Omandoms 32-4 re based on the following fact atention Chiseler borrowed Employee's care to pick up his brother at the train station. However, be actually used the car to rob a bank. After returning the car and returning to track, Chisata tersembered fast he had left his wallet underneath the diver's seat of the vehicle. As he was rotuming to the cer, Chiseler was wrested by the FBI (although they did not have rest warrant). They took Chisola directly to the bank to determine whether any of the talles could identity him. Chister recoasted a lawyer, but his roast wastefused. Tiltic Tabla was the only witness able to positively identify Chiseler at the bank. On the following day, the FBI seized Beployer's ear and fomd Chiseler'e wallet. Chtoeler was then indicted for federal bank mobbery. 3.2. Does Chische have standing to object to the FBI's seizure of Employee's cher on Fourth Amendment groueds? A. Yes it the FBI scizod Employer's car without a Watant B. Yes, if the FBI lacked probablo arree to believe the Besployer's ok was lavatred in the robbery. C. No, booknese Chiseler was not the owner of the car. D. No, because the FBI's seizure of Employer's car was justified by exigent circumstances. & None of the abova 33. Cam Chijala mccessfully object to the introduction of hin wallet into evidenco? A. Yes, because the police failed to obtain a waurant B. Yas, because the wallet was his property. C. Yor; if the pollo tacked rondomable chose to believe that Chiseler's wallet was in the car when Employer's webiele was reized. D. No. B. None of the above Omandoms 32-4 re based on the following fact atention Chiseler borrowed Employee's care to pick up his brother at the train station. However, be actually used the car to rob a bank. After returning the car and returning to track, Chisata tersembered fast he had left his wallet underneath the diver's seat of the vehicle. As he was rotuming to the cer, Chiseler was wrested by the FBI (although they did not have rest warrant). They took Chisola directly to the bank to determine whether any of the talles could identity him. Chister recoasted a lawyer, but his roast wastefused. Tiltic Tabla was the only witness able to positively identify Chiseler at the bank. On the following day, the FBI seized Beployer's ear and fomd Chiseler'e wallet. Chtoeler was then indicted for federal bank mobbery. 3.2. Does Chische have standing to object to the FBI's seizure of Employee's cher on Fourth Amendment groueds? A. Yes it the FBI scizod Employer's car without a Watant B. Yes, if the FBI lacked probablo arree to believe the Besployer's ok was lavatred in the robbery. C. No, booknese Chiseler was not the owner of the car. D. No, because the FBI's seizure of Employer's car was justified by exigent circumstances. & None of the abova 33. Cam Chijala mccessfully object to the introduction of hin wallet into evidenco? A. Yes, because the police failed to obtain a waurant B. Yas, because the wallet was his property. C. Yor; if the pollo tacked rondomable chose to believe that Chiseler's wallet was in the car when Employer's webiele was reized. D. No. B. None of the above