73. You are a police officer investigating a double homicide. You have suspicion that a particular person may be
involved, but do not have probable cause. You follow the individual for several days without developing additional
incriminating evidence, but you are convinced the individual is guilty and may very well kill again. When the
suspect leaves his apartment, he leaves the front door unlocked. You open the door and see a gun on the coffee
table that matches the type forensics has determined fired the fatal bullets in the double homicide. There is no one
else in the apartment, so you leave and wait across the street. A few hours later, you see the suspect stumbling
towards his apartment, obviously under the influence of alcohol. You wait until he is at his front door and
approach him with the idea of arresting him for public intoxication after he opens the door. You do so and, as you
arrest the suspect, the gun is in plain view. Based on the arrest and the gun being in plain view, the evidence is
seized consistent with the law and will be instrumental in convicting the suspect. No one knows that you had
earlier entered the apartment without probable cause, which would render the search suspect and the evidence
likely excluded at trial. Does this raise an ethical issue for the police officer? If so, how should the police officer
deal with it?
74. You are a judge hearing a serious felony case involving receiving stolen goods. It appears that the police
mishandled the chain of custody for a vital piece of evidence. You could simply rule that it was a reasonable error
and the police officers acted in good faith, which would allow the evidence to come in. The defendant would likely
than face conviction of felonies in a sentence of between 15 and 25 years in prison. On the other hand, you are
tired of sloppy police work in the city Police Department. What will you do?