Title: 17-01pp.600
1. Which of the following is not an exception to the warrant requirement?
2. Which of the following statements is not true?
3. In which case did the Supreme Court create the exclusionary rule?
4. Which Court is known for expanding the rights of the criminally accused?
5. Which of the following statements best describes the incorporation of the exclusionary rule
into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
6. Which of the following statements is not true?
7. Which one of the following statements best describes the Court’s decision in Brewer v.
Williams?
9. What guarantees are afforded to the criminally accused in the two clauses of the Fourth
Amendment?
9. Explain the two limitations the Court has set on searches incident to a valid arrest.
10. What two criteria must be met for a consent search to be valid?
11. What is the exclusionary rule?
12. According to the Supreme Court in Escobedo v. Illinois, when does the right to counsel
begin?
13. Explain the good-faith exception that the Court created in United States v. Leon.
14. What was the chief concern of Justice White in his Miranda dissent?
15. Why did the Court refuse to suppress the evidence used to convict Herring in Herring v.
U.S.?
16. Explain the rationale the Court used to determine that the use of a GPS tracking device
violated the Fourth Amendment in Jones.
17. Describe three exceptions to the warrant requirement. What is the ultimate key to the Fourth
Amendment, according to Chief Justice John Roberts?
18. The Supreme Court has recognized for some time that searches of individuals conducted
incident to lawful arrest are permissible without a warrant (Weeks v. United States, 1914).
However, the Court has often interpreted Weeks quite broadly, allowing the searches of homes,
automobiles, and so on. 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.
19. The Court has held that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be
used to convict someone of a federal crime (Weeks v. United States). 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 Fourteenth Amendment? Discuss the cases since then that have provided
significant exceptions to the exclusionary rule, describing those exceptions and the rules adopted
by the Court.
20. 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 suspects have received these warnings, the
statements 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 answers.
21. 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 land surrounding this lakefront 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 and 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).
a. Should Magistrate Pawlenty have issued the warrant? Why or why not?
Moe, along with four other officers, sought to execute the warrant. They drove up to the
Sviggum residence and, parked rather far from the house because a silver Mercedes-Benz was
blocking the driveway. They knocked on the door to the house, and Sviggum’s wife opened it.
After she told them that Roger was not in the house (he was, according to her, practicing his lines
for a new show), Moe explained that they had a warrant to search the home. She let them in, and
the five officers began a full search of the house.
The officers found nothing until they spotted a closed door at the side of the house. They asked
Mrs. Sviggum about this, and she told them that they rented out that part of the home to a
boarder, one Monica Hahn. Upon obtaining Mrs. Sviggum’s permission, the agents entered the
Hahn quarters. There they found not only Ms. Hahn, but also a sophisticated laboratory they
suspected was used for the manufacturing of drugs.
b. Was it reasonable for police to enter Hahn’s quarters? Why or why not?
As the agents moved toward Hahn, she began ingesting chemicals located on a table on which
she was working. They immediately, but gently, seized her and placed her under arrest. Because
she had swallowed some of the “evidence,” however, two agents rushed her to a local hospital
for stomach X-rays. At the hospital, Hahn refused to give her consent for the procedure. The
doctor, acting under police orders, took the X-rays anyway and, the resultant pictures revealed
the presence of substances used to manufacture heroin.
c. Was the X-ray procedure a reasonable search and seizure? Why or why not?
Meanwhile, finding nothing else in the Sviggum residence, agents decided to search the silver
Mercedes in the driveway. They asked Mrs. Sviggum who owned the car. She replied that it was
hers, but that she would not give them consent to search it. The agents went back into the house,
found the car keys, and unlocked the car without permission. In a suitcase in the trunk, they
found large quantities of heroin. They placed Mrs. Sviggum under arrest and called for back-up
officers.
d. Was the search of the car reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?
As soon as other officers arrived on the scene, two FBI agents decided to examine the rest of the
property (the land surrounding the house) to see if they could locate Roger, and to determine if,
in fact, the Sviggums were growing marijuana on the premises. They did not have to walk very
far to find what they were looking for. Right beyond the fence enclosing the ranch, they spotted
acres of marijuana plants. And, just a quarter mile farther away, they saw Roger, dressed in a
business suit, talking to two teenage girls.
As the agents rushed toward Roger, eventually arresting him, the girls started quickly walking
away from the scene. One of the officers stopped them and identified himself as a police officer.
Next, he “patted” them down.” He found nothing on the first; on the second, Linda Lewinsky, he
felt “something” bulky in her jacket pocket. The agent reached in and removed the mass, which
turned out to be a huge wad of $100 bills and a negligible amount of heroin. He arrested Ms.
Lewinsky.
e. Was this “frisk” reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?
f. Based on your answers to questions a–e, can you now reach conclusions about the
admissibility of the evidence? Would you exclude any or all of the evidence gathered against the
Sviggums, Hahn, and Lewinsky? Why or why not?
g. Would your answers to questions a–f be different if the year were 1968 rather than 1989?
22. You are a Supreme Court justice 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 making your decision. 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.
On the night of October 4, 1995, Brett Freeman was found stumbling along the side of the road
in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota. A police officer, Paul Tagliabue, saw Freeman, stopped his patrol car,
and offered to drive Freeman home. Later, Tagliabue was quoted as saying he believed that
“Freeman was drunk and just needed to get home to sleep off his binge.” Freeman accepted the
ride, and Tagliabue drove him home. He had to assist Freeman out of the car and into his living
room. As they were walking into the house, the officer asked Freeman where he had been
drinking that night. To this Freeman replied, “At the Pig’s Eye Bar on 3rd Street. I took my
girlfriend’s car there, but could not find my keys when I left. That is why I was walking home.”
Upon entering the house, specifically the living room, Tagliabue spotted a white residue, a pot
pipe, and other drug paraphernalia lying on and around the coffee table. As a result, he asked
Freeman if the paraphernalia was his. Freeman replied, “Yeah, some of it.” During the entire
conversation Tagliabue noted that Freeman slurred his words, could not stand without support,
and seemed to be nodding off. However, he did say that he was able to answer both of the
questions with little trouble. After Freeman fell asleep on the couch, Tagliabue called a backup
squad and sat down to wait for them to arrive. Based on the drug paraphernalia in the living
room, Tagliabue and the backup squad began to search the house.
By this time Freeman’s roommates, Raymont Sapp and Robert Alstott, arrived home. They were
incensed that the police were searching the house and immediately called their attorney. In the
time that it took for the lawyer to arrive, the police searched the living room where Freeman was
sleeping, his bedroom, the kitchen, the basement, and the attic. They found several marijuana
plants under a hot light in Freeman’s bedroom and a load of marijuana leaves drying in the
basement. Additionally, they found several other unidentified illicit drugs in the refrigerator,
about $10,000 in a cookie jar, and three handguns taped under the kitchen table. The officers also
searched the entire backyard. Beside the garbage cans, which were about seventy-five yards from
the house, the investigating officers found empty bags lined with a white powdery residue.
All three roommates were placed under arrest, and Sapp’s and Alstott’s bedrooms were searched.
These searches turned up more marijuana plants. The three roommates were taken to the police
station. Freeman was put in a holding cell to sleep off his night of drinking, and Sapp and Alstott
were booked. During the booking each was told that he would have to submit to urine and blood
tests administered by a local doctor. Additionally, the police had the doctor draw a vial of blood
from Freeman while he slept in his cell.
At the same time that the search of the house was going on, two other police officers were
dispatched to the Pig’s Eye to look for the car Freeman drove that night. They found the car
unlocked, with the keys in the ignition. A thorough search of the car turned up more marijuana,
another handgun, five boxes of ammunition for the gun, and another $10,000. The car was
impounded and taken directly to the police station.
Based on the evidence obtained in and behind the house, as well as the drug tests performed at
the police station, Freeman, Sapp, and Alstott were arrested for drug possession with intent to
sell, for illegally using illicit drugs, and for possessing handguns without permits. Freeman and
his girlfriend, Jennifer Ryskoski, were separately charged with possession of drugs and illegally
possessing an unregistered concealed handgun in the car.
Ryskoski was acquitted because the prosecution could not prove that she knew the drugs or gun
were in her car on the night in question. Freeman, Sapp, and Alstott were convicted of
possessing drugs with the intent to sell, of using illegal substances, and of possessing handguns
without proper permits.
