Q&A Hero

Q: According to the open fields doctrine, the protected and immediately surrounding area around a house is known as _______ .

Q: The Confrontation Clause is found in the Fifth Amendment. a. True b. False

Q: The statement that the Fourth Amendment protects persons, not places, when those persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy describes the _____doctrine.

Q: There were no rules about hearsay under the common law. a. True b. False

Q: The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the _______.

Q: Some states still have a "fresh complaint" exception to the hearsay rule. a. True b. False

Q: _______is the right to be let alone from government invasions.

Q: The rule that detection by means of the ordinary senses is not a Fourth Amendment search is known as the ______ doctrine.

Q: There is a hearsay exception for learned treatises that are established, reliable sources. a. True b. False

Q: Although statements by a patient to a physician for treatment or diagnosis may be privileged, there is no hearsay exception for such statements. a. True b. False

Q: Justice Black, dissenting in Katz v. United States,argued that the Fourth Amendment was meant to only extend protection to tangible things and places. a. True b. False

Q: The US Supreme Court has held that a citizen can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in telephone conversations. a. True b. False

Q: Most states, but not the Federal Rules of Evidence, recognize a hearsay exception for excited utterances. a. True b. False

Q: The Fourth Amendment protects abandoned property. a. True b. False

Q: Most jurisdictions and the federal government require a showing that the declarant is unavailable to trigger at least some hearsay exceptions. a. True b. False

Q: The U.S. Supreme Court created the two-prong evaluation of privacy expectations in Katz v. U.S. (1967).a. Trueb. False

Q: To qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule, the statement must have some indicia of reliability. a. True b. False

Q: There are no exceptions to the hearsay rule in the Federal Rules of Evidence. a. True b. False

Q: A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs when the suspect feels a moral duty to cooperate with police. a. True b. False

Q: After Crawford v. Washington, the hearsay exceptions and exceptions to the Confrontation Clause are identical with regard to testimonial evidence. a. True b. False

Q: According to the Supreme Court opinion in California v. Greenwoodinvolving incriminating evidence found in defendant's trash, citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their trash.a. Trueb. False

Q: Historically, the English King was able to employ Writs of Certiorari to arbitrarily search private citizens anywhere and at any time. a. True b. False

Q: Case 8.3Police investigate a reported sexual assault of a ten year old female. Police were alerted by a school nurse who noticed bruises on her thighs after the child came to her office complaining of lower abdominal pain. The child was interviewed by a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) who asked questions about the assault not to gather evidence but to help the nurse examine and treat the child appropriately. The nurse also performed a rape kit and collected samples for DNA analysis. The child identified a neighborhood handyman as the perpetrator.The accused, Chester Mayhem, had recently worked on the victim's home where he befriended the victim. Mayhem reportedly had sexually assaulted the child on four separate occasions. The child was reluctant to report the assaults as Mayhem threatened to kill her family if she said anything.The subsequent investigation matched Mayhem's DNA to three other unsolved sexual assault cases. Mayhems is arrested and charged with multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault.The Supreme Court has ruled that for a child's out-of-court statement to be admissible, the child's truthfulness must be "so clear from the surrounding circumstances that the test of cross-examination would be of marginal utility. Which matters have been found to "properly relate to whether hearsay statements made by a child witness in child sexual abuse cases are reliable?a. spontaneity and consistent repetitionb. the child's agec. whether the child is male or femaled. the child's race and ethnicity

Q: The police have heard vague rumors of unknown reliability that Smith is growing marijuana in a field on his farm. The field is not visible from Smith's house or from any public road. To reach the field, the police climb over a fence with "No Trespassing" signs on it. They find marijuana growing in a field on Smith's farm. They had no search warrant. This search is constitutional under the open fields doctrine.a. Trueb. False

