I am taking Constitutional law this semester and studying the 4th amendment. I just finished doing a quiz.I was wondering if someone could please take a look at it and let me know If I did ok or not.I would really appreciate it.

Question 1

Types of information that that law enforcement may consider in forming reasonable suspicion:

1. personal observations
2. surrounding circumstances
3. drug courier profiles
4. all of the above

Question 2

1. An arson investigator receives a report from the dispatcher about a firebombing in the area, along with a description of the vehicle and the three men believed to have committed the crime. Spotting a vehicle matching the description, with three male occupants inside, the arson investigator stops the vehicle to investigate. She directs the three occupants from the vehicle, and examines the vehicle for weapons. Under the front passenger seat, the arson investigator finds a pipe bomb. All three men are then arrested. At trial, the men file a motion to suppress the evidence found in the vehicle. According to the law, this motion should be:
2. Granted, because the arson investigator did not frisk the occupants of the vehicle prior to frisking the actual vehicle.
3. Granted, because the arson investigator did not have reasonable suspicion to frisk the interior of the vehicle.
4. Denied, because the arson investigator should have obtained valid consent to search the interior of the vehicle.
5. Denied, because the arson investigator was justified in looking under the front passenger seat for weapons and/or contraband.

Question 3

Char checked a suitcase at the airline counter and got onto an airplane. Before the suitcase was placed on the airplane, it was sniffed by an explosive detection dog. The dog indicated that explosives were located inside which established probable cause to search the suitcase. With this knowledge, two ATF agents entered the airplane, approached Char, identified themselves, and asked him if they could look in the suitcase he had checked at the counter. Char stated, "I'm not traveling with a suitcase." Because the plane wasn't scheduled to take off for an hour (and Char didn't think he would miss the plane), Char voluntarily agreed to accompany the agents to the suitcase, was shown the suitcase, and was asked again if they could open it. Again, Char denied ever seeing the suitcase. The ATF agents opened the suitcase and discovered contraband inside. At trial, the contraband should be -

1. Admitted, because the officers had probable cause to search the suitcase.
2. Admitted, because Char abandoned the suitcase.
3. Suppressed, because the officers violated Char's reasonable expectation of privacy.
4. Suppressed, because the officers did not get a valid consent.

Question 4

Fire investigators approach the home of Mr. Burns, whom they reasonably suspect is involved in an arson-for-profit ring. Burns is not there, but his wife is home. The fire investigators explain they are looking for Burns and would like to talk to him about his clothing he was wearing the day before. Burns' wife states, "Those things are right here. I took them out of his duffel bag. Here they are" and hands them to the fire investigators. The fire investigators accepted the items. At trial, this evidence should be -

1. Suppressed, as they were obtained illegally without either a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement.
2. Suppressed, because the fire investigators had no probable cause to seek the items.
3. Admitted, because the fire investigators could have gotten a search warrant to obtain these items.
4. Admitted, as the items were procured through private action, and thus, were not a search under the 4th Amendment.

Question 5

Fire investigators suspect that Hothead is storing and distributing explosive materials from his home, a felony offense, but have not been able to obtain enough evidence to justify issuance of a search or arrest warrant. They take up surveillance from various positions around the neighborhood, while an undercover officer approaches the residence in an attempt to buy bomb making materials. As the fire investigators observe, the undercover officer approaches Hothead, who is sitting on his front porch, and engages in a lengthy discussion. When an object is transferred between Hothead and the undercover officer, the officer gives the signal that narcotics have been exchanged. The fire investigators, dressed in raid jackets and marked vehicles, descend on the house to arrest Hothead for Distribution and Storage of Explosive Materials. As Hothead sees the fire investigators approach, he turns, runs directly into his home, and slams the door behind him. One of the investigators breaks through the door, and is able to catch Hothead as he is trying to run through the kitchen. Hothead has a bag of what appears to be triggering devices in his hand when he is arrested, and various other bomb making materials are found on a table next to where the arrest occurred. Did the fire investigators violate the "knock and announce" requirement?

1. No, because fire investigators may always make a warrantless entry into a residence to make an arrest, so long as probable cause exists.
2. No, because the fire investigators entered the house to make the arrest under exigent circumstances.
3. Yes, because the fire investigators did not announce their identity and purpose.
4. Yes, because the knock and announce requirement must always be complied with whenever fire investigators desire to enter a private residence.

Question 6

Mr. Bias is arrested on a 5-year-old warrant for setting a wildland fire as he is getting out of his car at his home. Bias has no other criminal history, and there is no reason to suspect that he has engaged in any other instance of fire setting or any other crime. As soon as he is handcuffed and his person searched, he is secured in the back of the law enforcement vehicle. Fire investigators then search the passenger compartment of his car incident to arrest and find electric fuses, a timer, and a battery hidden in the glove compartment. The investigators then decide to search the trunk of the car under the mobile conveyance exception and find plastic pipe, black powder, and shrapnel hidden inside the spare tire. All the above evidence is seized and is offered as evidence at Bias's trial for Possessing a Bomb to Commit a Crime of Violence. Is the evidence admissible?

1. All the evidence is admissible.
2. None of the evidence is admissible.
3. The evidence found in the passenger compartment is admissible, but not the evidence in the trunk.
4. The evidence found in the trunk is admissible but not the evidence found in the passenger compartment because Bias was not an occupant of the vehicle at the time of the arrest.

Question 7

Officer Luminescence suspected that Mr. Combustion was engaged in employment as a professional torch. Officer Luminescence observed Combustion fail to stop at a stop sign. Officer Luminescence pulled Combustion over and requested that Combustion give him his license and registration. Combustion complied. Officer Luminescence called in the information to the dispatcher. While waiting for a response, Officer Luminescence and Combustion engaged in casual conversation. The talk turned to recent school bombings. Officer Luminescence asked Combustion, "You don't have any explosives in your trunk, do you?" Combustion immediately responded that he didn't. At that point, Officer Luminescence asked, "You don't mind if I look, do you?" Combustion responded "That's OK, go ahead." Officer Luminescence went to the back of the vehicle, opened the trunk and saw several large cardboard boxes inside, which he opened. In one of the boxes, he found a quantity of PETN, which he seized. Combustion truthfully testified at the suppression hearing that he did not want Officer Luminescence to open the boxes in the trunk.

Was the seizure of the PETN valid under the Fourth Amendment?

1. Yes, because the automobile exception extends to containers in the trunk
2. Yes, because a reasonable person would have understood Combustion's consent to extend to the boxes in the trunk
3. No, because the scope of Combustion's consent did not extend to opening the boxes in the trunk
4. No, because Officer Luminescence's deception rendered Combustion's consent involuntary.

Question 8

Two officers develop reasonable suspicion that Blaze is about to firebomb a municipal office building. The officers approach Blaze, place him under arrest, and search him. The officer conducting the search feels what is immediately apparent to him to be crack cocaine. The officer then retrieved the substance. At trial, Smith makes a motion to suppress the crack cocaine found during the search. According to the law, this motion should be:

1. Denied, based on the "plain touch" doctrine.
2. Denied, because the officers were justified in conducting a search on Smith.
3. Granted, because the officers acted illegally.
4. Granted, because an officer may lawfully retrieve only weapons during a frisk.

Question 9

Arson investigators obtain a valid premises search warrant to look for exam ethylene triperoxide diamine in Pyro's home. When the warrant is executed, the investigators properly knock, announce their identity and purpose, and demand admittance. Pyro opens the door and the investigators enter. Immediately, the investigators notice that four other people are inside the house. One of the individuals is recognized as Pyro's live-in girlfriend, Fiery. The other three persons are unknown. Without hesitating, the investigators order all five people to stand and face the wall, where a frisk is conducted for the safety of the officers. During the frisk of Fiery, one investigator discovers what is immediately apparent to him to be crack cocaine. He reaches in, retrieves the item, and confirms that it is cocaine. Fiery is arrested. At her trial for narcotics possession, Courtney makes a motion to suppress the cocaine. According to the law, this motion will be:

1. Granted, because, pursuant to the premises search warrant, the investigators could not conduct a frisk of Fiery.
2. Granted, because, pursuant to the premises search warrant, the investigators could only frisk Pyro, the owner of the property.
3. Denied, because the investigators had a valid search warrant for the premises, and were allowed to search any occupants of the premises pursuant to that warrant.
4. Denied, because the investigators had a valid search warrant for the premises, and were allowed to frisk any occupants of the premises pursuant to that warrant.

Question 10

Based on his investigation, fire investigator Joaquin Phoenix obtained a search warrant to search John Wayne Gacey's residence. The search warrant did not specifically list any vehicles to be searched, but rather authorized the search of the entire premises for C4 explosives. On the day the search was conducted, Gacey's vehicle was parked in the driveway of his residence. During the course of the search, Phoenix discovered numerous items of evidence, including a briefcase containing a vast quantity of C4. Phoenix then decided to search the vehicle, although he wasn't sure any evidence was inside it. Inside the trunk of the vehicle, several more packages of C4 were found. At his trial for illegal explosives possession, Gacey made a motion to suppress the C4 found in the vehicle's trunk. Did Phoenix violate the Fourth Amendment?

1. No, because it was found during the lawful execution of a premises search warrant.
2. No, because the vehicle was searched pursuant to the "mobile conveyance" exception to the warrant requirement.
3. Yes, because the agents exceeded the lawful scope of the premises search warrant by searching the vehicle that was not listed in the warrant.
4. Yes, because the agents did not have probable cause to believe that evidence of drug trafficking was located in the vehicle.