As a Supreme Court justice, how do you resolve the intricate legal questions in this case
revolving around the Fourth Amendment? Was the officer justified in calling for backup and
then searching the house without obtaining a warrant? Should the police have been able to search
the house while Freeman was passed out based on the paraphernalia that was in the living room?
Should the officers have searched Sapp’s and Alstott’s rooms after they were arrested? Was the
backyard search justified? Should the police have been able to go and search the car that
Freeman drove that night based on what they found at the house? Were the blood and urine tests
in this case legitimate, or did they violate the suspects’ Fourth Amendment rights? What, if any,
of the evidence would you admit at trial? Should any of it be excluded, or is the evidence
admissible? Justify your opinion.
23. You are a Supreme Court justice 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.
Due to concerns about drug use and violence in schools, the Westminster Board of Education
adopted a policy that allowed, but did not mandate, schools in their system to take steps
necessary for the protection of students and to promote a positive learning environment.
Jefferson High School introduced policies aimed at preventing exactly the type of behavior of
concern to the board. One action was the installation of metal detectors at all school entrances. In
addition, the school hired security guards and gave them the authority to conduct random “pat
down” searches on students, including searches of bags and backpacks.
The school also instituted a drug-testing system whereby students were randomly selected for
tests. A teacher or administrator who suspected a student was under the influence of drugs or
alcohol could send the student to the school nurse to be tested. The nurse could also select
students for testing. The nurse had materials available for a variety of tests, including breath,
blood, and urine tests. The samples taken from students were sent to an independent lab for
analysis.
The high school’s principal, Brett Dilfer, received an anonymous letter informing him that
Dorsey Dunn, a seventeen-year-old senior, kept marijuana in his locker, used it personally and
sold it to other students at school. Based on this information, Principal Dilfer searched Dunn’s
locker and found several ounces of marijuana and a half-empty bottle of vodka. The security
guards then searched Dunn and found rolling papers and a small amount of marijuana. The
principal sent Dunn to the nurse for testing. Over his objections, the nurse obtained blood and
urine samples and forced him to take a breath test.
Dilfer called the local police and turned over the drugs and alcohol to them. Although they did
not have a warrant, the police officers then went to the school parking lot and searched Dunn’s
1968 Camaro. They found more marijuana in the glove compartment, a handgun under the
driver’s seat, and several car stereos in the trunk that appeared to have been stolen. When the
police asked Dunn about the evidence, he said, “Yeah, the stuff’s mine.” He was placed under
arrest, read his Miranda warnings, and taken to the police station. The police discovered that the
stereos had recently been reported stolen from a local Best Buy store. They also determined that
the car was not owned by Dunn, but was registered in his father’s name.
Based on the evidence given to them by the school, what they discovered in his car, and Dunn’s
statement, the police charged Dunn with drug possession, illegal possession of a firearm (he had
no permit), and grand theft for the stereos found in his car. The results of Dunn’s drug tests were
positive, indicating that he had marijuana and alcohol in his system at the time of the tests. He
was immediately expelled from school.
The trial court judge threw out the statement Dunn made to police prior to being read his
Miranda rights, but Dunn, a minor, was convicted of the charges filed against him. Because of
new criminal guidelines in Westminster County that allowed juveniles to be tried as adults for
certain crimes—including drug possession and grand theft—Dunn was sentenced to twenty years
at a state maximum security prison. He appealed to the intermediate court of appeals, where his
conviction was upheld. He appealed to the state supreme court, which affirmed the judgment of
the intermediate court. He then brought his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
As a Supreme Court justice, you are presented with several important legal questions in this case.
Was the school justified in conducting random searches of students without probable cause?
Were the intrusions made on students (searches, collection of blood and urine samples)
unreasonable or unduly burdensome? Was the school exerting its proper authority in conducting
the search of Dunn and his locker? Were the drug tests conducted on him reasonable? How do
you deal with the involvement of the local police and their subsequent search of Dunn’s car?
Was the trial court judge correct in throwing out Dunn’s statement to the police prior to being
read his Miranda rights? Would you uphold his conviction? Justify your opinion.