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.
27. If the court finds that the police did not have probable cause to believe the defendant was the robber until they saw him inside the homeowner's house and realized he matched the description, the court should
The defendant moves to suppress the evidence of the drugs.
A defendant held up a drugstore at 10:30 at night and drove away. His car broke down in an isolated area just outside the small city in which the crime occurred. The defendant walked to the nearest house and asked the homeowner if he could stay until the next morning, explaining that he had been searching for his sister's home and had run out of gas. The homeowner agreed to let him sleep on a couch in the basement. During the course of the night, the homeowner began to doubt the story the defendant had told him. Early the next morning, the homeowner called the police and said he was suspicious and frightened of a stranger whom he had allowed to stay the night. The police went immediately to the house to assist the homeowner and walked through the open front door. They found the defendant and the homeowner drinking coffee in the kitchen. When they saw the defendant, they realized he matched the description of the drugstore robber. They arrested the defendant and in his jacket they found drugs taken during the robbery.
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 defendant had standing to contest the entry to the house, the police did not need a warrant because the police had a valid exception to the warrant requirement to enter.
B is incorrect. As explained above, regardless of whether the defendant had proper standing to contest the police's entry, the homeowner gave valid consent and therefore, the motion should be denied.
C is incorrect. The defendant may have standing to challenge the entry even without ownership or possessory interest in the house; however, his standing is not dispositive because the police had a valid reason to enter the house.