Crim Civ / Wolman
Criminal Procedure Practice Questions
November 5, 2015
1. Which of the following is the truest statement of the Chimel decision?
a. Police officers may search the “wingspan” of an arrestee because when officers
arrest someone, they have probable cause to search that person.
b. Police officers may search the “wingspan” of an arrestee because of a concern for
officer safety and the potential destruction of evidence.
c. Police officers may search the “wingspan” of an arrestee only when officers have
probable cause and a warrant to do the search.
d. Police officers must have probable cause in order to search the “wingspan” of an
arrestee; however, they do not need a warrant for the search.
2. Police officers need an arrest warrant based on probable cause if they arrest a suspect:
a. In a house
b. In a car
c. On the street
d. All of the above.
3. Chimel should be seen as:
a. Pro-order, because the Court held that police officers do not need probable cause
and a warrant to do a “wingspan” search.
b. Pro-liberty, because the Court limited the Rabinowitz holding, which would have
allowed the police to search the entire house after making an arrest in the front
hallway.
Questions 4-5 are based on the following facts:
Pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, Defendant was arrested in a public place for the murder of his
wife. Before putting him in the police car, the police searched Defendant’s entire person and
found one ounce of heroin, which he had concealed in a flat plastic envelope under his belt.
4. At defendant’s motion to suppress the heroin, the court should rule that:
a. The search was invalid, since the police did not have a search warrant;
b. The search was invalid, since incident to a lawful arrest the police may only
search a suspect’s person for weapons or evidence of the crime.
c. The search was valid, since Defendant’s arrest was proper.
d. The search was valid, because evidence of a crime was, in fact, discovered.
5. Assume that, in the above situation, the police arrested Defendant without a warrant,
although they had (1) time to obtain one, and (2) probable cause to believe Defendant
was his wife’s murderer. In challenging the validity of his arrest and the heroin found on
his person, the Defendant will:
a. Succeed, because an arrest without a warrant is an unreasonable seizure under the
Fourth Amendment
b. Succeed, because the police must always obtain a warrant if there is sufficient
time to do so.
c. Fail, because the police had probable cause to make the arrest.
d. Fail, because even without probable cause, the subsequent discovery of heroin
would have been sufficient justification for the arrest.
Question 6 is based on the following facts:
Informant was known to be reliable. He had given information to Officer Robbins on several
occasions. Informant told Officer Robins that (1) he had talked to Suspect Manny a few minutes
before; and (2) there was a bulge in the pocket of his suit, which he said probably indicated that
Manny was carrying an illegally concealed weapon. Officer Robbins approached Manny (who
was seated in his car) and asked, “Can I see some ID please?” Manny shrugged and began to
reach toward his pocket, saying, “I’ll show you my license.” Officer Robbins grabbed Manny’s
hand and held it. Officer Robbins then patted the outside of the pocket, felt what he reasonably
concluded was a gun, reached into Manny’s pocket, and pulled out what was indeed a gun.
Officer Robbins then arrested Manny. Manny was prosecuted for concealing an illegal weapon
(a misdemeanor).
6. If Manny moves to suppress (exclude) the gun, his motion should be:
a. Granted, because the weapon was the product of an unlawful detention.
b. Granted, because Officer Robbins had failed to obtain a warrant.
c. Denied, because there was a valid detention and frisk.
d. Denied, because Officer Robbins had probable cause to believe Manny was
engaged in criminal activity.
7. Which of the following best states the Supreme Court’s definition of a 4th Amendment
search in Katz?
a. A suspect has been searched when the police are using extra-sensory tools (like
drug dogs or wiretaps) to uncover evidence of a crime.
b. A suspect has been searched when he or she has a reasonable expectation of
privacy.
c. A suspect has been searched when he or she seeks privacy, regardless of whether
the expectation of privacy is objectively reasonable.
d. A suspect has been searched only when police physically intrude upon a private
space.
8. Which of the following best states the Supreme Court’s per se Fourth Amendment rule
for “reasonableness?”
a. A search is reasonable if it is based on probable cause.
b. A search is reasonable if it is based on probable cause and a warrant.
c. A search is unreasonable if it is based on probable cause.
d. A search is unreasonable if it is based on probable cause and a warrant.
9. Probable cause is best defined as:
a. When an officer has 100% certainty that evidence will be in a certain place.
b. When an officer has a high percentage of certainty that evidence will be in a
certain place.
c. When an officer has at least 51% certainty that evidence will be in a certain place.
d. When an officer has at least a good hunch that evidence will be in a certain place.
