2nd Exam Uptp 711
- 1.
Thompson is suspected of running a counterfeiting operation out of his garage. The garage is attached to the dwelling. Without a warrant, three officers step onto his curtilage, shine a flashlight into the garage, and take a quick look. They observe a number of what appear to be $100 bills hanging from a clothesline. Was the observation into the garage lawful?
- A.
No, because the officers physically intruded on a constitutionally protect location without either a warrant or an exception to the 4th Amendment.
- B.
No, because the use of a flashlight violated Thompson’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
- C.
Yes, because the garage does not have curtilage because it is not a dwelling.
- D.
Yes, because the garage itself was not within the curtilage of Thompson’s dwelling.
Correct Answer
A. No, because the officers pHysically intruded on a constitutionally protect location without either a warrant or an exception to the 4th Amendment.Explanation
The root of the question says that the officers were on Thompson’s curtilage. The officers did not have a warrant to be there and there is no 4th Amendment exception. Accordingly, the observation was unlawful and the information they obtained cannot be lawfully used to obtain a warrantRate this question:
-
- 2.
Agents develop reasonable suspicion that Wooster is operating a stolen credit card ring. Upon seeing Wooster driving in his car one afternoon, the agents follow him. When he arrives at a shopping mall, the agents approach him, identify themselves, and tell him to put his hands on his automobile. One of the agents frisks him and, in the upper left hand pocket, feels what is immediately apparent to him as a stack of credit cards bound by a rubber band. The agent removes the credit cards and, ultimately, determines that they are stolen. Wooster’s motion to suppress the credit cards will be -
- A.
Denied, because the agents had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
- B.
Denied, because the agents had probable cause to remove the cards from his pocket under the “plain touch” doctrine.
- C.
Granted, because the agents performed an illegal “frisk” of Wooster.
- D.
Granted, because a “frisk” may result only in the discovery of weapons on a suspect.
Correct Answer
C. Granted, because the agents performed an illegal “frisk” of Wooster.Explanation
The officers only had reasonable suspicion criminal activity was afoot which would allow them to make a Terry stop and direct Wooster out of his car. The officers did not have reasonable suspicion that Wooster was presently armed and dangerous making the Terry frisk illegal. Remember: just because you have a Terry Stop doesn’t mean you automatically get a Terry Frisk! In order to lawfully do a Terry Frisk on a detained person you have to articulate facts to establish a reasonable suspicion that the person is presently armed in dangerous.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
The officers only had reasonable suspicion criminal activity was afoot which would allow them to make a Terry stop and direct Wooster out of his car. The officers did not have reasonable suspicion that Wooster was presently armed and dangerous making the Terry frisk illegal. Remember: just because you have a Terry Stop doesn’t mean you automatically get a Terry Frisk! In order to lawfully do a Terry Frisk on a detained person you have to articulate facts to establish a reasonable suspicion that the person is presently armed in dangerous.
- A.
Yes, because Johnson’s statements amount to probable cause under a totality of the circumstances using the Illinois v. Gates test.
- B.
Yes, because Johnson has never provided false information to the officers in the past.
- C.
No, because the officers did not corroborate Johnson’s statements.
- D.
No, because statements alone can never establish probable cause.
Correct Answer
A. Yes, because Johnson’s statements amount to probable cause under a totality of the circumstances using the Illinois v. Gates test.Explanation
The information known to the officers show both that Johnson was reliable and had a basis of knowledge in what he told the officers. Furthermore, because he is a co-criminal, the information he provided is presumed reliable. Under a totality of the circumstances this is enough to establish probable cause.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
An officer is walking down a public sidewalk in the early evening hours, just after dark. Glancing in the direction of Sweeney’s home, the officer notices that, while Sweeney has drawn the curtains in the front window, there is a gap through which the officer sees what he knows to be a large marijuana plant. The following morning, based solely upon this information, the officer seeks a search warrant for Sweeney’s home. The request for a search warrant will be -
- A.
Granted, because the officer could have entered the home the previous evening under the “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement, and seeking a warrant is nothing more than a court order of the “exigent circumstances” exception
- B.
Granted, because the officer did not violate Sweeney’s reasonable expectation of privacy in making the observation on which the search warrant will be based.
- C.
Denied, because the officer’s view into Sweeney’s home amounted to an intrusion into a location where Sweeney had a reasonable expectation of privacy without either a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement.
- D.
Denied, because the officer had no reason to look into Sweeney’s home; the observation alone did not amount to probable cause; and the officer did not enter the home at the moment she made the observation.
Correct Answer
B. Granted, because the officer did not violate Sweeney’s reasonable expectation of privacy in making the observation on which the search warrant will be based.Explanation
The officer was in a public place (where he had the right to be) and the open curtain exposed the inside of the house to the public. The homeowner had no REP in what he exposed to the street outside.
Accordingly, what the officer saw in the window was lawfully obtained and can establish information that may be used in the warrant.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
Marsh checked a suitcase at the airline counter and got onto an airplane. Before the suitcase was placed on the airplane, it was sniffed by a drug detection dog. The dog indicated that drugs were located inside which established probable cause to search the suitcase. With this knowledge, two DEA agents entered the airplane, approached Marsh, identified themselves, and asked him if they could look in the suitcase he had checked at the counter. Marsh stated, "I’m not traveling with a suitcase." Because the plane wasn’t scheduled to take off for an hour (and Marsh didn’t think he would miss the plane), Marsh voluntarily agreed to accompany the agents to the suitcase, was shown the suitcase, and was asked again if they could open it. Again, Marsh denied ever seeing the suitcase. The agents opened the suitcase and discovered contraband inside. At trial, the contraband should be -
- A.
Admitted, because the officers had probable cause to search the suitcase
- B.
Admitted, because Marsh abandoned the suitcase.
- C.
Suppressed, because the officers violated Marsh’s reasonable expectation of privacy
- D.
Suppressed, because the officers did not get a valid consent
Correct Answer
B. Admitted, because Marsh abandoned the suitcase.Explanation
By denying the suitcase was his, Marsh abandoned any REP he had in the suitcase and therefore, there was no 4th Amendment intrusion.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
Perry is a paid police informant and has provided reliable information to officers on seven out of seven occasions. On January 7, 2000, Perry personally witnessed four personal-use drug transactions take place in Joe Clark’s apartment. On November 28, 2000, Perry tells the officer about these observations. The officer applies for a search warrant for drugs based solely on this information. The request for the search warrant should be -
- A.
Denied, because the officer did not corroborated the information provided by Perry.
- B.
Denied, because the information provided by Perry is inadequate to establish probable cause.
- C.
Granted, because the officer has demonstrated probable cause.
- D.
Granted, because Perry meets the standards of Aguilar.
Correct Answer
B. Denied, because the information provided by Perry is inadequate to establish probable cause.Explanation
The information is stale because almost eleven months has passed since the drugs were seen in Clark’s apartment and therefore there is no PC there are drugs there NOW.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
Police approach the home of Adams, whom they reasonably suspect is involved in a larceny. Adams is not there, but his wife is home. The officers explain they are looking for Adams and would like to talk to him about his clothing he was wearing the day before. Adams’ wife states, "Those things are right here. I took them out of his duffel bag. Here they are" and hands them to the officer. The officers accepted the items. At trial, this evidence should be -
- A.
