BuzzFeed Quiz
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Boston University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
303
Subject
Political Science
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by tyeshawilliams2424
PO303: Civil Liberties
5 May 2023
Buzzfeed Quiz
Description: This Search and Seizure quiz will reveal if you think search and seizure procedures
should be more or less restricted in cases based on these questions
Quiz:
Q1:
Susan is driving home and is stopped by a police officer because her brake light is out. The officer
walks up with its search dog asking if you had anything suspicious in the vehicle, and to let you walk
around with its search dog.
You refuse, but the dog has sniffed something in your car and you are
now being asked to step out of the vehicle. Is this search legal?
a.
Yes, because the officer made a probable stop which then lead to enough probable cause to
have the dog search the car
b.
No, the officer stopped for a brake light and cannot prove that anything led to probable
cause to have the dog sniff search
Question Justification:
This question looks at
Rodriguez V United States (2015)
where the court held
that a routine traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff is unconstitutional and a violation of your 4th
amendment right. Those that choose
(A)
believe that police officers have the right to search once a
stop is made.
Those that choose (
B)
believe in a more restrictive search procedure and agree that
cops cannot just continue a search after a traffic stop.
Q2:
Police are staked outside your friend's house because they suspect your friend is growing illegal
substances. They have a special camera that allows them to detect the heat of illegal drugs that
require special lights to be grown. Your friend’s basement shows that such lights are being used. Do
you believe that the police have sufficient probable cause for a search?
a.
Yes, because the camera shows evidence of possibly illegal substances being grown and the
police officers have suspicions
b.
No, because this violates your friend's right to privacy
Question Justification:
This question is in direct line with the (
Kyllo V US 2001).
The court held that
the use of thermal-imaging devices to detect relative amounts of heat emanating from a private
home is unconstitutional because it is a device that is not of public use therefore the
search/surveillance is unreasonable without a warrant. Quiz takers who choose
(A)
you believe that
search and seizure policies should be expanded to special devices If you choose
(B)
you tend to be
more on the side of equal protection of the fourth amendment’s right to privacy
Q3:
You are at school when the police are called because of suspicions that someone on campus has a
weapon. Without asking you the officers go through your locker and backpack looking for a weapon.
Is this an unconstitutional search?
a.
No, the officers have probable cause to search for the weapon and believe that exigent
circumstances are valid to keep everyone safe
b.
Yes, you did not give consent to search your private property and you do not express any
reasonable articulable suspicions
Question Justification
: This question is a different viewpoint of
Terry V Ohio (1968)
and further
examines what is considered a constitutional “
Terry Stop and Frisk”.
This question works to consider
how limited police officers' searches shall be. Therefore if you chose
(A)
you believe the search and
seizure restrictions are more open, that just because officers were looking for a weapon the right to
privacy provided by the Fourth Amendment is too protected here, and they have justification to
search private property. If you chose
(B)
you are in line with the fourth amendment and you believe
that officers need a warrant or consent to search private property.
Q4:
You are suspected of selling drugs but the police have no convincing evidence against you. So to gain
substantial evidence they want to track your car and movements at all times. The tracker is placed in
your car before a warrant is issued, but the day the warrant is issued is the day the officers catch
you in the act of selling drugs and you are placed under arrest. The officers knew where you would
be on this day because the tracker was used previous days before the warrant was issued.
You argue
that the arrest is not valid because they were tracking you before a warrant was issued. Is this arrest
a violation of the fourth amendment right?
a.
No, the officers sought a warrant and decided to wait to make an arrest until the warrant
was issued. Therefore no freedoms were violated
b.
Yes, the police officers did not have your consent or a valid warrant to track your car prior to
making the arrest, therefore information obtained about your whereabouts was not legal
Question Justification:
This question tackles the case of
US v Jones (2012
) the holding, in this case,
states that warrantless use of a GPS tracking device on a vehicle is unconstitutional. The question
asked gets quiz takers to think about the legality of having a warrant issued before a tracker is
placed and arrested, versus not having an immediate warrant. Those that side with
(A)
suggest that
police officers should have the right to search and follow based on the fact they had the right
intentions and did not make an arrest until the warrant was issued.
