Pass The Bar.

[VivaRevolution]

Ok. So the correct answer was A: The search was invalid and the evidence must be suppressed because the co-occupant of the premises was present and refused to give consent to the search. Just because one co-occupant agrees to consent does not negate the others right to refusal.

Ok, but why isn't the statement considered reasonable cause?

 

[WaylonMercy5150]

Ok, but why isn't the statement considered reasonable cause?

Reasonable cause isn't enough to warrant a search.

 

[WaylonMercy5150]

This one is D they need state of mind to know they’re working in concert for it to be a conspiracy

My years of watching The Good Wife would lead me to chose D. I think you need to consciously agree to cooperate for a conspiracy charge to stick.

D

D was correct.

 

[WaylonMercy5150]

Question #3

Local police received an anonymous letter that contained statements that a married couple was engaged in drug trafficking and were storing large amounts of contraband in their basement. The letter did not say how the writer personally knew that there were drugs or where they were stored. The investigating detective drew up an affidavit of probable cause based on the statements in the letter and presented the request for a search warrant and the affidavit to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge signed a search warrant based on the affidavit. The police raided the home and found several pounds of cocaine in the basement. The defendants filed a motion to suppress the evidence based on insufficient cause to issue a warrant. The state courts rejected the suppression motion. What would the U.S. Supreme Court most likely decide?

A. The Court would validate the search warrant because there were sufficient detailed allegations in the letter to justify a probable cause finding.

B. The Court would invalidate the warrant because there was insufficient information about that would support the credibility and personal knowledge of the informant.

C. The warrant was valid because when the informant’s information turns out to be true after the warrant is issued and executed, then that validates the affidavit of probable cause.

D. The warrant was invalid because affidavits of probable cause must give the name and address of the informant; an affidavit cannot be based on an anonymous informant.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Reasonable cause isn't enough to warrant a search.

Since when?

 

[Midnighter]

B

 

[WaylonMercy5150]

Since when?

Do you mean probable cause?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Do you mean probable cause?

I do.

 

[WaylonMercy5150]

I do.

One occupants statement does not give reasonable doubt without visible evidence. Her statements needed a search to be confirmed which the husband denied. He was within his constitutional right to do so.

 

[VivaRevolution]

One occupants statement does not give reasonable doubt without visible evidence. Her statements needed a search to be confirmed which the husband denied. He was within his constitutional right to do so.

I see. So in reality the cop says the guy looks high, whether he does or not, and legally gets this submitted into court, right?

 

[WaylonMercy5150]

I see. So in reality the cop says the guy looks high, whether he does or not, and legally gets this submitted into court, right?

Saying someone looks high isn't enough to wave someones 4th Amendment rights. And if it was, he is in his own home and is protected from police invasion. When you drive and look high, you under a different microscope.

 

[WaylonMercy5150]

B

B is correct

 

[WaylonMercy5150]

Question #4

A state statute made it a crime to be addicted to the use of narcotic drugs. A man was arrested and charged with the crime of drug addiction. Two officers testified that they examined “track” marks on the defendant’s arms and wrists, and that he admitted to past drug usage. The accused testified that he was not an addict and the marks were from an allergic reaction. The trial court instructed the jury that it could find him guilty on proof that he was an addict, without proof of drug usage. The jury did not believe the defendant’s denials, and found him guilty based on the observed track marks. The court sentenced him to six months imprisonment. He appealed, claiming cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Will the conviction likely be reversed on appeal?

A. No, because the arrest is based on the regular use of illegal narcotics and is a proper concern of the criminal law.

B. No, because the state has the power to forbid the use of narcotics within its borders and that’s what this statute does.

C. Yes, because the statute makes it criminal to use illegal drugs, which constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

D. Yes, because the statute punishes having the illness of drug addiction, which is like punishing someone for having a cold, and it is thus cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Saying someone looks high isn't enough to wave someones 4th Amendment rights. And if it was, he is in his own home and is protected from police invasion. When you drive and look high, you under a different microscope.

Weird man. Cops had been getting people on weed, for the smell for a long time, whether driving or not.

 

[WaylonMercy5150]

Weird man. Cops had been getting people on weed, for the smell for a long time, whether driving or not.

The smell of weed does unfortunately give officers probable cause.

 

[VivaRevolution]

The smell of weed does unfortunately give officers probable cause.

See, I knew the looks high thing works, but it only works if they have been through the training so they can call themselves a expert.

This is what puts it over the top to qualify for probable cause. It isn't just some random cop saying someone looks high.

 

[WaylonMercy5150]

See, I knew the looks high thing works, but it only works if they have been through the training so they can call themselves a expert.

This is what puts it over the top to qualify for probable cause. It isn't just some random cop saying someone looks high.

There is a distinct smell to weed, there is not for cocaine.

 

[Midnighter]

D

 

[Midnighter]

Q4 doesn't make sense though, because you can't make it illegal to being addicted to drugs.

 

[VivaRevolution]

There is a distinct smell to weed, there is not for cocaine.

Yeah, but they have medical training cops can go through, where they become an expert on identifying 7 physical signs someone is high. Mostly it is based on BS about eye movement, but the courts have accepted this. At least in the state of Washington.