Quiz Chapter 12 Constitutional Constraints

Navigation » List of Schools » Pasadena City College » Business-Paralegal » PLGL 141 – Civil and Criminal Evidence » Fall 2023 » Quiz Chapter 12 Constitutional Constraints

Need help with your exam preparation?

Existing Quiz Clients Login here

Below are the questions for the exam with the choices of answers:

Try The Exam

Question #1

While the agents were present at 313 N.E. Brook, Joe, a neighbor, came over to direct the agents to a shed on Joe’s property that he had permitted the the people from 313N.E. Brook to use. The agents searched that shed finding marijuana. The crime lab compared known fingerprints of the people from 313 N.E. Brook to those found on the marijuana wrappings. The fingerprints matched. Should a judge allow the marijuana and the fingerprint evidence.

A No, because the agents did not obtain a search warrant to search Joe’s shed.

B Yes, because the evidence in the shed was obtained from a consent search separate from the search of 313 N.E. Brook.

C No, because the evidence found in the shed was tainted by the search from the house at 313 N.E. Brook.

D Yes, because the evidence in the shed was a result of the search at 313 N.E. Brook

Question #2

Drug Enforcement Agents were given a tip by a reliable source that cocaine was being stored in a house at 313 N.E. Brook. The agents immediately went to the house and secured it. The agents then went inside, searched the house from top to bottom, seized the cocaine found in a false compartment under a stairway and arrested the occupants of the house. A paralegal for the defense should prepare a motion:

A Asking for the evidence to be suppressed because the search was incident to arrest.

B Asking for the evidence to be suppressed because the evidence was likely to quickly disappear.

C Asking for the evidence to be suppressed because the agents did not have sufficient information for probable cause.

D Asking for the evidence to be suppressed because after securing the house, the agents should have obtained a search warrant from a judge

Question #3

With the information Melinda provided during her confession, the police were able to arrest her accomplice Tim. Tim will be

A Be compelled to stand trial, since he was properly given Miranda rights.

B Be compelled to stand trial, since Melinda was properly given Miranda rights.

C Released, because Melinda did not directly implicate him in the crime.

D Released, because the evidence incriminating him is “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

Question #4

The police were convinced that Melinda robbed the bank. They arrested her, read her Miranda rights, and held her for questioning for 60 hours. Although she repeatedly asked for an attorney, the police would not allow her to contact one. She was kept awake during the entire 60 hours, not given water when she asked for it, and denied bathroom privileges. Finally, exhausted and near hysteria, she confessed to the bank robbery. She provided details that only the bank robber could know, and it was clear she was guilty. Melinda’s confession is

A Admissible because Melinda ultimately gave information which only the bank robber could know.

B Inadmissible because Melinda had not been given her Miranda warnings.

C Admissible because Melinda was, in fact, guilty of the crime.

D Inadmissible because the confession was elicited in direct violation of Melinda’s 5th Amendment rights.

Question #5

All statements made before Miranda warnings are given are

A Inadmissible because not providing Miranda warnings is a constitutional violation.

B Inadmissible because they violate the individual’s 5th Amendment rights.

C Arguably admissible or inadmissible, depending upon the circumstances.

D None of these

Question #6

John is being sued in breach of contract related to a pyramid scheme he managed. If called to testify, his own testimony could be used against him, since his conduct was, at best, shady. He faces no criminal charges, but could lose all of his money in this lawsuit. He knows, however, that if he doesn’t testify, it will be difficult for the plaintiff to persuade the jury of his guilt. He, therefore, decides to claim his 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. John may

A refuse to testify under the 4th Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures of personal property.

B be compelled to testify since this is a civil proceeding, and John faces no criminal charges.

C be compelled to testify since John is guilty.

D refuse to testify under the 5th Amendment’s protection against compelled self-incrimination.

Question #7

While in the building, the officer observed that Sam discarded an item from his pocket as he was running away. After the officer handcuffed Sam, he retrieved the item that he had observed being discarded. This turned out to be a packet of heroin. Sam claimed that the officer should have gotten a warrant to search for the heroin, because the “exigency” of the chase was over once Sam was arrested. The officer claimed that people were entering and exiting the building and he was concerned the evidence would be lost or taken by someone. The court would most likely find

A That there was no probable cause for the officer to retrieve the item Sam discarded.

B That a warrantless search is unlawful.

C That a warrant was not necessary since there was sufficient probable cause, and the evidence was at risk of being tainted or destroyed unless the officer acted quickly.

D That Sam had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Question #8

When the officer pursued Sam after retrieving the marijuana, Sam attempted to elude the officer, exited his car and ran into an apartment building. The officer followed Sam into the apartment building, without a warrant. The officer arrested Sam inside the building, also without a warrant. This arrest is

A Lawful.

B Unlawful, since the officer did not have probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed in the building, and therefore he had no right to enter the building.

C Unlawful since the officer did not have a search warrant to enter the building.

D Unlawful since the officer did not have an arrest warrant.

Question #9

Young Sam was driving along smoking what appeared to be a hand-rolled cigarette, when a police officer happened to pull along side of him, and notice him smoking. The officer pulled behind Sam to observe Sam’s driving, when he observed Sam open his car window and throw out both the cigarette he had been smoking, and a small plastic bag that was partially filled with dark material. Noting the plate number on Sam’s car, the officer went back to where he observed Sam throw the things out the car window, and he retrieved those items. The officer concluded that both the contents of the plastic bag and the cigarette were marijuana, and so he went out and found Sam and arrested him. The plastic bag and cigarette are

A Admissible against Sam because the items were thrown out into the open, and therefore not subject to 4th Amendment protection.

B Inadmissible as evidence because the officer had no probable cause to search for them.

C Inadmissible as evidence because during the brief time the officer followed Sam, the evidence was outside his chain of custody.

D Inadmissible as evidence because the officer did not have a warrant to seize those items off the street.

Question #10

Marvin Moocher tends to like to ‘borrow’ his neighbor’s gardening tools. One day, while his neighbor was out, Marvin went to his neighbor’s house, and took some items from the garage without permission. While in the garage, Marvin noticed that his neighbor was growing 25 marijuana plants. Marvin knew his neighbor would be angry when he returned and found his tools gone, and so he decided to preempt the confrontation by calling the police. The police came with a search warrant based on Marvin’s tip, and found the marijuana plants in the neighbor’s garage, as Marvin had reported. The marijuana evidence is

A Inadmissible against the neighbor because the 4th Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches.

B Admissible against the neighbor because even though Marvin was breaking the law when he found the marijuana plants, the 4th Amendment does not apply to his conduct.

C Admissible against the neighbor because Marvin had not entered specifically with the intent to search for the plants.

D Inadmissible against the neighbor because the neighbor had no warrant when he originally conducted the search.

Question #11

If offered immunity, an individual cannot use the 5th Amendment as a basis to refuse to testify.

A TRUE

B FALSE

Question #12

All incriminating statements made by an accused prior to Miranda warnings are inadmissible without exception.

A FALSE

B TRUE

Question #13

An officer may search an impounded vehicle for inventory purposes, and use evidence found in the vehicle against the accused, without ever having obtained a search warrant.