Q: Case 8.3Police investigate a reported sexual assault of a ten year old female. Police were alerted by a school nurse who noticed bruises on her thighs after the child came to her office complaining of lower abdominal pain. The child was interviewed by a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) who asked questions about the assault not to gather evidence but to help the nurse examine and treat the child appropriately. The nurse also performed a rape kit and collected samples for DNA analysis. The child identified a neighborhood handyman as the perpetrator.The accused, Chester Mayhem, had recently worked on the victim's home where he befriended the victim. Mayhem reportedly had sexually assaulted the child on four separate occasions. The child was reluctant to report the assaults as Mayhem threatened to kill her family if she said anything.The subsequent investigation matched Mayhem's DNA to three other unsolved sexual assault cases. Mayhems is arrested and charged with multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault.At trail the defense attempts to block the nurse's testimony regarding the child's description of the sexual assault as hearsay. Is this it hearsay?a. Yes, because the nurse asked questions for the purposes of investigating the incidentb. Yes, because the testimony violates the Confrontation Clausec. No, because testimony of a sexual assault nurse examiner is admissible under the medical diagnosis exceptiond. No, because the child is too young to testify herself

Q: Case 8.2Mayberry Police receive a 911 call in which an argument, with a woman screaming, can be heard in the background. What sounds like a violent struggle with breaking glass and a male voice screaming "no more cheating for you bitch" can be heard as the 911 dispatcher tries to get a response. The dispatcher relays this information to the patrol units dispatched to 123 Main Street.When police arrive on scene they find the door is locked but can see a female victim lying on the floor amidst broken furniture. Police force entry and find the victim lifeless. They also find a trail of blood leading to the back door. According to neighbors, the victim, Shannon Mathews, was recently separated from her husband and had only moved in a few months prior. The next door neighbor, Mary Hart, reports that she had witnessed a few heated arguments between the victim and her estranged husband in the driveway over the past few months. In fact after the last incident a week prior, the victim had asked Mrs. Hart to call the police if she saw her estranged husband at the house as she was in fear of him.A check of police dispatch records revealed two prior 911 calls from Mrs. Mathews about threats from Matt Mathews. Also in the system was an active domestic violence order of protection for the victim, baring contact from Matt Mathews.Matt Mathews is pulled over for speeding and is arrested for DWI by police in the adjacent town of Mount Pilot five minutes after the call to 123 Main. Mr. Mathews has fresh injuries including scratches on his face and is highly agitated. While the officers are trying to conduct field sobriety tests, Matthews repeatedly mumbles "the bitch deserved it." The motor vehicle stop and arrest are recorded on the police dash camera. Due to the active restraining order in the police data base, the accused's fresh injuries and his statements, Mount Pilot Police contact Mayberry Police to conduct a welfare check on Mrs. Mathews. They are advised of the active murder investigation and asked to hold Mr. Mathews.The medical examiner conducts an autopsy as well as forensic testing that reveals DNA evidence and blood other the victim's on her clothing. During the investigation police find multiple threatening phone messages and texts from Matt Mathews on Mrs. Mathews' cell phone. Police subpoena Mr. Mathews' phone records as well. Mr. Mathews is ultimately charged with the murder of his estranged wife Shannon.The defense also attempts to block the testimony of Mount Pilot police regarding Mr. Mathews utterances during the recorded field sobriety test. Is this testimony hearsay?a. Yes, because it is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter assertedb. Yes, because the testimony violates the Confrontation Clausec. No, because it is an excited utteranced. No, because the officer is available for cross-examination

Q: The open fields doctrine protects land from intrusion where owners have put up "no trespassing" signs. a. True b. False

