Some agencies their citizen-complaint process.
What will be an ideal response?
(Question #2) Did Father's obedience to Officer's order constitute state action, making Officer's seizure of the syringe and cup without a warrant unconstitutional?
Rowley was taken into police custody on an unrelated matter. He asked his parents to take care of the things in the bed of his pickup truck, parked in front of his parents' home. Rowley's father, concerned about possible weather damage to the heavy items in the bed of the truck moved it inside the garage. While in the cab of the truck, his father saw a syringe and a porcelain cup both containing an unknown substance in an open cubby hole under the dashboard. Father took these items into the house and showed them to his wife. Mother then searched the bags that were in the back of Rowley's truck and found a digital scale. Father contacted a sheriff's officer, whom Father knew, and informed him of what he and Mother had found in their son's truck. Father followed Officer's instructions and returned the items to where they had been found. When the officer arrived at Father's home, Father invited him into the garage and Officer retrieved the evidence in question from Rowley's truck. The substances were later tested and determined to be methamphetamine.
(Question #3) In all states, a panel of parole board members will interview eligible inmates who are being considered for parole.
a. True
b. False
(Question #4) Was the civil forfeiture invalid because the state introduced evidence about illegally seized cash?
Tamika Smith, driving a rental car, was stopped driving west on I-94 between Detroit and Chicago for speeding. Her two small children and Todd Fletcher were passengers. Drivers' licenses were checked; Smith's had been suspended; Fletcher's was valid, but he was a person of officer safety caution based on previous arrests for cocaine possession and weapons offenses. The trooper searched the trunk of the rental car without consent and discovered 180,975 in cash in a backpack. Smith was cited for speeding and driving on a suspended license but with no crimes. Neither she nor Fletcher could provide a good explanation for possession such a large sum of cash. State law requires the forfeiture of money when the state can prove on a preponderance of evidence that the money was intended to buy drugs. In a civil forfeiture proceeding by the state, the prosecutor admitted the search and seizure of the cash violated the Fourth Amendment. The cash itself was not introduced in evidence but the prosecutor presented evidence to show that Smith was a drug courier and that the 180,975 seized by the trooper had been intended for the purchase of illegal drugs.
What will be an ideal response?
(Question #5) What is intake, and what is involved in the intake processes?
What will be an ideal response?
(Question #6) Social desirability bias occurs when respondents distort answers to make their reports conform to social norms.
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Quick Reply
