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.
42. Should the court grant the motion to suppress the machine gun?
The man was charged with unlawful possession of the machine gun, among other crimes. He moved to suppress the use of the gun as evidence.
The FBI then secured a warrant to search the house for the package. About two hours after the package was delivered, agents executed the warrant at the house. The man who opened the door was arrested, and the agents found the package, unopened, in an upstairs bedroom closet. After seizing the package, the agents looked through the rest of the house. They found a machine gun in a footlocker in the basement.
United States customs officials received an anonymous tip that heroin would be found inside a distinctively marked red package mailed from a foreign country to a particular address in the United States. Pursuant to this tip, United States customs officers intercepted and opened the red package and found heroin inside. They then resealed the package and left the heroin inside it. The FBI was notified and, as agents watched, the package was delivered to the address.
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
B is incorrect. Probable cause was not required for the customs officers' search of international mail. See United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977).
C is incorrect. As explained above, the warrant and seizure of the package were lawful, but no further exploratory search was authorized because the object of the search was already discovered.
D is incorrect. Officers may conduct a «protective sweep» of a home only if they have reason to believe others inside the home may pose a danger to them. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990). The facts in this scenario would not seem to justify such a protective sweep, but even assuming a protective sweep was authorized, Buie limits such a sweep «to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding.» Thus, even an authorized sweep would not extend to the footlocker.