10. An “exigency” is a(n):
a. Exit strategy
b. Emergency
c. Signature on a warrant
d. Warrant-issuing judge
11. Police officers have probable cause but no warrant that Lauren has stolen merchandise in
her car. They pull her over and search the car for the merchandise. They find nothing.
After Acevedo, the search is:
a. Constitutional because it was based on probable cause.
b. Constitutional, but only if the police avoid opening any closed packages in the
car.
c. Unconstitutional, because the police did not follow the warrant rule.
d. Unconstitutional because the police officers found no evidence.
e. Constitutional because the search of the car was not even a 4th Amendment search
after Katz.
12. Coercion means:
a. Force
b. Compliance
c. Incarceration
d. Superlegislation
e. Dissention
13. According to the Schneckloth opinion, consent searches are valid when they are
voluntary. What rule does the court use for determining “voluntariness?”
a. A search is voluntary only when the suspect knows that he or she has the right to
say no to a search, but still says yes.
b. A search is voluntary when, based on the totality of the circumstances, there is no
evidence that police used force to get the suspect to say “yes.”
c. A search is voluntary if there is no evidence of bruising or bleeding on the
suspect.
d. Anytime a suspect says “yes” to a search, that consent is considered voluntary
because people always know that they can say no.
14. True or false: According to the Court in Terry v. Ohio, a “stop and frisk” is a 4th
Amendment “search and seizure.”
a. True – and therefore police stops are required to abide by the 4th Amendment.
b. False – and therefore there is no 4th Amendment protection against police stops.
15. Officer Deevine receives a phone call from an anonymous, seemingly drunken informant
that Patty just robbed a bank. He goes to a magistrate and gives the magistrate this
information, upon which the magistrate issues an arrest warrant for Patty. Deevine goes
to Patty’s home, arrests her pursuant to the arrest warrant, and performs a SILA search,
finding stolen bills in her wallet in her back pocket. Valid search?
a. The search is a valid S.I.L.A. search because the police officer had a warrant from
a magistrate.
b. The search is a valid S.I.L.A. search even without a warrant, because police
officers only need probable cause to make arrests.
c. The search is invalid because the arrest warrant was not actually based on
probable cause, which the 4th Amendment requires.
d. The search is invalid because the wallet was outside of Patty’s “wingspan.”
16. True or false: If police officers have probable cause to arrest a suspect for a crime, they
therefore have probable cause to search that suspect for criminality.
a. True
b. False
17. S.I.L.A stands for:
a. Searching Is Lawful Always
b. Searching that Involved Legal Analysis
c. A Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest
d. A Search Intended for a Lawsuit or Arrest
e. A Search Involving a Lack of Authority
18. In Vernonia, the Supreme Court held that:
a. suspicionless drug testing in public schools is constitutional because there is
always probable cause that students have drugs in their system.
b. Suspicionless drug testing in puclic schools is unconstitutional – school officials
must have at least reasonable suspicion that a student has drugs before performing
a drug test on the student.
c. Suspicionless drug testing in public schools is unconstitutional because it does not
follow the per se rule that searches are reasonable only when based on probable
cause and a warrant.
d. Suspicionless drug testing of athletes in public schools is constitutional because
the need to search outweighs the invasiveness of a drug test.
19. Jordan has a great job with a private insurance company he really likes. The only
problem is that one day, without any warning, his employer read all of Jordan’s and the
other employees’ emails. The employer did not find any evidence of criminality in the
emails, but the employees felt really violated after the incident. Jordan took action. He
filed a civil rights lawsuit against the company claiming that the practice constituted a 4th
Amendment violation. Should he win?
a. Yes, because he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his emails, and the
company did not obtain a warrant to search through them.
b. No, because Jordan did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his emails.
c. No, because the 4th Amendment does not protect the employees from their private
employer.
d. No, unless the employer planned to share any criminal discoveries with law
enforcement officials.
20. A drug dog sniffed Paige’s purse and alerted (barked) immediately. Which of the
following best describes the situation?
a. Paige has been searched, because a dog’s sniff is essentially a sensoryenhancement tool used by police officers, so it was as if an officer sniffed Paige’s
bag.
b. Paige was not searched, because there was no physical intrusion into her purse.
c. Paige was not searched, because a drug dog’s nose is theoretically perfect, and so
it can only sniff out criminality.
d. Paige was searched, but she does not get any 4th Amendment protection because
the search was performed by an animal rather than a human.