Chapter 11 – Rights of Criminally Accused “Investigation and Evidence”
Type: E
1. What guarantees are afforded to the criminally accused in the two clauses of the Fourth
Amendment?
2. Why did the framers believe protecting the rights of the accused during the investigation stage
of a crime was so important?
3. What rationale did the Court use to uphold the search in Olmstead? Why did the dissenting
justices disagree? Which argument is more intuitive? Why?
4. Give two reasons why Katz is considered a landmark decision?
5. How did Jones change the physical trespass standard set out in Katz?
6. What is the process a police officer must use to obtain a search warrant? What is the key to
obtaining one?
7. Do you think Brinegar provides real guidance for what probable cause means? Why or why
not?
8. What are the key differences between the Aguilar-Spinelli “two–pronged” test and the
“totality-of-circumstances” test that replaced it?
9. Explain the reasoning Justice Black gives for his statement, “I must conclude that the Fourth
Amendment simply does not apply to eavesdropping,” in his Katz v. United States dissent.
10. Name and describe two exceptions to the warrant requirement.
11. According to the Court, why is the expectation of privacy so low in cars?
12. Why did the Court rule against the school district in Redding? Why did Thomas disagree?
Which opinion has the better argument? Why?
13. What is the difference between an arrest and a stop? Do you agree they are different? Why?
14. Explain the two limitations the Court has set on searches incident to a valid arrest.
15. What two criteria must be met for a consent search to be valid?
16. What is the exclusionary rule? How does it protect the rights of the criminally accused?
17. What is the good faith exception and how does it affect the exclusionary rule?
18. According to the Supreme Court in Escobedo v. Illinois, when does the right to counsel begin?
19. What was the chief concern of Justice White in his Miranda dissent?
20. Why did the Court choose to not overrule Miranda in Dickerson?
21. How does Seibert strengthen Miranda?
22. How does Miranda compare to rights of the accused globally?
23. How did the Court (and the concurring opinion) use Katz to reach its conclusion in Jardines?
Why did the dissent disagree with this assessment?
24. Explain the rationale the Court used to determine the use of a GPS violated the Fourth
Amendment in Jones.
25. Describe three exceptions to the warrant requirement. What is the ultimate key to the Fourth
Amendment according to Chief Justice John Roberts?
Bloom’s Taxonomy: Comprehension; Knoweldge; Answer Location: _479__
26. In what case did the Supreme Court establish the “totality-of-circumstances” test?
27. Which of the following is not an exception to the warrant requirement?
28. Which of the following best describes the Court’s ruling on eavesdropping in Katz v. U.S.?
29. In Terry v. Ohio, why did the Court uphold the frisk of John Terry that produced a concealed
weapon?
30. Which of the following statements is not true?
31. In what case did the Supreme Court create the exclusionary rule?
32. What Court is known for expanding the rights of the criminally accused?
33. Which of the following statements best describes the incorporation of the exclusionary rule
into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
34. What statement best describes the Court’s decision in Brewer v. Williams?
35. Which of the following statements is not true?
36. Which of the following statements about the Fifth Amendment is true?
37. What was the key to the Court upholding the Miranda decision in Dickerson v. U.S.?
38. Which of the following statements is most accurate?
39. Brewer v. Williams set the standard that:
40. In Missouri v. Seibert the Court:
41. The Supreme Court has recognized for some time that searches of individuals conducted
incident to lawful arrest are permissible without a warrant (Weeks v. U.S. – 1914). However, the
Court has often interpreted Weeks quite broadly, allowing the search of homes, automobiles, etc.
Discuss the Court’s pattern regarding allowable searches. Specifically, under what conditions are
searches of individuals allowable without a warrant? How far does that right to search extend,
and under what circumstances? How have the Court’s decisions regarding the right to search
automobiles, homes, and property changed over time?
Do you feel that the evolution of the Court’s search and seizure policy has been consistent? If not,
identify instances where the Court has diverged significantly from its previous decisions and
offer explanations for such changes.
42. The Court has held that evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment cannot be used
to convict someone of a federal crime (Weeks v. U.S.). In what case did the Court first discuss
this protection regarding evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure in relation to
the states? In what case did the Court actually incorporate this protection to the states via the
14th Amendment? Discuss the cases since then which have provided significant exceptions to
the Exclusionary Rule, describing those exceptions and the rules adopted by the Court.
43. The Supreme Court has held that before interrogating suspects who are in custody, police
must warn them of their right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during
questioning (Miranda v. Arizona – 1966). Unless these warnings have been made to suspects, the
statements that they make cannot be used against them at trial. However, the Court has
substantially refined this requirement so that it applies only in certain circumstances. Discuss the
Court’s interpretation of “custodial interrogation” and “coercive environments.” What do these
terms mean, and what effect has the Court recognized that these situations have on the
admissibility of statements? As always, discussion of the cases covered will enhance your
answer.
