Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
15. Based on these conclusions, the judge should grant the motion to suppress
After hearing the evidence, the judge concluded that the statement in the application attributed to the informant was incorrect, and the informant knowingly lied to the police officer. The judge also concluded that the police officer knew the informant was lying.
The warrant was issued and a search of the address was conducted on October 22. The search turned up a quantity of marijuana but no cocaine. The defendant was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana. The defendant moved to suppress the use of the marijuana as evidence contending that the informant was not in the particular address on October 21 or at any other time.
On October 22, a police officer submitted an application for a warrant to search a particular address for cocaine. In the application, the officer stated under oath that he believed there was cocaine at that location because of information supplied to him on the morning of October 22 by an informant. He described the informant as a cocaine user who had previously supplied accurate information concerning the use of cocaine in the community and summarized what the informant had told him as follows: the previous night, October 21, the informant was in the defendant's house at the particular address. The defendant gave her cocaine. She also saw three cellophane bags containing cocaine in his bedroom.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. Even if the warrant has a material statement that is false, if the police officers meet the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, the evidence will be admissible.
B is incorrect. This answer is incorrect for the reasons already stated. In addition, what exactly was found in the house is irrelevant to the determination of the propriety of the warrant or the good faith of the officers.
C is incorrect. This ignores the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Only if the police officer knew that the warrant contained a material false statement should the judge grant the motion to suppress. Otherwise, the evidence falls within the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.