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.
30. If the rival moves to exclude the introduction of the marijuana farmer's clothing into evidence, the court should
As the rival attempted to get up, the deputy pinned his arms behind his back. Another deputy threatened, «Tell us what you did with the marijuana farmer or we will shut you down and see your family on relief.» The rival responded that he had killed the marijuana farmer in a fight but did not report the incident because he did not want authorities to enter his land and discover his marijuana crop. Instead, he buried him behind the barn. The rival was thereafter charged with murder.
A marijuana farmer had been missing for several months. The sheriff's department received an anonymous tip that a rival marijuana farmer had buried the marijuana farmer in a hillside about 200 yards from the rival's farmhouse. The sheriff's deputies went to the rival's farm. They cut the barbed wire that surrounded the hillside and entered, looking for the grave. They also searched the adjacent fields on the rival's farm that were within the area enclosed by the barbed wire and discovered clothing that belonged to the marijuana farmer hanging on a scarecrow. The rival observed their discovery and began shooting. The deputies returned fire. The rival dashed to his pickup truck to escape. Unable to start the truck, he fled across a field toward the barn. A deputy tackled him just as he entered the barn.
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
C is correct. For this question, the government conduct or action requirement was met, because the police were publicly paid government officials who seized the farmer's clothing as evidence. The analysis then moves to whether the farmer had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The fields around the rival's farmhouse are considered held out to the public under the «open fields» doctrine, so the rival did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in them or in the scarecrow on which the victim's clothes were hanging. The barbed wire around the property is considered outside the curtilage of the house as well. Because the fields were not protected by the Fourth Amendment, the police officers' search did not violate the rival's constitutional rights, and there is no valid warrant exception. The rival's motion to suppress should be denied.
A is incorrect. The deputies did not need to obtain a warrant because, as explained above, the rival did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy to those lands that were held out to the public under the open fields doctrine.
B is incorrect. This is a misstatement of the relevant law regarding search and seizure, which is governed by the Fourth Amendment. This choice refers to the rival's right to due process of law, which is not applicable here.
D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. Actual ownership of the searched or seized property is not the deciding factor in determining the propriety of the search. Because the clothing was on the rival's land when the search and seizure occurred, the fact that it belonged to somebody else is irrelevant.