Suppressed, as they were obtained illegally without either a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement.
- B.
Suppressed, because the officers had no probable cause to seek the items.
- C.
Admitted, because the officers could have gotten a search warrant to obtain these items.
- D.
Admitted, as the items were procured through private action, and thus, were not a search under the 4th Amendment.
Correct Answer
D. Admitted, as the items were procured through private action, and thus, were not a search under the 4th Amendment.Explanation
This answer correctly states the applicable principle.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
Two officers develop reasonable suspicion that Smith is about to rob a convenience store. The officers approach Smith, place him under arrest, and search him. The officer conducting the search feels what is immediately apparent to him to be crack cocaine. The officer then retrieved the substance. At trial, Smith makes a motion to suppress the crack cocaine found during the search. According to the law, this motion should be:
- A.
Denied, based on the “plain touch” doctrine.
- B.
Denied, because the officers were justified in conducting a search on Smith.
- C.
Granted, because the officers acted illegally.
- D.
Granted, because an officer may lawfully retrieve only weapons during a frisk.
Correct Answer
C. Granted, because the officers acted illegally.Explanation
The officers arrested Smith when they only had R/S. PC is required to arrest and therefore the search of Smith was illegal.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
An officer receives a report from the dispatcher about an armed robbery in the area, along with a description of the vehicle and the three men believed to have committed the crime. Spotting a vehicle matching the description, with three male occupants inside, the officer stops the vehicle to investigate. She directs the three occupants from the vehicle, and examines the vehicle for weapons. Under the front passenger seat, the officer finds a sawed-off shotgun and some ski masks. All three men are then arrested. At trial, the men file a motion to suppress the evidence found in the vehicle. According to the law, this motion should be:
- A.
Granted, because the officer did not frisk the occupants of the vehicle prior to frisking the actual vehicle.
- B.
Granted, because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to frisk the interior of the vehicle.
- C.
Denied, because the officer had obtained valid consent to search the interior of the vehicle.
- D.
Denied, because the officer was justified in looking under the front passenger seat for weapons.
Correct Answer
D. Denied, because the officer was justified in looking under the front passenger seat for weapons.Explanation
The report, the description, and the fact the vehicle and occupants generally matching the description is RS criminal activity is afoot. Because the crime under suspicion is one in which a weapon is often used, there is also RS the occupants are presently armed and dangerous. This permits a Terry frisk of the occupants and under the seat (as well as the passenger compartment and unlocked containers therein) for weapons.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
Jones is a Park Ranger with the National Park Service. He sees Smith driving inside a national park. Based on reasonable suspicion that Smith has committed a federal felony (larceny), Jones gives chase and pulls Smith over. Jones directs Smith out of his car and after repeating the direction several times, Smith complies. Smith then is belligerent and argumentative, wanders about, keeps turning his side to Officer Jones and repeatedly reaches into the pocket that Jones can't see even after being told to keep still and keep his hands out of his pocket. Jones then places Smith into handcuffs, frisks him, places Smith into the rear of the police car, and frisks the passenger compartment and trunk for weapons. In the trunk Jones finds drugs in plain view that are offered against Smith at trial. Will the drugs be admissible at trial?
- A.
Yes, because Smith’s actions permitted a frisk of the trunk.
- B.
Yes, because Smith may search a mobile conveyance without PC or a warrant.
- C.
No, because ordering Smith out of the car and handcuffing him was a 4th Amendment violation making the search also illegal.
- D.
No, because Jones could not frisk the trunk under the facts provided.
Correct Answer
D. No, because Jones could not frisk the trunk under the facts provided.Explanation
A frisk of Jones for weapons is permissible because there is RS he is presently armed and dangerous based upon his belligerence, movements, non-compliance, and the way he kept reaching into his pockets and turning away. The vehicle can also be frisked but the trunk cannot. Also, Jones had only RS and there are no facts that give him PC to go into the trunk.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
Two federal officers develop reasonable suspicion that Smith is about to rob the Federal Credit Union. The officers approach Smith, identify themselves as federal officers, and instruct him to place his hands on the wall. One of the officers conducts a frisk of Smith, and, upon touching Smith’s right front pants pocket, discovers what is immediately apparent to him to be crack cocaine. The officer retrieves the cocaine and arrests Smith. At his trial for possession of narcotics, Smith files a motion to suppress all evidence obtained during the frisk. According to the law, this evidence will be:
- A.
Admissible, because the officer discovered the cocaine through the “plain touch” doctrine.
- B.
Admissible, because a frisk for evidence, including narcotics, may always be conducted following a valid Terry stop.
- C.
Suppressed, because a Terry frisk may only be utilized to discover readily accessible weapons that a suspect may use against an officer during an investigatory stop.
- D.
Suppressed, because the officer could not lawfully conduct a frisk of Smith.
Correct Answer
A. Admissible, because the officer discovered the cocaine through the “plain touch” doctrine.Explanation
Three elements must be present before the “plain touch” doctrine will permit evidence to be seized during a Terry frisk: First, the frisk itself must be lawful; second, the incriminating nature of the item must be immediately apparent to the officer; and third, the discovery is limited to the initial touching, without further manipulation. All three elements are present in this scenario.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
Brown is suspected of being involved in a conspiracy to traffic narcotics. Agents learn that Brown has a houseboat docked at a lake 147 miles from his home. While Brown has not been on the boat for more than two years, he has kept up the mooring fees and registration of the vessel. The agents reasonably suspect that evidence of the narcotics conspiracy will be found on the boat. Once the boat is located, three agents board the boat to conduct a search. While no evidence of narcotics trafficking is found, the agents do find evidence of an unrelated murder in the cabin. At his trial for murder, Brown makes a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence found on the boat. According to the law, this evidence will be:
- A.
Admissible, because the warrantless search of a mobile conveyance is an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
- B.
Admissible, because Brown has, through his actions, given up any reasonable expectation of privacy in the boat.
- C.
Inadmissible, because the mobile conveyance exception to the warrant requirement does not apply in this case.
- D.
Inadmissible, because the agents primary motive in searching the boat was to discover evidence of narcotics trafficking.
Correct Answer
C. Inadmissible, because the mobile conveyance exception to the warrant requirement does not apply in this case.Explanation
The mobile conveyance exception to the warrant requirement does not apply in this case because probable cause is not present. The mobile conveyance exception requires both probable cause and ready mobility before a warrantless search can be conducted.Rate this question:
-
- 13.
A federal agent is having dinner in a restaurant located in a federal park (an area of exclusive jurisdiction), when the manager, whom the agent knows, approaches him. The manager states that two young men have just left the restaurant without paying for their dinners (a federal misdemeanor), and asks the agent to arrest them before they can escape. The agent quickly leaves the restaurant and, based upon a detailed physical description given by the manager, is able to locate the two suspects walking down the sidewalk approximately two blocks from the restaurant. To arrest the suspects, an arrest warrant is:
- A.
Required, because the offense did not occur in the agent’s presence.
- B.
Required, because a misdemeanor arrest may never be made in a public place without first obtaining an arrest warrant.
