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.
81. Should the court grant the woman's motion to suppress?
The woman has moved to suppress the evidence obtained from her apartment, arguing that the police violated the Fourth Amendment when they entered the apartment without a warrant.
A police department received reliable information that a woman was selling drugs from her apartment. Upon arriving at the apartment, officers noticed the smell of burning marijuana (which is an illegal substance in the jurisdiction) coming from inside the closed front door. They knocked on the door and announced, «Police!» Immediately, they began to hear sounds of items being moved inside. Concerned that evidence was being destroyed, the officers opened the unlocked door and entered the apartment, where they saw drugs and cash on the dining room table. They arrested the woman for drug offenses.
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. The exigent circumstances doctrine does not allow the police to dispense with the requirement of probable cause. Consequently, reasonable suspicion would not suffice to justify the warrantless entry.
C is incorrect. The exigent circumstances doctrine does not require an inquiry into whether police might have obtained a warrant. The basis of the doctrine is that officers may proceed without a warrant because of the exigency.
D is incorrect. The Supreme Court has expressly rejected the broad «police-created exigency» doctrine that some lower courts had developed. See Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011). The proper test is whether the police created the exigency by engaging in, or threatening to engage in, conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. Here, the police conduct—knocking and announcing their presence—was not itself unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.