Question

Case 17.1
Shelbyville city police heard rumors that Jack and his brother John were involved in illegal sports betting. To avoid the police, the brothers supposedly moved from location to location and operated an active betting office with several employees, generally from hotel rooms. The police received a call from a disgruntled bettor that the mobile betting parlor would be set up next Wednesday. The cooperative bettor agreed to allow police officers to install hidden microphones and video cameras in his home, and promised to offer Jack and John the use his of home in exchange for a break on his gambling debt. John also had a legitimate job at a local carwash and the surveillance technicians snuck into the carwash to plant an additional microphone in his private office to try and confirm details of the betting operation. As it turned out, John did not talk about his gambling job at the carwash, though several of the other employees did use his office when he was out to talk about how they were embezzling money from the business. As it turned out, Jack and John did set up the gambling parlor at the house. Over the next several days, Jack and John conducted illegal betting operations that were recorded both with the microphone and with the video camera. Both men were arrested for violation of state law, which prohibited such gambling operations. Julie and Deborah were also arrested for embezzlement at the carwash the same day based on their incriminating statements in John's office. Additionally, the industrious surveillance technicians also filmed Maggie entering and leaving the house in which the gambling parlor had been set up from their surveillance van in the street. She was arrested for illegal gambling.

Maggie also objects to her arrest since she did not consent to being videotaped. This evidence is:
a. inadmissible since the police did not secure a search warrant.
b. only inadmissible because Maggie did not consent to be videotaped.
c. admissible since Maggie was videotaped in a public area.
d. admissible only if the homeowner consented to the van being parked nearby.

Answer

This answer is hidden. It contains 73 characters.