The Supreme Court in Reid v. Georgia sanctioned the practice of drug courier profiling.
Indicate whether this statement is true or false.
(Question #2) A frisk is basically the same as a search because it is considered equally intrusive.
Indicate whether this statement is true or false.
(Question #3) Match the case with the correct ruling with regard to exigent circumstances.
Column 1:
Warden v. Hayden
Brigham City v. Stuart
Breithaup v. Abram
Cupp v. Murphy
Column 2:
court ruled police could seize dried blood from a suspect because they had probable cause to believe that highly evanescent evidence was in the process of being destroyed
upheld the warrantless intrusion (via a needle) into a mans body for the purpose of drawing blood to see if he had been drinking
first case to recognize the hot pursuit exception
police were authorized to make warrantless entry into apartment as long as they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe an occupant is
seriously injured or threatened with such injury
(Question #4) Match the exception to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine with the correct description.
Column 1:
Purged Taint
Independent Source
Inevitable Discovery
Column 2:
Evidence brought forward by a source independent of an unconstitutional search or seizure will be admissible.
Evidence that would have been discovered anyway will be admissible regardless of a wrongful search or seizure.
If the taint of an unconstitutional search/seizure is sufficiently purged, the evidence will be admissible.
(Question #5) Concerning hot pursuit, has the Supreme Court decided in favor of police or in favor of police? Why do you feel this way?
What will be an ideal response?
(Question #6) The courts have ruled that valid consent searches justify a warrantless search with or without probable cause. Do you think third-party consent should be allowed in certain situations? Why or why not.
What will be an ideal response?
Quick Reply
