33. Should the woman's motion be granted?

B is correct. In the absence of an exception, the Fourth Amendment requires that police have both probable cause and a search warrant before they are able to enter a private dwelling. In this case, no such warrant existed. However, police may conduct a valid warrantless search if they have voluntary and intelligent consent to do so. Here, the facts do not indicate that the police improperly obtained the woman's consent. The woman's consent justified the officers' entry. Once inside, the police properly seized the heroin because it was in plain view. Police may make a warrantless seizure when they are legitimately on the premises and discover evidence that is in plain view that they have probable cause to believe is evidence or a fruit or instrumentality of crime. The woman's consent gave the police legitimate authority to be inside the building, they discovered the heroin on a living room table, and the criminal nature of the heroin was readily apparent.

A is incorrect. This answer correctly states that the woman's motion to suppress the heroin should not be granted, but it misstates the legal basis for this conclusion. Even assuming there was probable cause to search the home, a warrant would have been required for entry had the woman not consented. The woman's consent justified the officers' entry, and the heroin was properly seized because it was in plain view.

C is incorrect. The search of the man, even assuming it was improper, did not violate the woman's rights, and therefore provides no basis for suppressing evidence found in her house.

D is incorrect. There is no requirement that officers inform individuals of their right to refuse consent.