46. Suppose the drugs were in a locked cabinet in the garage to which the female victim did not have access.
Could she give consent allowing the officers search the closet and seize the drugs?
Yes, because of the inevitable discovery rule.
No, because the area is not under common authority.
Yes, because she is the victim of domestic violence.
No, because of the domestic partnership rule.
Case 10.3
An undercover security officer working for a chain supermarket located in New Jersey watches a suspicious
male circling the liquor aisles with an empty shopping kart. The man waits for other patrons to leave the area
and places four bottle of vodka inside his jacket. He then moves toward the exit. As he does so, he observes
security at the door. He then picks up a bag of potatoes and proceeds to the cashier lanes. He pays for the
potatoes and attempts to leave the store and is stopped by security. When security confronts the man about the
shoplifting, he begins to cause a scene. The security officer searches the man and recovers the four bottles of
vodka. He then has the man empty his pant pockets and observes two bags of what appears to be heroin mixed
in with his personal papers. Police arrive on scene and the security officer provides details of his observations
and the items recovered in his search of the accused. The security officer advises police that the entire event was
captured on their surveillance system. The police arrest the suspect and take possession of the heroin and the
four bottles of vodka. The security officer responds to the police station to provide a statement and copy of the
surveillance video. The accused is charged with the shoplifting and the possession of the heroin.
47. At trial, the defense argued that the search was unlawful as it was conducted without a warrant and
therefore, the evidence leading to the defendant’s arrest should be excluded. Is the defense correct with their
assertion regarding the validity of the search and request for the exclusion of the evidence?
The defense’s claim is correct. The search was unlawful therefore the evidence should be excluded.
The defense’s claim is not correct. The search was not subject to the exclusionary rule as it was
conducted by a private individual.
The defense’s claim is correct because the store failed to give the man the opportunity to pay for the
vodka after having paid for the potatoes.
The defense’s claim is not correct because the search was conducted in a public place where privacy
is not expected.