- C.
Not required, because based on the statements from the manager of the restaurant, the agent had probable cause to make the arrest.
- D.
Not required, because a misdemeanor arrest may always be made in a public place without first obtaining an arrest warrant.
Correct Answer
A. Required, because the offense did not occur in the agent’s presence.Explanation
Under federal law, warrantless misdemeanor arrests may be made in a public place if the crime was committed in the presence of the arresting officer. If the crime was not committed in the presence of the arresting officer, an arrest warrant must be obtained.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
Federal agents are investigating Davis for wire and mail fraud. They arrange to interview Davis at his home about the allegations. During the course of the interview, the agents ask Davis if they could search his home office for various documents. When Davis stayed silent, one of the agents responds, "Listen, if you say no, we're going to apply for a search warrant, and, if we get it, we're going to come back and search then." Davis then tells the agents they can search his home office. During the course of the search, documents are discovered linking Davis to the wire and mail fraud allegations. At his trial on these charges, Davis makes a motion to suppress the evidence found during the search of his office, claiming that his consent was not voluntarily given. According to the law, this motion will be:
- A.
Granted, because Davis' consent was not voluntarily given, but was mere submission to the authority of the law enforcement agents.
- B.
Granted, because the agents did not notify Davis that he had the right to refuse to grant consent for the search.
- C.
Denied, because the agent's statement regarding his intent to apply for a search warrant was permissible.
- D.
Denied, because when David stayed silent, probable cause arose to conduct the search either with or without a search warrant.
Correct Answer
C. Denied, because the agent's statement regarding his intent to apply for a search warrant was permissible.Explanation
Submission by the individual to the authority of the law enforcement officer does not constitute consent. Consent is not voluntarily given in response to an officer's statement that the officer has come to search with a warrant when, in fact, there is none, or they will get a warrant if consent is withheld. However, it is permissible for officers truthfully to advise a person that they will apply for a warrant if consent is refused.Rate this question:
-
- 15.
A law enforcement officer has a hunch that Roberts is trafficking narcotics. After observing Roberts speed through a stop sign, the law enforcement officer decided to pull Roberts over for the traffic violation, so that he could try to discover evidence of narcotics in the vehicle. The officer turned on his overhead lights and performed a traffic stop. Once Roberts’ car stopped, the officer approached the car and instructed Roberts to roll down his window. As Roberts did so, the officer was faced with the overwhelming odor of raw marijuana emanating from the car. The officer requested Robert’s identification and registration, and Roberts complied. After checking the identification through dispatch, the officer wrote out a citation, had Roberts sign it, and returned the identification and registration documents to Roberts. Before Roberts could leave, however, the officer ordered him to step out of the vehicle. Roberts complied, and the officer began to search various areas within the car. In the trunk of the vehicle, under the spare wheel, the officer discovered what later turned out to be 10 kilos of marijuana. At his trial, Roberts filed a motion to suppress the evidence because of an illegal search of the vehicle. According to the law, this motion will be:
- A.
Granted, because, while the officer could detain Roberts as long as reasonably necessary to check his identification and issue a warning or citation to him, once those purposes were accomplished, the officer was required to let Roberts go.
- B.
Granted, because the officer’s initial traffic stop was simply a pretext used to investigate for narcotics.
- C.
Denied, because the officer had the ability to perform a Terry frisk for weapons that could have been located in the vehicle.
- D.
Denied, because the marijuana was found during a valid search of the vehicle’s trunk.
Correct Answer
D. Denied, because the marijuana was found during a valid search of the vehicle’s trunk.Explanation
The odor of raw marijuana emanating from the vehicle gave the officer probable cause to search the vehicle without a warrant pursuant to the Carroll doctrine. When performing a Carroll search, an officer may look anywhere within the vehicle where what he is seeking could be hidden, which in this case includes the trunk.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
Federal agents suspect that Martin is dealing in narcotics from his home, a felony offense, but have not been able to obtain enough evidence to justify issuance of a search or arrest warrant. They take up surveillance from various positions around the neighborhood, while an undercover officer approaches the residence in an attempt to buy narcotics. As the agents observe, the undercover officer approaches Martin, who is sitting on his front porch, and engages in a lengthy discussion. When an object is transferred between Martin and the undercover officer, the officer gives the signal that narcotics have been exchanged. The agents, dressed in raid jackets and marked vehicles, descend on the house to arrest Martin for narcotics distribution. As Martin sees the agents approach, he turns, runs directly into his home, and slams the door behind him. One of the agents breaks through the door, and is able to catch Martin as he is trying to run through the kitchen. Martin has a bag of what appears to be cocaine in his hand when he is arrested, and various other drugs are found on a table next to where the arrest occurred. Did the officers violate 18 U.S.C. § 3109 (the Federal "knock and announce" statute)?
- A.
No, because an agent may always make a warrantless entry into a residence to make an arrest, so long as probable cause exists.
- B.
No, because the agents entered the house to make the arrest under exigent circumstances.
- C.
Yes, because the agents did not announce their identity and purpose.
- D.
Yes, because the statute must always be complied with whenever an officer desires to enter a private residence.
Correct Answer
B. No, because the agents entered the house to make the arrest under exigent circumstances.Explanation
Based on the signal provided by the undercover officer, the agents had probable cause to make the arrest. When Martin turned and ran into the residence, the officers were in "hot pursuit." They had probable cause to arrest for a felony, and a general and continuous knowledge (within reason) of the suspect's whereabouts.Rate this question:
-
- 17.
Two federal agents have been investigating Thomas and have reasonable suspicion to believe that he is selling false identification documents out of the trunk of his vehicle. Upon seeing him parked in a public parking lot, they approach him, identify themselves as federal agents, and ask him to place his hands on top of the vehicle. During the frisk that follows, one of the officers feels what he reasonably believes is a handgun. He retrieves the item and confirms that the object is a .22 caliber pistol. Knowing that Thomas was previously convicted of a felony (theft), the agent places him under arrest for being a felon-in-possession. A search of the vehicle incident to the arrest turns up a bag of false identification documents under the back seat of Thomas' vehicle. At his trial on weapons and false identification documents, Thomas makes a motion to suppress all of the evidence recovered by the agents. According to the law:
- A.
The pistol will be admitted, but the false identification documents will be suppressed.
- B.
The pistol will be suppressed, but the false identification documents will be admitted.
- C.
All of the evidence will be admitted.
- D.
None of the evidence will be admitted.
Correct Answer
D. None of the evidence will be admitted.Explanation
All of the evidence would be suppressed. The agents had reasonable suspicion to temporarily detain Thomas for investigation. However, they did not have the right to conduct a frisk on him, in that the offense being investigated is not generally associated with being "armed and dangerous." Because the frisk was impermissible (i.e., the agents did not have reasonable suspicion that Thomas was presently armed and dangerous), the pistol discovered during the frisk would be suppressed. The false identifications would be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal search (i.e., the fruit of an invalid search incident to arrest). Note that even if an SIA was permissible, the scope of a vehicle SIA does not include the trunk.Rate this question:
-
- 18.
Federal agents have an arrest warrant for Moore for failure to appear. At approximately 12:00 a.m. one night, the agents approach Moore's home, reasonably believing that he is inside. As they open the unlocked door and enter, all of the agents clearly announce, "Federal agents!" Immediately inside the door, Moore is found sitting on a sofa in the living room. On coffee table in front of him, the agents see a white powdery substance (later determined to be cocaine), scales, small baggies, and other pieces of drug paraphernalia. Moore is arrested, and is charged with possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. Which of the following statements is correct?
- A.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3109 was NOT violated because it applies only to the execution of search warrants, not arrest warrants.
- B.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3109 was NOT violated because entering through an unlocked door does not qualify as "break[ing] open any outer or inner door" of a house, as required by Title 18 U.S.C. § 3109.
- C.
The agents executed the warrant outside of the time limit prescribed by statute, specifically, between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
- D.
The agents were required to comply with Title 18 U.S.C. § 3109 (knock and announce) and failed to do so.
Correct Answer
D. The agents were required to comply with Title 18 U.S.C. § 3109 (knock and announce) and failed to do so.Explanation
The agents in this case failed to comply with Title 18 U.S.C. § 3109. Specifically, the agents failed to announce their authority and purpose. Merely stating "Federal agents" is insufficient. The agents must also state their purpose (e.g., "Federal agents with a search warrant"). Additionally, the agents in this case impermissibly used force to enter prior to being refused admittance. The term "refused admittance" means that an agent must wait a reasonable length of time before forcing entry, unless exigent circumstances exist.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
Federal agents develop probable cause that Gibson's garage contains a large quantity of counterfeit social security checks. They also have reason to suspect that, earlier in the morning, their confidential informant told Gibson that they were about to apply for a search warrant, and that Gibson indicated he would destroy the evidence after he returns home from an out-of-town visit. The agents approach Gibson's home and are certain he has not yet arrived and no one is at home. After discussing their options, the agents force their way through the garage door and into the home. During the subsequent search, they seize hundreds of counterfeit social security checks. Approximately ninety minutes later, Gibson returns home and is placed under arrest. At his trial, he makes a motion to suppress the evidence discovered during the warrantless search of his home. According to the law, this evidence will be:
- A.
Admitted, because the agents would have inevitably discovered the evidence once they applied for a search warrant.
- B.
Admitted, because the agents entered the home due to exigent circumstances (destruction of evidence).
- C.
Suppressed, because the agents did not have probable cause to arrest Gibson at the time of the search
- D.
Suppressed, because the agents had time to apply for a telephonic warrant
Correct Answer
D. Suppressed, because the agents had time to apply for a telepHonic warrantExplanation
Occasionally, law enforcement officers are confronted with a situation in which they do not have time to obtain a warrant in the traditional manner due to the impending destruction or removal of evidence.
Rule 41(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for a search warrant based on oral testimony, such as communicated by telephone or facsimile machine. This procedure may drastically reduce the time it takes to obtain a search warrant. Thus, if law enforcement officers have time to attempt to secure a telephonic search warrant before the removal or destruction becomes imminent, the officers should attempt to do so.
Failure to attempt to secure a telephonic search warrant, if the opportunity was available, may be considered in an unfavorable manner by a reviewing court.Rate this question:
-
- 20.
Federal agents obtain a valid premises search warrant to look for pornographic materials in Black's home. When the warrant is executed, the agents properly knock, announce their identity and purpose, and demand admittance. Black opens the door and the agents enter. Immediately, the agents notice that four other people are inside the house. One of the individuals is recognized as Black's live-in girlfriend, Courtney. The other three persons are unknown. Without hesitating, the agents order all five people to stand and face the wall, where a frisk is conducted for the safety of the officers. During the frisk of Courtney, one agent discovers what is immediately apparent to him to be crack cocaine. He reaches in, retrieves the item, and confirms that it is cocaine. Courtney is arrested. At her trial for narcotics possession, Courtney makes a motion to suppress the cocaine. According to the law, this motion will be:
- A.
Granted, because, pursuant to the premises search warrant, the agents could not conduct a frisk of Courtney.
- B.
Granted, because, pursuant to the premises search warrant, the agents could only frisk Black, the owner of the property.
- C.
Denied, because the agents had a valid search warrant for the premises, and were allowed to search any occupants of the premises pursuant to that warrant.
- D.
Denied, because the agents had a valid search warrant for the premises, and were allowed to frisk any occupants of the premises pursuant to that warrant.
Correct Answer
A. Granted, because, pursuant to the premises search warrant, the agents could not conduct a frisk of Courtney.Explanation
A premises search warrant does not allow law enforcement officers to either frisk or search persons who may be present on the premises at the time the warrant is executed. Instead, to frisk any individual present during the execution of a premises search warrant, agents need reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual is presently armed and dangerous. There are no facts present to support the belief that the persons in this scenario were either armed or dangerous.Rate this question:
-
- 21.
An undercover officer purchased controlled substances from King yesterday and today a warrant was issued for King’s arrest. Officers spotted King in his usual place in a high crime area where he had been seen selling drugs the day before from his car. King was arrested on the warrant. After arresting King and placing him in handcuffs, the officer had him sit in the back of the officer's vehicle. The officer then returned to King's vehicle and began to search it. Under the front passenger seat, the officer found a bag containing cocaine. Under the back seat, the officer found rolling papers. The officer then opened the trunk of the vehicle and began to search it. Immediately, 6 bricks of marijuana were discovered. At his trial for possession of controlled substances, King makes a motion to suppress all of the evidence found in his vehicle. According to the law:
- A.
The cocaine and rolling papers will be admitted, while the 6 bricks of marijuana will be suppressed.
- B.
The cocaine and rolling papers will be suppressed, while the 6 bricks of marijuana will be admitted.
- C.
All of the evidence is admissible.
- D.
None of the evidence is admissible.
Correct Answer
C. All of the evidence is admissible.Explanation
The cocaine and rolling papers are admissible because they were lawfully found during a valid search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of the vehicle. Based on the recent warrant, the nature of the offenses, and activities observed on the day of arrest, the officers had reasonable to believe that evidence of the crime of arrest (drug sale) was in the vehicle. The bricks of marijuana are also admissible, not because they were found during a valid search incident to arrest of the vehicle, but under the mobile conveyance exception. The discoveries in the passenger compartment established probable cause to search the trunk of the vehicle.Rate this question:
-
- 22.
Law enforcement officers receive notice from their dispatcher that there has been a homicide at a local apartment building. Arriving at the designated apartment, the officers notice that the door to the apartment has what appear to be bullet holes in it, and that the lock on the door is broken. Without first obtaining a search warrant, the officers push open the door and enter the apartment. Inside, they find a deceased male and a female who is unconscious, but appears to have suffered a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest. Emergency personnel are called, and both bodies are removed from the scene of the crime. After securing the apartment, two of the officers begin to process the crime scene looking for evidence. In a trashcan near the kitchen, the officers find a crumpled note. Not sure if it's evidence or not, the officers read the note and discover it was written by the woman. The note indicates that she had killed the man (her husband) because of an illicit affair he was having, and that she was going to kill herself. The woman recovers and is charged with her husband's murder. At her trial, she makes a motion to suppress the note found in the trashcan. According to the law, this evidence will be:
- A.
Admitted, because the officers entered the apartment and conducted the warrantless search pursuant to the emergency scene exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.
- B.
Admitted, because the note was found in plain view during the processing of the homicide scene.
- C.
Suppressed, because the officers were not authorized to enter the apartment without first obtaining a search warrant.
- D.
Suppressed, because the search by the officers was made without either a search warrant or an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement
Correct Answer
D. Suppressed, because the search by the officers was made without either a search warrant or an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirementExplanation
At the time the note was found, the officers were no longer lawfully on the premises. The exigency that justified their warrantless entry no longer existed, because the victim and suspect had been removed from the scene. To continue to search at this point, the officers needed to obtain a warrant.Rate this question:
-
- 23.
Armed with an arrest warrant for Jones for mail fraud and false statements, federal agents approach Jones’ home. Surveillance has indicated that, in the previous 48 hours, no one other than Jones has entered or left the premises. The officers have no additional information that anyone other than Jones is located inside the two- story home. The agents knock on the door, announce their identity and purpose, and demand entry. When the agents hear footsteps running towards the rear of the residence, they use force to enter and make the arrest. Jones is arrested approximately ten feet from the back door of the residence. Two officers fan out to conduct a protective sweep of the home, and in the bathroom located on the second floor, discover marijuana shoved into the toilet tank. At his trial on possession charges, Jones files a motion to suppress the evidence found in the bathroom. According to the law, this motion will be:
- A.
Granted, because the agents had only an arrest warrant, and not a search warrant, they were not authorized to enter Jones’ home.
- B.
Granted, because the marijuana was found during a search that violated the Fourth Amendment.
- C.
Denied, because the agents discovered the marijuana during a lawful protective sweep of the residence.
- D.
Denied, because the arrest warrant authorized the agents to conduct a search of the entire home incident to Jones' arrest.
Correct Answer
B. Granted, because the marijuana was found during a search that violated the Fourth Amendment.Explanation
There were two problems associated with the discovery of the marijuana in the scenario. First, an extended protective sweep requires reasonable suspicion to believe that an individual is in the home that could pose a danger to the agents. No facts exist in this question to justify the extended protective sweep in this case. Second, during a protective sweep, an agent may only look in those locations where a person could be hidden. In this case, looking into the toilet tank exceeded the lawful scope of a protective sweep.Rate this question:
-
- 24.
Howard is arrested on a 6 year old warrant for income tax evasion as he is getting out of his car at his home. Howard has no other criminal history, and there is no reason to suspect that he has engaged in any other instance of income tax evasion or any other crime. As soon as he is handcuffed and his person searched, he is secured in the back of the patrol vehicle. Officers then search the passenger compartment of his car incident to arrest and find 10 ounces of marijuana in one ounce packages, scales, and baggies hidden in the glove compartment. The officers then decide to search the trunk of the car under the mobile conveyance exception and find 50 more ounces of marijuana hidden inside the spare tire. All the above evidence is seized and is offered as evidence at Howard’s trial for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Is the evidence admissible?
- A.
All the evidence is admissible.
- B.
None of the evidence is admissible.
- C.
The evidence found in the passenger compartment is admissible, but not the evidence in the trunk.
- D.
The evidence found in the trunk is admissible but not the evidence found in the passenger compartment because Howard was not an occupant of the vehicle at the time of the arrest.
Correct Answer
B. None of the evidence is admissible.Explanation
The search incident to arrest of Howard’s person was lawful and performed contemporaneous with the arrest. The officers could therefore search his person, and containers on his person, for weapons, means of escape, and any evidence of any crime. The search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment was not lawful. To search the passenger compartment of a vehicle when arresting an occupant or recent occupant, officers must be able to articulate that Howard still had access to the passenger compartment at the time of the search, and that was not the case as Howard was secured in the patrol vehicle. Officers could also perform a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment if they had reason to believe that evidence of the crime of arrest was present. They had no such information. Had the search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment been lawful, the evidence found in the passenger compartment would have established probable cause there was evidence of crime in the trunk, and officers could have used the mobile conveyance exception to search there. Since the evidence found in the passenger compartment was unlawfully discovered, however, it cannot be used to establish probable cause for the mobile conveyance exception.Rate this question:
-
- 25.
Morgan, a convicted felon, lived in a trailer owned by his girlfriend, Jones. Jones, anxious to defend herself against a charge, made by another woman, that she kept drugs at her home, invited two police officers to search the trailer. When the officers came in, Morgan was sitting in the living room. The officers explained to him that Jones had given consent for the search, and they then proceeded to make their search. In the bedroom shared by Jones and Morgan, the officers found a small bag with what appeared to be marijuana residue inside. Jones denied that the bag belonged to her, and told the officers that some of the items in the bedroom belonged to the defendant. On an upper shelf in the bedroom closet, in a jumble of boxes, tins, and bags belonging partly to Jones and partly to Morgan, the officers located a generic, unmarked tin box. In that box, they found what they believed to be a bomb made of dynamite, wires, and .9 mm. shells. During this time, Morgan remained in the living room and offered no objection to the search. Through questioning Jones, it was determined that the tin box belonged to Morgan, not her. Morgan was arrested and charged with being a felon in possession of explosives. At his trial, he made a motion to suppress the evidence found in the tin box. According to the law, the evidence will be:
- A.
Admitted, because Jones had apparent authority to consent to the search of the tin box.
- B.
Admitted, because Jones can consent to the search of any item within her residence, regardless of who the item actually belonged to.
- C.
Suppressed, because Jones did not have actual authority to consent to the search of the tin box.
- D.
Suppressed, because the officers exceeded the scope of the consent given them by Jones when they searched the tin box.
Correct Answer
A. Admitted, because Jones had apparent authority to consent to the search of the tin box.Explanation
As the owner of the trailer, Jones freely gave consent to the search of the trailer, including the bedroom. The tin box was not identified in any way as belonging to Morgan, nor did Morgan attempt to limit Jones’ consent to her own personal property. It was reasonable, then, for the officers to think that the tin box was within the consent that Jones had given. It was also reasonable for the officers to think that Jones had authority not only over the premises, but also over all of their contents not obviously belonging to someone else.Rate this question:
-
- 26.
After being issued a traffic citation, Morris decided to contest the ticket in court. On the day of his hearing, he approached the courthouse door and discovered that a magnetometer had been installed, with two security guards on either side of the device. As Morris got to the doorway, he was instructed by one of the guards that GSA regulations provided that anyone entering the courthouse would need to have their belongings searched and would need to step through the magnetometer. The purpose of these searches was to look for explosives or dangerous weapons. Morris refused to place his briefcase on the conveyor belt, stating that, because he had done nothing wrong, he did not feel it was proper to force him to endure this type of treatment. When notified that he would not be permitted to carry the briefcase into the courthouse without allowing the inspection, Morris grudgingly consented. When the briefcase was opened, one of the guards discovered a small bag containing marijuana in a side pocket. Was there a Fourth Amendment violation?
- A.
Yes, because the guards had no probable cause to believe that Morris had any explosives or dangerous weapons in his briefcase.
- B.
Yes, because the guards did not obtain a search warrant prior to searching Morris’ briefcase for any explosives or dangerous weapons
- C.
No, because the fact Morris was appearing at the courthouse gave the security guards reasonable suspicion to frisk his belongings prior to allowing him to enter
- D.
No, because the search was validly conducted pursuant to GSA regulations and in compliance with the Fourth Amendment.
Correct Answer
D. No, because the search was validly conducted pursuant to GSA regulations and in compliance with the Fourth Amendment.Explanation
“Administrative inspections,” though warrantless, are permissible under the 4th Amendment. A limited warrantless search of people (and their belongings) wishing to enter sensitive facilities is permitted if the search is part of a general practice (i.e., a regulation authorizing the inspection exists) and not for the purpose of securing evidence for criminal investigations. Both of those requirements are met in this case.Rate this question:
-
- 27.
Based on their investigation, federal agents obtained a search warrant to search Smith’s residence. The search warrant did not specifically list any vehicles to be searched, but rather authorized the search of the entire premises for methamphetamine. On the day the search was conducted, Smith’s vehicle was parked in the driveway of his residence. During the course of the search, agents discovered numerous items of evidence, including a briefcase containing a vast quantity of methamphetamine. The agents then decided to search the vehicle, although they weren’t sure any evidence was inside it. Inside the trunk of the vehicle, several kilos of cocaine were found. At his trial for drug trafficking, Smith made a motion to suppress the cocaine found in the vehicle’s trunk. Did the agents violate the Fourth Amendment?
- A.
No, because it was found during the lawful execution of a premises search warrant.
- B.
No, because the vehicle was searched pursuant to the "mobile conveyance" exception to the warrant requirement.
- C.
Yes, because the agents exceeded the lawful scope of the premises search warrant by searching the vehicle that was not listed in the warrant.
- D.
Yes, because the agents did not have probable cause to believe that evidence of drug trafficking was located in the vehicle.
Correct Answer
A. No, because it was found during the lawful execution of a premises search warrant.Explanation
A search warrant authorizing a search of a certain premises includes any vehicles owned or controlled by the owner of the premises searched and located within its curtilage if the objects of the search might be located in those vehicles. In essence, the vehicle is treated as if it were part of the premises covered by the warrant. It should be remembered, however, that if the owner of the premises has a vehicle that is parked off the curtilage, it cannot be searched pursuant to the premises search warrant.Rate this question:
-
- 28.
Federal agents obtained an arrest warrant for Smith for bank fraud. Agents determine that Smith is single, lives alone, and is the only one at his residence. Agents lawfully enter Smith's house. They find Smith standing in the first floor entryway. Agent Brown does a protective sweep of the entryway coat closet and sees a shotgun as he opens the closet door. He seizes the shotgun knowing that Smith is a previously convicted felon and possession of a firearm by him is a federal offense. Agent Rogers does a protective sweep of the back, second floor bedroom and sees and seizes a stack of child pornographic magazines lying openly on top of the bed. Concerning the admissibility of the evidence seized:
- A.
Both the shotgun and the magazines are admissible.
- B.
Neither the shotgun nor the magazines are admissible.
- C.
The magazines are admissible. The shotgun is not.
- D.
The shotgun is admissible; the magazines are not.
Correct Answer
D. The shotgun is admissible; the magazines are not.Explanation
The search incident to arrest permits looking into the entry way closet because it was in an area immediately adjacent to the place of arrest and could conceal a person. The shotgun was lawfully seized in plain view. (Lawful presence, immediately apparent it was evidence of a crime, and lawful right to access.) The scope of the search incident to arrest was exceeded upstairs because there was no reasonable suspicion anyone was upstairs. Since the scope of the sweep was exceeded, the agent was not lawfully present in the bedroom making the plain view doctrine inapplicable.Rate this question:
-
- 29.
Federal agents are conducting a surveillance of Johnson's house based on information that the house is being used to process and package cocaine. Agents standing on the public sidewalk look into Johnson's open living room window that is only 5 feet away. On the table in front of the window, agents see scales and bundles of what they immediately recognize as packaged cocaine. Agents knock on the door, Johnson answers, and the agents push their way in - without consent - and seize the cocaine. Concerning the admissibility of the evidence seized:
- A.
The cocaine is admissible because it was seen in plain view from a public place.
- B.
The cocaine is admissible because it was seized in plain view once agents entered the house.
- C.
The cocaine is inadmissible because the plain view doctrine does not apply to the seizure of the cocaine under the facts presented.
- D.
The cocaine is inadmissible because the "discovery" of the drugs was not inadvertent - the agents knew it was there before they entered the house.
Correct Answer
C. The cocaine is inadmissible because the plain view doctrine does not apply to the seizure of the cocaine under the facts presented.Explanation
Though the agents were lawfully present when they saw the cocaine, and immediately recognized it as contraband, they had to have a lawful right to access the drugs to lawfully seize it. The information they obtained from the surveillance, however, could have been lawfully used to obtain a search warrant.Rate this question:
-
- 30.
Federal agents have been trying for weeks to catch Williams, who they have a hunch is manufacturing false identification cards. Frustrated with their lack of progress and the fact that Williams "is getting away with a crime," agents walk up the sidewalk to Williams' front door, knock, and identify themselves as agents. Pursuant to the agents' request to come in and talk, Williams admits the agents into the house, where they gather in the living room. One of the agents looks down on the floor and beside his foot is what he immediately recognizes as a marijuana cigarette. The agent retrieves the marijuana, signals the other agents to leave, and all the agents depart without arresting Williams. Concerning the admissibility of the cigarette the agent seized:
- A.
It is admissible because it was seized pursuant to the plain view doctrine.
- B.
It is admissible because the agents had consent to search the house
- C.
It is inadmissible because the agents were in the house to discuss false identification documents, not a drug offense.
- D.
It is inadmissible because the agents did not arrest Williams when they found the cigarette
Correct Answer
A. It is admissible because it was seized pursuant to the plain view doctrine.Explanation
The agents were granted consent to enter the house. They were lawfully present in the living room when an agent saw the cigarette on the floor. The requirements of the plain view doctrine were met: lawful presence, immediately apparent the item was evidence of a crime or contraband, and a lawful right to access the evidence.Rate this question:
-
- 31.
Park Police officers see Ralston driving his car at an excessive speed on a park highway. Ralston is stopped for speeding and, during the investigation, the officers develop probable cause Ralston is driving while intoxicated. Ralston is arrested for that offense and his vehicle is towed to a secure, Park Police impoundment area. Pursuant to Park Police standardized policy to inventory all impounded vehicles within 24 hours, the officers inventory Ralston's car the next day. In the trunk they find a suitcase. They open the suitcase and discover a stash of counterfeit US currency. Concerning the admissibility of the currency in a court of law:
- A.
It is admissible because Ralston had been arrested, and this search incident to arrest permitted searching the suitcase.
- B.
It is admissible because the agents lawfully opened the suitcase.
- C.
It is inadmissible because the opening of the suitcase was not contemporaneous with the arrest.
- D.
It is inadmissible because the suitcase had nothing to do with the offense for which Ralston was arrested.
