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.
77. Should the court grant the motion to suppress?
Alleging that the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment, the man has moved to suppress the officers' testimony at trial.
When the officers knocked on the door, the man refused to respond. The officers then asked if he needed medical assistance. The man told them to leave and not come back unless they had a warrant. The officers then entered the home, and the man pointed a shotgun at them. The officers withdrew but later arrested the man for felony assault on a police officer.
Police officers responding to phone calls of complaining neighbors noticed several broken windows in a home, glass on the ground, and a blood-stained shirt on the front porch. Through a window, the officers saw a man, whose hands were bleeding, shouting and throwing things, but no one else appeared to be present in the home.
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
A is incorrect. Although the emergency aid exception may justify a warrantless entry, the exception does not alter a person's standing to assert a Fourth Amendment claim. In other words, the exception does not abridge a person's reasonable expectation of privacy and the man had standing.
C is incorrect. This answer is incorrect for two reasons. First, the emergency aid exception can justify a warrantless entry when the suspect is the only person who needs aid. Second, the officers could have reasonably believed that the suspect was not the only person who needed aid since they did not know if anyone else was in the home.
D is incorrect. The emergency aid exception can justify a warrantless entry regardless of whether the homeowner requests a warrant or otherwise refuses consent. The question is whether a reasonable officer would believe there is an exigency to search the home in order to preserve life or avoid serious injury. See Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128 (1978).