Q: Case 8.2Mayberry Police receive a 911 call in which an argument, with a woman screaming, can be heard in the background. What sounds like a violent struggle with breaking glass and a male voice screaming "no more cheating for you bitch" can be heard as the 911 dispatcher tries to get a response. The dispatcher relays this information to the patrol units dispatched to 123 Main Street.When police arrive on scene they find the door is locked but can see a female victim lying on the floor amidst broken furniture. Police force entry and find the victim lifeless. They also find a trail of blood leading to the back door. According to neighbors, the victim, Shannon Mathews, was recently separated from her husband and had only moved in a few months prior. The next door neighbor, Mary Hart, reports that she had witnessed a few heated arguments between the victim and her estranged husband in the driveway over the past few months. In fact after the last incident a week prior, the victim had asked Mrs. Hart to call the police if she saw her estranged husband at the house as she was in fear of him.A check of police dispatch records revealed two prior 911 calls from Mrs. Mathews about threats from Matt Mathews. Also in the system was an active domestic violence order of protection for the victim, baring contact from Matt Mathews.Matt Mathews is pulled over for speeding and is arrested for DWI by police in the adjacent town of Mount Pilot five minutes after the call to 123 Main. Mr. Mathews has fresh injuries including scratches on his face and is highly agitated. While the officers are trying to conduct field sobriety tests, Matthews repeatedly mumbles "the bitch deserved it." The motor vehicle stop and arrest are recorded on the police dash camera. Due to the active restraining order in the police data base, the accused's fresh injuries and his statements, Mount Pilot Police contact Mayberry Police to conduct a welfare check on Mrs. Mathews. They are advised of the active murder investigation and asked to hold Mr. Mathews.The medical examiner conducts an autopsy as well as forensic testing that reveals DNA evidence and blood other the victim's on her clothing. During the investigation police find multiple threatening phone messages and texts from Matt Mathews on Mrs. Mathews' cell phone. Police subpoena Mr. Mathews' phone records as well. Mr. Mathews is ultimately charged with the murder of his estranged wife Shannon.At trial, the defense seeks to block the 911 call recording, in which Mr. Mathews' statement can be clearly heard, as hearsay. Is Mr. Matthews' utterance on the 911 call hearsay that should be excluded?a. Yes, because it is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter assertedb. Yes, because the testimony violates the Confrontation Clausec. No, because it does not requires the fact finder to draw inferencesd. No, because the 911 operator's statements were intended to give police vital information

Q: The plain view doctrine does not allow the use of ordinary technological enhancements that are widely available, i.e. flashlights or magnifying glasses. a. True b. False

Q: Case 8.1Police respond to the scene of fight inside a local bar. The scene is chaotic with ambulance personnel attending to an unconscious male. In the course of rendering aid to the victim, the victim and the victim's clothing were removed from the scene. The victim's clothing and personal effects are collected by an emergency room nurse at the hospital.Police interview witnesses who report that the victim, Jeff Anderson, got into an argument with another bar patron/accused for having several rounds of drinks put on the patrons tab. Witnesses also report that the patron/accused struck Mr. Anderson with a close fist and two then exchanged several punches with Mr. Anderson giving the patron/accused a bloody nose. The patron/accused then struck Mr. Anderson with a chair knocking him unconscious and fled the bar.Police interview the bar owner who reports that accused became enraged after getting the $500.00 credit card receipt for his drink tab. The bar owner stated the "guy flipped out, nearly jumping over the bar when he saw the amount of his tab". The bar owner reported that he pointed Mr. Anderson and said "go talk to your friend - he ordered three rounds for the bar on your tab." Police ask for and receive copies of the credit card receipts for the accused, Dick Grayson. The investigating officer responds to the hospital and takes a statement from the victim who reports not knowing why he was attacked. While at the hospital the investigating officer asks if anyone had sought treatment for facial injuries from a fight. It is determined that Mr. Grayson had been seen and had reported to the registration nurse that his injuries were from "some guy sucker punching" him in a bar and had also stated "you should see the other guy." Mr. Grayson is taken into custody and is being escorted out of the emergency room when he stops in front of room where the victim lying in a hospital bed being attended to by medical personnel he blurts out "I'm in so much trouble" and asks the officers "is he going to make it." Mr. Grayson charged with aggravated assault.At trial the arresting police officer testifies to Mr. Grayson's excited utterance and actions when he passed the victim, as they were escorting him out of the emergency room. Are excited utterances an exception to hearsay rules?a. Yes, because there was no expectation of confidentialityb. Yes, because it was an excited utterance.c. No, because it requires the fact finder to draw inferencesd. No, because Mr. Grayson had been drinking

Q: The discovery of evidence by means of a law enforcement officer's ordinary senses in any place where the officer has a lawful right to be is not a search.a. Trueb. False