Correct Answer
B. It is admissible because the agents lawfully opened the suitcase.Explanation
This was a lawful inventory because there was a standardized policy. The officers did not exceed the scope of an inventory because the suitcase is a place where a person ordinarily stores personal property. Had the officers found the currency by cutting open a spare tire, for example, they would have exceeded the scope of the inventory because one does not ordinarily store personal property there.Rate this question:
-
- 32.
There is probable cause to arrest Jones for felony assault, but a warrant has not yet been issued. Officers call Jones at his home, verify that Jones is home, knock at the front door, announce their identity and purpose, and demand entry. While waiting for a reply, officers on the public street see what they immediately recognize to be a marijuana plant in the living room window. The officers receive no reply, so they force open the door and arrest Jones inside the house. During the protective sweep, they seize the plant they saw in the window. Concerning the admissibility of the marijuana plant at Jones's trial for possession of marijuana:
- A.
It is admissible because it was in open view from a public area and subject to seizure under the plain view doctrine.
- B.
It is admissible because the officers had probable cause to arrest, and they lawfully entered the house under hot pursuit.
- C.
It is not admissible because the protective sweep was unlawful.
- D.
It is not admissible because a protective sweep is limited to looking for people.
Correct Answer
C. It is not admissible because the protective sweep was unlawful.Explanation
There was no arrest warrant and no authority (consent or hot pursuit) to enter Jones' house. This makes the protective sweep unlawful, and the fruits of the sweep will be suppressed. Though the officers saw the plant in open view from a public place, the facts provide no lawful right of access to the plant.Because the entry was unlawful, the protective sweep was also unlawful. The officers were not lawfully present, making the plain view doctrine inapplicableRate this question:
-
- 33.
While on patrol, Sue ran up to Officer Smith. She looked battered and bruised. Sue pointed to a man approximately 20 feet away and said: "Help me officer, that man just attacked me!" Officer Smith then arrested the man, later identified at Johnson. Several weeks later, Sue admitted she had lied about being attacked by Johnson because she wanted attention. As a result, the charges against Johnson were dropped. Can Officer Smith be successfully sued for arresting Johnson?
- A.
Yes, because Officer Smith did not have probable cause to arrest Johnson.
- B.
Yes, since Johnson was not convicted.
- C.
No, because the information provided by Sue was probable cause to arrest Johnson.
- D.
No, because law enforcement officers are absolutely immune from being sued for any arrest they make.
Correct Answer
C. No, because the information provided by Sue was probable cause to arrest Johnson.Explanation
Sue’s statements provided probable cause to arrest. Officer Smith did nothing wrong in this case.Rate this question:
-
- 34.
Two state police officers beat a handcuffed prisoner until he identified his drug supplier. The prisoner sued the officers. The lawsuit is legally recognized under
- A.
The Federal Tort Claims Act
- B.
The Good Samaritan Act
- C.
Bivens
- D.
42 U.S.C. 1983
Correct Answer
D. 42 U.S.C. 1983Explanation
This statute authorizes civil lawsuits against state and local officials who violate federally protected rights.Rate this question:
-
- 35.
Two federal agents illegally search Smith’s house. The agents know they are conducting an illegal search, but they hope they will not get caught. Smith learns of the illegal search and sues the two federal agents. This lawsuit is legally recognized under:
- A.
The Federal Tort Claims Act
- B.
The Good Samaritan Act
- C.
Bivens
- D.
42 U.S.C. 1983
Correct Answer
C. BivensExplanation
This case authorizes lawsuits against federal agents who intentionally violate an individual’s 4th, 5th or 8th amendment rights.Rate this question:
-
- 36.
In a Bivens action, a plaintiff must allege which of the following elements:
- A.
A federal law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting as a private citizen.
- B.
A federal law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting under color of law.
- C.
A state law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting as a private citizen.
- D.
A state law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting under color of law.
Correct Answer
B. A federal law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting under color of law.Explanation
In a Bivens action, the plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) A violation of a Constitutional right, and, (2) by a person acting under color of federal law.Rate this question:
-
- 37.
Smith was a federal agent who was authorized to drive a government vehicle 24 hours a day because of his duties. On his day off, he spotted some geese at his house that had been digging up his fancy landscaping. Attempting to scare the geese away from his lawn, he started his government vehicle and flashed his lights and siren. In his excitement, he accidentally put the car in drive and ran over his neighbor’s mailbox. The neighbor can bring a successful lawsuit against which of the following:
- A.
Smith personally under Bivens
- B.
The U.S. Government under the FTCA
- C.
The U.S. Government under 42 U.S.C. 1983
- D.
Smith personally for negligence
Correct Answer
D. Smith personally for negligenceExplanation
Since Smith was negligent, and not acting within the scope of his employment, the neighbor can file suit against Smith personally in state court.Rate this question:
-
- 38.
Federal Officer Jones was driving his government car on the way to interview a witness to a crime under investigation. Jones became distracted, and ran into the back of Smith’s car, causing $5000 worth of damage. In order to collect for his damages, 1) who should Smith sue, 2) in what court, and 3) who will pay the damages?
- A.
Smith should sue Jones in Federal court, and if Smith wins, Jones will pay the judgment.
- B.
Smith should sue Jones in Federal Court, but if the Smith wins, the United States will pay the judgment.
- C.
Smith should sue the United States in State court, and if Smith wins, the United States will pay the judgment.
- D.
Smith should sue the United States in Federal court, and if Smith wins, the United States will pay the judgment.
Correct Answer
D. Smith should sue the United States in Federal court, and if Smith wins, the United States will pay the judgment.Explanation
A federal employee acting in the scope of his employment is protected under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Therefore, if an employee injures someone while acting in the scope of their employment (meaning acting on behalf of the United States), the United States is the proper defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Federal Tort Claims Act also requires that the case will be tried in Federal District Court without a jury. The judge will decide if the United States is liable, and if so, for what amount.
Additionally, there is a two year statute of limitations.Rate this question:
-
- 39.
Officer Smith is watching Officer Jackson interview a prisoner. Convinced that the prisoner is lying to him, Officer Jackson hit and kicked the prisoner several times. Since this beating lasted several minutes, Officer Smith could have intervened and stopped the beating. However, Officer Smith decided to "mind his own business" and not get involved. The prisoner later sued both Officer Jackson and Officer Smith for the beating. Does Officer Smith have a valid defense to this lawsuit?
- A.
Yes, the Federal Tort Claims Act
- B.
Yes, qualified immunity
- C.
No, law enforcement officers can be sued whenever they fail to stop a crime
- D.
No, because he stood by while another officer violated the rights of an individual
Correct Answer
D. No, because he stood by while another officer violated the rights of an individualExplanation
When a fellow officer is violating someone’s civil rights, an officer has a duty to try and intervene.Rate this question:
-
- 40.
A tort is a type of lawsuit where
- A.
The government prosecutes a citizen for a crime in the name of the government.
- B.
The government sues a citizen for having committed a crime.
- C.
A citizen sues another citizen for damages as a result of a negligent or intentional act.
- D.
A citizen prosecutes another citizen for damages as a result of a negligent or intentional act.
Correct Answer
C. A citizen sues another citizen for damages as a result of a negligent or intentional act.Explanation
This is the definition of a tort actionRate this question:
-
- 41.
Johnson is charged for failing to file income taxes. Prior to trial, Johnson makes a motion to dismiss the charge on the grounds that the indictment does not accuse him of actually performing an illegal act. Johnson’s motion should be:
- A.
Granted, because all crimes require, at the minimum a physical act by a defendant that is illegal.
- B.
Granted, because all crimes require specific intent to commit the crime.
- C.
Denied, because a crime can be based on a failure to act.
- D.
Denied, because a federal indictment can be based on unwritten law.
Correct Answer
C. Denied, because a crime can be based on a failure to act.Explanation
The law can place an affirmative duty on an individual to perform certain acts, such as the payment of taxes or providing care to a dependent child; failure to comply with the statute is a crime.Rate this question:
-
- 42.
A statute says it is a felony to possess 5 or more false identification documents knowing that the false identification documents were produced without lawful authority. The facts elicited at trial reflect that the defendant only possessed 4 false identification documents that the defendant knew were produced without lawful authority. What offense has the defendant committed?
- A.
A misdemeanor, because it takes 5 or more documents to make the offense a felony.
- B.
A felony, because the defendant knew the documents were produced without lawful authority.
- C.
No offense under this statute.
- D.
A misdemeanor, because although he did not possess 5false documents, he knew the 4 he did possess were obtained without lawful authority.
Correct Answer
C. No offense under this statute.Explanation
Unless the government can prove the elements of the offense (i.e., that the defendant possessed 5 or more false identification documents knowing that the false documents were produced without lawful authority), no offense has been committed.Rate this question:
-
- 43.
John, a college student, became psychologically depressed. He leaves school to participate in a voluntary in-patient mental health counseling, where he is treated with Thoramaxaphilisophazine, a fairly new addition to the controlled substances act. While being treated, John tried to enlist in the Army, but was rejected because he was using Thoramaxaphilisophazine, prescribed by a doctor. Thoramaxaphilisophazine is a controlled substance used to treat depression. On his way home from one of his counseling sessions, John was stopped for a traffic violation. Officers lawfully obtained his consent and searched his car. They found a firearm properly stored in the trunk pursuant to law. John told the police it was his pistol. Based on these facts is John allowed under federal law to possess the firearm?
- A.
John is not allowed to possess the firearm, because he was in an in-patient mental health counseling program.
- B.
John is not allowed to possess the firearm, because he was treated with Thoramaxaphilisophazine, a controlled substance.
- C.
John is not allowed to possess the firearm, because he was rejected for enlistment in the Army because of his drug treatment for depression.
- D.
John is allowed to possess firearm.
Correct Answer
D. John is allowed to possess firearm.Explanation
There are no statutory prohibitions identified in these facts what would prohibit John from possessing a firearm. It is the illegal consumption of controlled substances or addiction to controlled substance that is prohibited by statute.Rate this question:
-
- 44.
Which of the following cannot, under any circumstances, be a firearms violation under the Gun Control Act?
- A.
Possession of a firearm by an illegal alien.
- B.
Possession of a firearm by a felon, who has a pardon for his felony conviction.
- C.
Possession of a firearm by someone with a state two year DUI misdemeanor conviction.
- D.
Possession of a firearm by someone who is using cocaine.
Correct Answer
C. Possession of a firearm by someone with a state two year DUI misdemeanor conviction.Explanation
A two misdemeanor DUI conviction under state law is a misdemeanor under federal law. This cannot be a firearms violation under the Gun Control Act.Rate this question:
-
- 45.
What information is required to trace a firearm?
- A.
Retailer, model date of purchase and serial number.
- B.
Manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer & first retail purchaser
- C.
Serial number, model, caliber / gauge, manufacturer.
- D.
Manufacturer, serial number, retailer, date of purchase
Correct Answer
C. Serial number, model, caliber / gauge, manufacturer.Explanation
firearms trace requires: manufacturer, model, serial number, caliber/gauge.Rate this question:
-
- 46.
Pursuant to federal statute, what items are illegal to possess in a federal facility?
- A.
A knife with a blade under 2 ½ inches long.
- B.
A knife that has a blade that is 2 inches long
- C.
Knife that has a blade that is 2 ¼ inches long.
- D.
A knife that has a blade that is 2 1/2 inches long.
Correct Answer
D. A knife that has a blade that is 2 1/2 inches long.Explanation
A knife blade that is 2 1/2 inches long or longer is in violation of the statute.Rate this question:
-
- 47.
Pursuant to a federal firearm statute, which of the following firearms must be registered and a tax paid?
- A.
A rifle that has a barrel length of exactly 16 inches
- B.
A shotgun that has a barrel length of 18 ¼ inches.
- C.
A rifle that has an overall length of 26 ½ inches.
- D.
A machine gun with a barrel length that is exactly 16 inches
Correct Answer
D. A machine gun with a barrel length that is exactly 16 inchesExplanation
All machine guns regardless of barrel length must be registered and a tax paid.Rate this question:
-
- 48.
Frank, the Federal Agent, while TDY, parks his unmarked federal government vehicle outside Denny’s Restaurant while he stops for breakfast. He leaves the keys in the ignition. While Frank is inside, Tom steals the vehicle so that he can sell it to a stolen car ring. Tom did not know it was a federal government vehicle when he took it. Based on these facts, should Tom be charged with violating 18 USC §641?
- A.
Yes. Tom could be charged with conversion of government property under 18 USC § 641.
- B.
No. Tom could not be charged under 18 USC § 641, because he did not know it was a federal government vehicle.
- C.
Yes. Tom could be charged with theft of government property under 18 USC § 641
- D.
No. Tom could not be charged with any form of theft, because Frank consented to Tom’s taking the vehicle by leaving the keys in the vehicle
Correct Answer
C. Yes. Tom could be charged with theft of government property under 18 USC § 641Explanation
Tom took federal government property with the intent to permanently deprive the government of the property.Rate this question:
-
- 49.
Tom takes Frank’s Fed car to his friend John who operates an illegal chop-shop. John has received cars from Tom in the past and likes dealing with him because Tom always brings him newer model cars. John’s garage is raided by the police and Frank’s car is discovered on the premises in various stages of "chopping." Under 18 U.S.C. §641 John should be charged with:
- A.
Theft of stolen government property.
- B.
Embezzlement of government property.
- C.
Receiving stolen government property.
- D.
Operating an illegal chop-shop
Correct Answer
C. Receiving stolen government property.Explanation
The government does not have to prove John knew it was government property, just that it was stolen property that belonged to the federal government.Rate this question:
-
- 50.
Instead of taking Frank’s car to the chop-shop, Tom takes Frank’s car to Bill’s garage to get an oil change. Bill runs a reputable oil change business out of his garage. He has no idea who Tom is. However, the police see Frank’s car and recognize it as the one stolen from Frank the Federal Agent the previous day. Under 18 U.S.C. §641, John should be charged with:
- A.
Possession of stolen government property.
- B.
Embezzlement of government property.
- C.
Conversion of government property.
- D.
Nothing
Correct Answer
D. NothingExplanation
There is no offense – Bill had no knowledge that the vehicle was stolen.Rate this question:
-
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Mar 22, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
May 06, 2017Quiz Created by
Moulton61
Back to top