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.
53. Should the court grant the motion?
The woman has moved to suppress the use of the shotgun as evidence at her trial.
The officers knocked repeatedly on the front door and shouted, «Police! Open up!» Receiving no response, they tore the plywood off the door, smashed through the door with a sledgehammer, and entered the house. They found no one inside, but they did find an illegal sawed-off shotgun. Upon her return to the house a few weeks later, the woman was charged with unlawful possession of the shotgun.
A valid warrant was issued for a woman's arrest. The police learned that a person with the woman's name and physical description lived at a particular address. When police officers went to that address, the house appeared to be unoccupied: the windows and doors were boarded up with plywood, and the lawn had not been mowed for a long time. A neighbor confirmed that the house belonged to the woman but said that the woman had not been there for several months.
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
D is correct. Although forcible entry into a home with an arrest warrant is permitted, this is only the case when the police actually have reason to believe that the named person is on the premises. Here, the arrest warrant would have authorized forcible entry only if the officers had reason to believe that the woman was at home at the time of the entry. The officers knew that the woman was not at home. The court should grant her motion to suppress the use of the shotgun as evidence.
A is incorrect. The officers did not act upon a good faith belief that the woman was at home. In fact, they had reason to believe she wasn't at home. The arrest warrant would have authorized forcible entry if the officers had reason to believe that the woman was at home at the time of the entry. Here, the officers knew that the woman was not at home.
B is incorrect. There are not enough facts here to suggest that the woman had abandoned her home and given up any reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises. In fact, the neighbor said the house still belonged to the woman, which would have been a reason for the police to believe she still had a reasonable expectation of privacy in it.
C is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The police may use excessive force to enter premises and execute an arrest warrant in certain circumstances. In this case, the arrest warrant would have authorized forcible entry if the officers had reason to believe that the woman was at home at the time of the entry. However, as established above, the officers knew that the woman was not at home.