The Exclusionary Rule Self-Quiz
Daniel is
on trial for possession of marijuana which was found in his home when
a warrant was issued and a search conducted. Daniel claims that there
was insufficient evidence to establish probable cause to support the search
warrant, and that the warrant was therefore invalid. Which of the following
is the prosecution’s best response to Daniel’s argument?
|
Officer Fier
dislikes his daughter’s boyfriend, Chas, and is looking for a way
to get rid of the kid. He requests a search warrant for Chas’ trailer
home from Judge Giles. To establish probable cause, Fier provides Judge
Giles with a properly executed but untruthful affidavit stating that he
witnessed Chas selling stolen blenders from the trailer. Judge Giles issues
the warrant and Fier conducts a vigorous search during which he discovers
one partially burnt marijuana cigarette. Chas is roughly cuffed and arrested,
the evidence seized. At trial a judge is likely to:
|
Drake is a
well-known drug dealer in the neighborhood. While he is away on vacation
Officer Downey breaks into his home and takes pictures of his indoor marijuana
plants, leaving no evidence of having illegally entered the abode. Later
that month Drake is arrested for selling cocaine. When Officer Downey
calls Prosecutor Able and offers his incriminating evidence, Able starts
screaming profanities, says something about “useless garbage,”
and hangs up. Has Prosecutor Able just cut herself off from a source of
useful evidence in the case against Downey?
|
Grant O.
Deliverer regularly engages in the illegal interstate transportation
of stolen goods. Officer Speedy surreptitiously breaks into the back
of Grant’s truck
and hides there, intending to inventory the goods loaded and unloaded
from the vehicle to use as evidence against Deliverer. While in hiding,
Officer Speedy overhears Deliverer agree to commit a murder-for-hire.
Afraid to leave the truck, Officer Speedy is unable to prevent the
murder. At Deliverer’s
murder trial the evidence overheard by Speedy will be:
|
The police
perform an illegal search of Peter’s home and find drugs as well
as a large, metal box full of keys. Most of the keys are not labeled,
and therefore of little use in further investigation. One key, however,
has a paper tag attached to it. The tag is from the Lo-Down Self-Storage
Co., and has the number 317 written on it. The police visit the owner
of Lo-Down Self-Storage and ask permission to enter the premises for the
purpose of using the key to discover the contents of the locker. They
are given permission. Upon opening the locker they find a portable drug
lab. Is the drug lab evidence admissible against Peter?
|
© 2003 - 2024 National Paralegal College