Q: According to the privacy doctrine, the Fourth Amendment protects places, not persons.a. Trueb. False

Q: Case 8.1Police respond to the scene of fight inside a local bar. The scene is chaotic with ambulance personnel attending to an unconscious male. In the course of rendering aid to the victim, the victim and the victim's clothing were removed from the scene. The victim's clothing and personal effects are collected by an emergency room nurse at the hospital.Police interview witnesses who report that the victim, Jeff Anderson, got into an argument with another bar patron/accused for having several rounds of drinks put on the patrons tab. Witnesses also report that the patron/accused struck Mr. Anderson with a close fist and two then exchanged several punches with Mr. Anderson giving the patron/accused a bloody nose. The patron/accused then struck Mr. Anderson with a chair knocking him unconscious and fled the bar.Police interview the bar owner who reports that accused became enraged after getting the $500.00 credit card receipt for his drink tab. The bar owner stated the "guy flipped out, nearly jumping over the bar when he saw the amount of his tab". The bar owner reported that he pointed Mr. Anderson and said "go talk to your friend - he ordered three rounds for the bar on your tab." Police ask for and receive copies of the credit card receipts for the accused, Dick Grayson. The investigating officer responds to the hospital and takes a statement from the victim who reports not knowing why he was attacked. While at the hospital the investigating officer asks if anyone had sought treatment for facial injuries from a fight. It is determined that Mr. Grayson had been seen and had reported to the registration nurse that his injuries were from "some guy sucker punching" him in a bar and had also stated "you should see the other guy." Mr. Grayson is taken into custody and is being escorted out of the emergency room when he stops in front of room where the victim lying in a hospital bed being attended to by medical personnel he blurts out "I'm in so much trouble" and asks the officers "is he going to make it." Mr. Grayson charged with aggravated assault.Would the emergency room nurse's testimony regarding Mr. Grayson's statement to her about he got injured in a bar fight fall under any hearsay exceptions?a. Yes, because it was an excited utterance.b. Yes, because there was no expectation of confidentialityc. No, because it requires the fact finder to draw inferencesd. No, because of the physician-patient privilege

Q: Case 8.1Police respond to the scene of fight inside a local bar. The scene is chaotic with ambulance personnel attending to an unconscious male. In the course of rendering aid to the victim, the victim and the victim's clothing were removed from the scene. The victim's clothing and personal effects are collected by an emergency room nurse at the hospital.Police interview witnesses who report that the victim, Jeff Anderson, got into an argument with another bar patron/accused for having several rounds of drinks put on the patrons tab. Witnesses also report that the patron/accused struck Mr. Anderson with a close fist and two then exchanged several punches with Mr. Anderson giving the patron/accused a bloody nose. The patron/accused then struck Mr. Anderson with a chair knocking him unconscious and fled the bar.Police interview the bar owner who reports that accused became enraged after getting the $500.00 credit card receipt for his drink tab. The bar owner stated the "guy flipped out, nearly jumping over the bar when he saw the amount of his tab". The bar owner reported that he pointed Mr. Anderson and said "go talk to your friend - he ordered three rounds for the bar on your tab." Police ask for and receive copies of the credit card receipts for the accused, Dick Grayson. The investigating officer responds to the hospital and takes a statement from the victim who reports not knowing why he was attacked. While at the hospital the investigating officer asks if anyone had sought treatment for facial injuries from a fight. It is determined that Mr. Grayson had been seen and had reported to the registration nurse that his injuries were from "some guy sucker punching" him in a bar and had also stated "you should see the other guy." Mr. Grayson is taken into custody and is being escorted out of the emergency room when he stops in front of room where the victim lying in a hospital bed being attended to by medical personnel he blurts out "I'm in so much trouble" and asks the officers "is he going to make it." Mr. Grayson charged with aggravated assault.At trial the defense attempts to block admission of the credit card transactions from the bar as hearsay. Are the records admissible?a. Yes, as regularly kept business recordsb. No, not unless the credit card company testifies about themc. Yes, under the Co-conspirator Ruled. No, not without proof that the accused had actually approved them