Those that choose
(B)
believe in the initial court holding that a warrant is needed before any type of
tracking device can be placed on a vehicle.
Q5:
Police officers are walking around a neighborhood on patrol and pass by your house. They smell
marijuana they walk up and identify themselves and hear you and your friends moving quickly. They
suspect you are getting rid of the evidence. Is this search legal?
a.
No, police officers cannot invade your privacy with their own suspicions.
b.
Yes, the smell of marijuana gives the officers enough suspicion to check it out, and had
exigent reasons to enter when they suspected evidence was being destroyed
Question Justification:
This question looks at
Kentucky V King (2011)
.
The court held that
warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth
Amendment as long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate
the Fourth Amendment.
Those that side with
(A)
believe the search and seizure laws of the fourth
amendment are somewhat questionable those that choose
(B)
believe officers have the right to make
a judgment call and seize evidence
Q6:
Your friend is driving home after prom and is involved in an accident. The police arrive and suspect she is
driving under the influence after slurring her words and stumbling. She is taken to the hospital for a blood
alcohol test where she is found to have been driving drunk. Was this test legal?
a.
No, this was a warrantless search especially since she wasn't convicted
b.
Yes, blood tests administered by professionals are legal and admissible in court because the
seizure of a blood alcohol test was reasonable as the driver showed signs of intoxication.
Question Justification:
This question looks at a similar reworking of
Maryland V King (1958).
This
case states that the 4th Amendment allows states to collect and analyze DNA from people that are
arrested but not convicted. Those that side with
(A)
Are not in agreement with the decisions made
regarding the restrictiveness of the fourth amendment. Those that side with
(B)
will agree with the
fourth amendment procedures of collection of DNA or blood tests
Q7:
You are at school when the police arrive at your house. Your cousin is staying at your house for school
break. The officers ask her if you are home because they need to search your room. Your cousin agrees
and the officers search your room. Is this search a violation of your fourth amendment right?
a.
No, The officers obtained consent from the cousin to enter the home
b.
Yes, the officers cannot search the home without a warrant and without the consent of someone
who owns and lives within the home such as a parent
Question Justification:
This question examines the case of
Georgia V Randolph (2006)
where the court
holds that a search conducted without a warrant is unconstitutional if one occupant consents but the other
does not.
Quiz takers who choose
(A)
Think the policy of search and seizure is too restricted because
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
they did receive consent (
B)
believe that people have the right to privacy in their homes even with
the consent of a third party
Q8:
Your friend is living in an RV located in a mobile home community. Is this RV more like a home
because it is not being used to go places or more like a car because it has wheels and could
potentially be driven?
a.
RV is like a home because it is not being used to go places and is located in a mobile
community
b.
An RV is like a car because it can be driven if needs be
Question Justification:
This question directly relates to
Carney V California (1985)
and the
examination of a mobile home as a car or a home. The court holds that motorhomes have the ability
to up and move before a warrant is issued therefore it is a car and can be searched without a
warrant.
Scale:
If you answered all “A”s, you think officers should have more ability to search and seize. You
think the Fourth Amendment is too restricted, and that officers should do what is needed to be
done to get the job done. You care more about the law being upheld than personal privacy.
If you answered five “A”s and three “B”s you see that the fourth amendment is necessary to have,
but you also think it's too political and that it obstructs a lot of evidence officers could have to do
their jobs. You think the way our systems are set up could be altered to change with the times but
you also realize that citizens should have the right to privacy in some cases.
If you answered four “A’s and four “Bs you are not quite sure where you stand on America's
values and the way the supreme court thinks. You think some of the fourth amendment should be
altered but also agree that it works well in some cases.
If you answered five “B's and three “A”s you are more in agreement with America’s values and do
not believe that the fourth amendment is too restricted of police officers' ability to conduct
searches, but you also think this could be subject to change in certain cases. You think laws
should continue to work in the best way to provide the most freedom to citizens without
obstructing the law.
If you answered all “B”s you are true to America's values, and you agree completely with the
Supreme Court and the way the Fourth Amendment stands today. You heavily believe in our
courts to make the right decisions and are very aware of promoting equal protection. You have no
issues and wish to proceed as is.