Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion-1

.pdf

School

Georgia State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3415

Subject

Law

Date

May 6, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by queennile9

14 1+ FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion 21. Police received a tip that a bartender was selling cocaine from the bar where he worked. According to the tip, the bartender received his drugs from a woman who lived in a neighboring town and the two met weekly at a local diner to exchange cash for cocaine. The tipster also ex- plained that the bartender kept his cocaine sup- ply in an empty cocktail shaker behind the bar. An officer placed the bartender and the woman under surveillance; over the course of three weeks, he saw the two meet three times for breakfast at a local diner. Each time, the two sat at the same table and ordered the same food. As the bartender was driving away from the third breakfast, the officer pulled him over and searched his car. In the glove box, the of- ficer found a large plastic bag with cocaine in- side. The bartender was charged with cocaine pos- session and filed a motion to suppress the co- caine seized from his car. The prosecutor defended the search, arguing that it was rea- sonable under the automobile exception. How should the court rule? A] The motion should be granted because the officer did not have probable cause to be- lieve that any cocaine would be found in the bartender’s car. B. The motion should be granted because the officer failed to corroborate the claim that the bartender kept the cocaine in an empty cocktail shaker behind the bar, C. The motion should be denied because the officer conducted a thorough investigation and the suspected cocaine was found in the car. D. The motion should be denied because the officer had probable cause to believe that the bartender had just purchased cocaine from the woman. 22. A police officer pulled a driver over for speeding and wrote him a ticket. As the officer handed the driver the ticket, she requested per- mission to search the car and the driver agreed. After the driver and his two passengers—one sitting in the front seat and one sitting in the back—got out of the car, the officer searched the car and found a small baggie of cocaine under the armrest in the back seat. The officer confronted the driver and the two passengers with the cocaine and asked who owned the drugs, but the three men stayed silent. The of- ficer arrested all three men for possession of cocaine. Later, at the police station, the front seat passenger admitted that the cocaine was his. The officer then released the driver and the other passenger. Later, the district attorney filed cocaine possession charges against the front seat passenger. If the front seat passenger files a motion to suppress his statement, how should the court rule on the motion? A. The motion should be granted because the officer lacked probable cause to arrest the front seat passenger and the statement was a fruit of that unlawful arrest. B. The motion should be granted because the cocaine most likely belonged to the back seat passenger and so the officer only had probable cause to arrest him. The motion should be denied because the officer had probable cause to arrest any or all three of the men riding together in the car. D. The motion should be denied because the front seat passenger voluntarily admitted that the cocaine was his.

23, Two police officers stopped a driver for speeding. The first officer asked the driver for her license and registration; he noticed that the driver’s hands were shaking as she removed her license from her wallet and the vehicle reg- istration from the glove compartment. The first officer also saw that the driver had a card- board air freshener dangling from the rear view mirror and that it was stamped with a drawing of a marijuana leaf. ' While this was happening, the second offi- cer walked a drug-sniffing dog around the ex- terior of the driver’s car. The dog alerted at the trunk, signaling to the second officer that he smelled an odor he had been trained to asso- ciate with marijuana. At the suppression hearing, the defense attor- ney established that the dog only had a 60% accuracy rate and falsely alerted the remainder of the time. What is the prosecutor’s strongest argument in response? A. Regardless of the dog’s accuracy rate, the driver’s nervous behavior and the mari- juana-leaf air freshener gave the officer probable cause to search the car. All the circumstances together —the dri- ver’s nervous behavior, the air freshener, and the dog’s alert—gave the officers probable cause to search the car. C. The dog’s accuracy rate shows that he is correct more often than not, which gave the officer probable cause to search the car. D. The driver does not have standing to chal- lenge the dogs history of false alerts in un- related cases that didn’t involve her. s MEITTRME O e | 1 - FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS 15 24. Police received an anonymous call from a woman who identified herself as an “inter- ested party” and who claimed that the social studies teacher at the local high school was having an affair with one of his underage stu- dents. The caller alleged that the affair had been going on for several months and that the teacher had been in sexual relationships with other underage students in the past. An officer placed the teacher under surveil- lance. The very next day, she saw the teacher pick the student up at her house and take her to school; at the end of the day, the teacher drove the student home. After the teacher had driven a few blocks from the student’s home, the officer pulled him over and arrested him for statutory rape. The prosecutor filed charges against the teacher two days later. If the teacher later challenges his arrest, what is his strongest argument in support? A. The officer never investigated the anony- mous caller’s claimed “interest” in this sit- uation, so she did not have probable cause to arrest the teacher. B. The officer failed to identify the anony- mous caller’s identity and knew nothing about her credibility, so she did not have probable cause to arrest the teacher. C. The officer never investigated the anony- mous caller’s claims about the teacher’s past conduct, so she did not have probable cause to arrest the teacher. D.] The information from the tip, coupled with the officer’s own observations, did not provide probable cause to arrest the teacher.

16 1 - FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS 25. As part of a lawful traffic stop but with- out any suspicion of other wrongdoing, an of- ficer walked a drug-sniffing dog around the exterior of the stopped driver’s car. When the dog got to the trunk, she alerted, signaling that she smelled drugs. Based on the dog’s alert, the officer searched the car’s trunk and found a large garbage bag of harvested marijuana in- side. The driver was charged with marijuana pos- session and filed a motion to suppress. At the suppression hearing, the prosecutor presented testimony about the dog’s training and certi- fication as a drug-sniffing dog. However, the prosecutor did not present any testimony about the dog’s performance rate in the field, explaining that police did not keep records on the “misses,” but only on the “hits”” At the con- clusion of the hearing, the defense attorney argued that probable cause from a dog sniff can only be established if there is proof that the dog performs well in the field, not just dur- ing training. What is the prosecutor’s strongest argument in response? A. If\ drug dog’s reliability can be established if there is adequate proof that the dog was properly trained and certified. B. Dog sniffs are sui generis and so a positive alert from a trained dog will always estab- lish probable cause to search. C. A drug dog’s reliability will always be es- tablished if there is adequate proof that the dog is properly trained and certified. D. Dog sniffs are not searches under the Fourth Amendment and so there is no re- quirement that they be supported by prob- able cause. . 26. A police officer was patrolling in a down- town area when he saw a woman walking along and carrying a paper-bag-wrapped bottle in her hand. Every few steps, the woman took aswig from the bottle. Because drinking alco- hol in public is prohibited in this jurisdiction, the officer walked up to the woman and asked her what she was drinking. The woman showed the officer that the bottle contained apple juice. The officer thanked the woman and told her that she was free to go on her way. Was the stop legally justified? A. [Yes, because the officer had a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdo- ing. B. Yes, because the officer only detained the woman briefly, as permitted by Terry . Ohio. C. No, because the woman was drinking apple juice in public, not alcohol. D. No, because the officer only had a mod- erate chance of finding evidence of wrong- doing.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help