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.
74. Should the court grant the motion to suppress?
Police officers had probable cause to believe that drug dealing was routinely taking place in a particular room at a local motel. The motel manager authorized the officers to enter the room and provided them with a passkey. Without obtaining a warrant, the officers knocked on the room's door, announced their presence, and told the occupants that they would like to speak with them. The officers then heard yelling and repeated flushing of the toilet. They then used the passkey and entered the room, where they saw the occupants dumping drugs into the toilet. The occupants of the room were charged with drug dealing and have moved to suppress the drugs.
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. Search and seizure in a place where a citizen has a reasonable expectation of privacy is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. This includes motel rooms. A motel manager's consent to a search of a room, while it is being rented, does not justify the search. Here, the occupants of the motel room would have a reasonable expectation of privacy and be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. The motel manager authorizing the police to enter the room did not justify the search. The police officers' entry was only excused by exigent circumstances because of their reasonable belief that evidence was being destroyed.
C is incorrect. Generally, exigent circumstances can excuse the lack of a warrant, including the possibility that evidence is being destroyed. Here, the motel room occupants were trying to dispose of evidence of their crime, and therefore, exigent circumstances excused the lack of a warrant.
D is incorrect. In Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011), the Supreme Court held that police-created exigent circumstances do not violate Fourth Amendment rights as long as the exigent circumstances were not created in violation of Fourth Amendment rights. Here, although the police knocking and announcing their presence created the exigent circumstances of the motel room occupiers to destroy evidence of a crime, the police officers up to that point had acted lawfully; they had probable cause to believe drug deals were routinely occurring at the motel. Additionally, they knocked and announced their presence, in compliance with the Knock and Announce rule. Therefore, the police-created exigent circumstances did not violate the occupants' Fourth Amendment rights and the evidence should not be suppressed.