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.
52. How should the court decide the young woman's motion?
Later investigation led to charging a young woman, who lived in the house, with unlawful possession of the cocaine and the marijuana. The young woman has filed a motion to suppress the use of both as evidence on the ground that the entry into the house and the searches were made without a warrant.
After the ambulance arrived a few minutes later and took the man to the hospital, the police went through the house and opened drawers trying to find the gun used in the shooting. No gun was found, but upon opening a drawer in an upstairs bedroom, the police found marijuana and seized it.
Police responded to a call that shots had been heard coming from a certain house. Upon arriving at the house, the police looked through a window and saw a man lying on the living room floor. The police opened the front door, which was not locked, and found that the man had recently been shot in the back and was unconscious. An ambulance was called. While waiting for the ambulance, one officer walked through the house to see if anyone else was present. No one else was found, but the officer did see on the kitchen table clear bags of what he believed to be cocaine. The officer seized the bags, and laboratory tests later confirmed that the contents were cocaine.
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
However, there are six exceptions to the warrant requirement, which include: (i) search incident to a lawful arrest; (ii) automobile exception; (iii) plain view doctrine; (iv) consent; (v) stop and frisk; and (vi) exigent circumstances.
The third exception, the plain view doctrine, allows the police to make a warrantless seizure when they: (i) are legitimately on the premises; (ii) discover evidence, fruits or instrumentalities of a crime, or contraband; (iii) see such evidence in plain view; and (iv) have probable cause to believe or it is immediately apparent that the item is evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of a crime. See Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987).
The sixth exception, exigent circumstances, includes emergencies that threaten the health or safety of someone if not immediately acted upon. This will justify a warrantless search, including situations in which the police see someone injured. The determination of whether an emergency exists is objective, from an officer's point of view. See Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45 (2010).
B is correct. The cocaine was lawfully seized under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. The police entry of the home was reasonable to provide aid to a man in need of emergency assistance. Once they were inside the home, the police officers could properly seize contraband in plain view but could not conduct an exploratory search for contraband. Accordingly, the police properly seized the cocaine (which was in plain view). As to the marijuana, however, its seizure was the fruit of an improper, warrantless search with no applicable exception. The court should deny the woman's motion to suppress the cocaine because it was lawfully seized under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. However, the court should grant the woman's motion to suppress the marijuana because it was unlawfully seized during an improper, warrantless search of her home.
A is incorrect. As explained above, the cocaine was properly discovered and seized pursuant to the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. Regarding the marijuana, however, it was inside a drawer where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy and no exception to the warrant requirement justified the search and seizure of it.
C is incorrect. Although the woman's motion should, in fact, be granted as to the marijuana because it was the fruit of a warrantless search and seizure with no applicable exception to the warrant requirement, the motion should be denied as to the cocaine, which was in the officers' plain view and is therefore admissible.
D is incorrect. The woman's motion should be denied as to the cocaine, which was in the officers' plain view and is therefore admissible. However, her motion as to the marijuana should, in fact, be granted because it was the fruit of a warrantless search and seizure with no applicable exception to the warrant requirement.