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.
26. As to the automatic weapon found in the closet, the suspect's motion to suppress should be
The suspect moves pretrial to suppress the use as evidence of the weapons seized by the police and of the statement he made.
In addition to charges relating to the cocaine in the suitcase, the suspect is charged with unlawful possession of weapons.
The police then fanned out through the house, looking in every room and closet. They found no one else, but one officer found an automatic weapon in a box on a closet shelf in the suspect's bedroom.
The police knocked on the suspect's door and called out, «Police. Open up. We have a search warrant.» After a few seconds with no response, the police forced the door open and entered. Hearing noises in the basement, the police ran down there and found the suspect with a large brown suitcase and put handcuffs on the suspect. A search of his person revealed a switchblade knife and a .45-caliber pistol. The suspect cursed the police and said, «You never would have caught me with the stuff if it hadn't been for that lousy snitch!»
One day, the police received reliable information that a large brown suitcase with leather straps containing a supply of cocaine had been delivered to the suspect's home and that it would be moved to a distribution point the next morning. The police obtained a valid search warrant to search for and seize the brown suitcase and the cocaine and went to the suspect's house.
The police had, over time, accumulated reliable information that a suspect operated a large cocaine-distribution network, that he and his accomplices often resorted to violence, and that they kept a small arsenal of weapons in his home.
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 police are permitted to conduct a sweep of a residence to protect themselves from other accomplices who may pose a danger to them, that right does not extend to smaller containers where no person could be hiding. As such, their opening of the box exceeded the scope of the protective sweep and the motion to suppress should be granted.
B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. Although the motion to suppress the use of weapons as evidence should be granted, it is because the scope of the protective sweep exceeded beyond what was reasonable. It is a misstatement of the law that no further search is permitted once the object of the warrant has been seized; for their own safety, police may do a protective sweep for other accomplices who may be hiding, but may not search in small areas (such as the box) where no one could be hiding.
C is incorrect. Although the police could lawfully enter the bedroom to sweep for other accomplices who may have been hiding, the proper scope of that sweep did not extend to boxes on closet shelves where no person could have been hiding. The automatic weapon was only readily identifiable as being subject to seizure after the box was opened, which was an invalid search. The automatic weapon was not in plain view, and the police did not have any authority to open the box.
D is incorrect. Although the police were lawfully in the house, their search of the house exceeded the scope of the warrant and of the protective sweep. The warrant only authorized the search and seizure of the suitcase and the cocaine contained in it. By exceeding the scope of the warrant and the scope of a protective sweep, the police officers were acting in violation of the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights and the evidence should be suppressed.