace.
Choice 3 Yes, because although she did not cultivate the plants they were found on her land and she can be held strictly liable.
Choice 4 Yes, because she has no expectation to privacy in anything that can be seen from the air, hence the helicopter sweep did not constitute a search.
The following summer Dick, Mark’s older and supposedly wiser brother, decides to use the same fields to grow marijuana. Since he was expelled from college last year he has the time to construct a highly effective camouflage system to prevent his marijuana from being spotted from the air. Dick’s mother, Elaine, recently released from her “year off” and not anxious to spend more time away from her horses tips off Sheriff Ruskoe Dekoe Crane, who enters the land without consent (Mom still loves her elder son) and without a warrant. When he comes upon the marijuana fields, Sheriff Crane seizes the plants and arrests Elaine, as she’s the most likely suspect given her prior criminal record. Elaine Hutman claims the search and seizure were unreasonable. Is she correct?
Choice 1 Yes, because the Sheriff had neither consent nor a warrant for the search.
Choice 2 Yes, because the marijuana could not be seen from the air.
Choice 3 Yes, because the Open-Fields Doctrine does not apply if a field is enclosed such that it is protected from being viewed from the air
Choice 4 No, because the fields were outside the curtilage of the home.
S. Kripke is a loud-talker. He is also a suspected horse-thief. Julie, whose rare white three-legged, short-nosed, tailless horse was stolen last week believes she could recognize the voice of the man who coaxed the animal from the barn, but she did not get a good look at him. Kripke is brought into the local police station where in a room equipped with tape recorders he is read his rights and asked if he understands. “Sure, I get it,” he says, “and I’ll name names but only in the presence of my attorney. Until then, I won’t say a thing.” In a voice-lineup Julie picks out Kripke’s recorded voice as the voice of the perpetrator. Can the recording and identification be used as evidence against Kripke?
Choice 1 Yes, because he has no reasonable expectation in the sound of his voice.
Choice 2 Yes, because the recording was made while at a police station.
Choice 3 No, because Kripke explicitly asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege.
Choice 4 No, because Kripke was not told he was being recorded.

© 2003 - 2007 National Paralegal College