44. On June 5, 1989, FBI agent Steve Moe received a tip from a well-known actor in
Minneapolis, that Roger Sviggum, another well-known actor, was manufacturing illegal drugs
(cocaine and heroin) in a laboratory located on his land “up north,” and that he was growing
marijuana on the property surrounding this lake front property. Acting on this information, Moe
dispatched agents to the northern Minnesota property. Over the course of the next week, these
agents observed numerous “strange” cars and other vehicles going in and out of the ranch.
Based on the initial “tip,” and these observations, Moe sought to obtain a warrant to search the
Sviggum residence. He first approached Magistrate Hottinger. He told him about the “tip” and
the agents’ observations. Hottinger, however, felt insufficient probable cause existed to issue the
warrant. Rather than attempting to build a better case, Moe went to a second magistrate,
Pawlenty, who issued a warrant to search only the Sviggum residence (i.e., the main building).
1) Should magistrate Pawlenty have issued the warrant? Why or why not?
2) Was it reasonable for police to have entered Winger’s quarters? Why or why not?
3) Was the X-Ray procedure a reasonable search and seizure? Why or why not?
4) Was the search of the car reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?
5) Was this “frisk” reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?
6) Based on your answers to questions 1-5, can you now reach conclusions about the
admissibility of the evidence? Would you exclude any or all of the evidence gathered against the
Sviggum’s, Hahn, and Lewinsky? Why or why not?
7) Would your answers to questions 1-6 be different if the year was 1968, not 2002?
45. As a Justice on the Supreme Court you have been assigned to write the majority opinion in
the following case. How would you resolve it? What precedent would you cite to support your
opinion? You should identify and “resolve” the complex legal issues present. The question
brings up some factual situations and legal questions not directly addressed in the cases we have
discussed. However, those cases should provide some guidance to you in deciding this case. This
is not to suggest that there are “right” answers to these questions, but a strong argument will be
well organized, logically argued, and supported through reference to Court decisions.
46. As a Justice on the Supreme Court you have been assigned to write the majority opinion in
the following case. How would you resolve it? What precedent would you cite to support your
opinion? You should identify and “resolve” the complex legal issues present. The question
brings up some factual situations and legal questions not directly addressed in the cases we have
discussed. However, those cases should provide some guidance to you in deciding this case. This
is not to suggest that there are “right” answers to these questions, but a strong argument will be
well organized, logically argued, and supported through reference to Court decisions.
Katz v. United States (1967) (389 US 347)
Relevant Case Facts:
FBI agents suspected Charles Katz of engaging in illegal bookmaking activities. Specifically,
they thought he was transmitting bets and wagering information over the phone. To gather
evidence they placed listening devices outside the telephone booth Katz used to make his calls.
They used the evidence to gather an 8 count indictment.
Legal Question: Is a person protected by the Fourth Amendment when he seeks to preserve his
privacy even in an area accessible to the public?
Reasoning:
Concurrences (Harlan):
Dissenting (Black):
United States v. Jones
565 U.S. _____ (2012)
Relevant Case Facts:
The FBI and the Metropolitan Police Department suspected Jones of cocaine trafficking. As part
of the investigation, officers secured a warrant authorizing them to install covertly and to
monitor a GPS tracking device on a Jeep Grand Cherokee registered to Jones’s wife but used
exclusively by him. It required the GPS device to be installed within a 10-day period but the
officers installed the device on the 11th day. They changed batteries on the device and it
remained on the car for 28 days. Over this four-week period the device transmitted to police
computers more than 2,000 pages of data on the car’s movements, but could not tell police who
was driving, if there were passengers, or what the driver and passengers did in the car or at their
destination. Based on intercepted phone calls, police learned that Jones was expecting a shipment
of cocaine in October 2005. On October 24, police executed search warrants for a number of
locations. After an initial trial ending in an acquittal on some charges and a deadlocked jury on
others, Jones was indicted on a new charge of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Over Jones’s
objections, the judge allowed the information collected by the GPS device to be admitted as
evidence. Jones was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. He also was ordered to forfeit $1
million in drug proceeds.
Issue: Does the attachment of a GPS tracking device to an individual’s vehicle, and subsequent
use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements on public streets, constitute a search or
seizure under the Fourth Amendment?
Reasoning:
Sotomayor concurring:
Alito concurring:
Illinois v. Gates (1983) (462 US 213)
Relevant Case Facts:
The police received an anonymous letter informing them of illegal drug activity by the Gates.
After partially verifying the information, the police obtained a warrant and waited for the couple
to return from Florida, where they allegedly picked up some drugs and drove back to Illinois.
The police executed the search warrant and found 350 pounds of marijuana.
Legal Question: Does a search based on an anonymous tip violate the 4th Amendment protection
against illegal searches and seizures?
Reasoning:
Florida v. Jardines (2013) (569 US ___)
Relevant Case Facts:
The police received an anonymous letter informing them of illegal drug activity by the Gates.
After partially verifying the information, the police obtained a warrant and waited for the couple
to return from Florida, where they allegedly picked up some drugs and drove back to Illinois.
The police executed the search warrant and found 350 pounds of marijuana.
Legal Question: Is using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner’s porch to investigate the contents
of the home a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?
Reasoning:
Concurring (Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor)
Dissent (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer)