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.
17. The court should
The student moves to suppress the use of the jewelry.
The student was charged with the burglaries.
The officers believed that the jewelry had been taken in one of the burglaries. They arrested the student, took him to the station, and gave him Miranda warnings. The student asked to see a lawyer. The police called the student's parents to the station. When the student's parents arrived, the police asked them to speak with the student. They put him in a room and secretly recorded their conversation with a concealed electronic device. The student broke down and confessed to his parents that he had committed the burglaries.
The police suspected that a 16-year-old high school student had committed a series of burglaries. Two officers went to the student's high school and asked the principal to call the student out of class and to search his backpack. While the officers waited, the principal took the student into the hall where she asked to look in his backpack. When the student refused, the principal grabbed it from him, injuring the student's shoulder in the process. In the backpack, she found jewelry that she turned over to the officers.
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
Police officers cannot circumvent Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches by having a private party conduct the otherwise illegal search.
A search incident to a lawful arrest is a valid exception to the warrant rule under the Fourth Amendment.
D is correct. In this case, the police officers would not have been able to search the student's backpack themselves because they did not have either probable cause or a warrant. The search was illegal, therefore, the jewelry found during it is considered the fruit of the poisonous tree, and the court should apply the exclusionary rule. The motion should be granted and the evidence suppressed.
A is incorrect. The issue presented is whether law enforcement improperly used a third party to circumvent the Fourth Amendment rights of the student. This was not a valid search incident to arrest. Rather, the search took place before the arrest and was invalid because there was no probable cause or warrant, and the teacher was acting on behalf of the police. Therefore, the arrest after finding the jewelry was also invalid, because the jewelry was the fruit of the poisonous tree. Without the jewelry, the police had no basis for an arrest.
B is incorrect. Although school searches generally do not require probable cause, in this case, the principal conducted the search after the police asked her to. The principal was not acting on behalf of the school, but rather, under the direction of law enforcement. The police officers did not have probable cause or a warrant to ensure a proper search under the Fourth Amendment and having the principal conduct the search of the student's backpack instead was therefore unconstitutional.
C is incorrect. Whether or not excessive force was used has no bearing of the legality of the search of the backpack by the principal, which was on behalf of the police. The fact that the principal injured the student is a distraction from the main issue of the legality of the search under the Fourth Amendment. Without probable cause or a valid search warrant, the police could not constitutionally use a third party to conduct the unlawful search.