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.
2. If the young woman moves to suppress the use as evidence of the heroin, the court should
After completing their search of the driver and the truck, the police went over to the young woman and searched her purse. In her purse, they found a small quantity of heroin. Both the driver and the young woman were arrested and charged with unlawful possession of narcotics.
The only passenger was a young woman who was in the back of the truck. The police saw her get out and stand at a nearby bus stop. They stopped the truck and searched the driver. In the pocket of the driver's jacket, the police found a small bottle of pills that they recognized as narcotics. They then broke open a locked toolbox attached to the flatbed of the truck and found a small sealed envelope inside. They opened it and found marijuana. They also found a quantity of cocaine in the glove compartment.
Police received information from an undercover police officer that she had just seen two men (whom she described) in a red pickup truck selling marijuana to schoolchildren near the city's largest high school. A few minutes later, two police officers saw a pickup truck fitting the description a half block from the high school. The driver of the truck matched the description of one of the men described by the undercover officer.
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 correct. Although there was probable cause to search the driver and the vehicle itself, that does not extend to the young woman, who had exited the car and was no longer a passenger. While the automobile exception would have allowed the search of a passenger's purse had she remained in the vehicle, she had exited the car before the car was stopped and searched. Therefore, the police cannot use the automobile exception to search her without a warrant and absent any other applicable exception, the motion to suppress should be granted.
B is incorrect. The police did not have grounds to seize the woman's purse to begin with. They had no warrant, and there was no exception to the warrant requirement. Thus, without grounds, the seizure of the purse would have been unconstitutional.
C is incorrect. Despite the fact that the vehicle could be searched, the woman's earlier presence in a truck does not give the police officers probable cause to search her purse because she had exited the vehicle. The woman was not in the car when the initial officer observed the drug deal taking place, and she was not in the car when it was stopped. If the woman had still been inside the car when it was stopped, the police would have been able to search her purse, but not once she exited the car.
D is incorrect. Exigent circumstances are inapplicable here because there was no emergency and no probable cause to believe the woman might destroy evidence. The mere fact that a person might leave an area where the police are located does not grant the police the right to search them without probable cause. There was no probable cause to search the woman, and no exigent circumstances, so the woman's motion to suppress should be granted.