7. Her motion to prevent the introduction of the dress into evidence will be

B is correct. The motion to suppress evidence will be granted if the customer can show that she was subject to an illegal search by the state. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the state. The first issue in this Fourth Amendment analysis is to determine if there was a search or seizure. By watching the customer in the fitting room, the detective was conducting a search. The customer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a department store fitting room, which was private and could only be seen by the detective when she was concealed at a vantage point above the rooms. A person has a reasonable expectation that they will not be watched in a place that is closed from public view such as the fitting room. The customer had an expectation of privacy in the fitting room, and that expectation is one that society has recognized as justified.

The second issue to determine is whether the search was conducted by a state actor. The detective was working for the police department which was conducting surveillance. The detective was clearly a state actor. Finally, there is no exception to the warrant requirement that would allow for the search. The fitting room was not in plain view; the detective had to conceal herself above the fitting room to be able to see in, which is not a place visible in plain view. Therefore, the customer's motion to suppress should be granted because her reasonable expectation of privacy was violated by the detective's search.

A is incorrect. The police officer who stopped the customer as she was exiting did not need to acquire a search warrant for the purse. He had been given information from the detective that gave him probable cause to arrest the customer and search her purse. The illegal search occurred when the detective observed the customer in the fitting room, not when the other officer made the arrest and searched the purse.

C is incorrect. The arrest, or seizure, of the customer and her purse were properly based on probable cause. However, the observations of the detective constituted an illegal search, which would allow suppression of the dress as evidence. If it weren't for the detective's illegal search, there would not have been probable cause for the arrest, and the seizure of the dress would be fruit of the poisonous tree.

D is incorrect. The detective was able to observe the customer's actions only by concealing herself in a vantage point above the fitting room, and the customer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fitting room. Therefore, the plain view exception to the warrant requirement does not apply here. Since the customer has a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy in the fitting room, the detective's watching her from above was an illegal search, and the dress should not be allowed into evidence.