Q: The US. Supreme Court has held that citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the telephone numbers they call.a. Trueb. False

Q: The Fourth Amendment only protects against invasions that amount to unreasonable searches and seizures. a. True b. False

Q: Certain business records, public records, records of religious organizations, and family records are admissible under federal rules known as the _____ exception. a. regularly kept records b. notarized document c. public data d. confidential data

Q: The hearsay exceptions, reliable or not, can no longer be used as a(n) _____for cross-examination under the Confrontation Clause for "testimonial" statements. a. substitute b. limitation c. modifier d. exclusion

Q: In practice, searches and seizures sometimes serve to protect police officers. a. True b. False

Q: In California v. Hodari D. (1991), the Supreme Court ruled:a. a seizure cannot occur if the suspect does not yield.b. a show of authority stop by police is sufficient to establish a seizure occurred.c. a show of authority is sufficient to establish that a suspect is not free to leave.d. a warning shot is required to establish a seizure occurred and the suspect continues to flee.

Q: The Confrontation Clause is found within the _____ Amendment. a. Third b. Fourth c. Sixth d. Seventh.

Q: A(n) _____ is a statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition. a. excited utterance b. statement to physicians c. dying declaration d. confession

Q: The use of a roadblock to screen drunk drivers on a public roadway is an example of a Show of _______ seizure.a. Intentb. Purpose c. Authority d. Force

Q: The Confrontation Clause does not apply to _____ out-of-court statements. a. co-conspirators b. non-testimonial c. regularly kept records d. child victims of abuse

Q: According to the plurality opinion of the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Mendenhallinvolving an airport investigation of possible drug law violations: a. voluntary cooperation is determined by whether the agents actually tell citizens they are free to leave. b. seizure is determined by whether reasonable persons, under the circumstances, would feel or honestly believe they are not free to go. c. a person is seized whenever they are moved from the place where the encounter with the police occurs. d. a person is not seized unless the officer tells the person he or she has been arrested.

Q: The point at which an actual seizure occurs is when police: a. physically grab a person with the intent to keep them from leaving. b. display their authority by ordering a suspect to stop. c. draw their weapons and announce that the person is under arrest. d. stop an individual and hand-cuff them.

Q: One relatively recent set of exceptions to the hearsay rule has been created for _____. a. co-conspirators b. statements to physicians c. regularly kept records d. child victims of sexual abuse

Q: If the declarant makes a statement that could subject them to criminal charges, the statement would probably be admissible under the exception for statements _____. a. of exculpation b. against penal interest c. contrary to reputational security d. contrary to Miranda rights

Q: In Florida v. Bostick (1991), the court had to address when a person was "˜stopped" when the person involved was:a. the driver of a car stopped pursuant to a traffic stop.b. a passenger in a car stopped pursuant to a traffic stop. c. a passenger on a public bus boarded by police agents. d. a traveler in a public airport terminal.

Q: In California v. Hodari D. (1991), a juvenile dropped the drugs he was carrying before actually being "˜seized" by police. What was the key issue in this case?a. The prosecution said since the defendant was being pursued chased by the police, the chase itself constituted a "˜seizure" under the Fourth Amendment. Thus charging them with possession of the drugs was legitimate.b. That the recovery of the drugs was considered "˜constructive possession."c. That the real issue was that officers had actually seen him throw the drugs away.d. That he was "˜not" actually seized under the Fourth Amendment until he had actually been subdued or submitted to the police, thus the drugs were not admissible.

Q: The statement by a shooting victim just prior to death would probably be admissible under the hearsay exception for _____. a. victim statements b. murder witnesses c. statements for descriptions of medical condition d. dying declarations

Q: Which of the following is NOT an example of abandoned property? a. A man throws away an empty soda can after finishing the drink inside it. b. A woman closes her purse but in doing so unknowingly drops her wallet out of it. c. A person being chased by the police throws away a gun. d. A person places notes for a letter in a basket to be sent to the paper shredder.

Q: There is a hearsay exception for business, government, and religious records as long as the records are _____. a. over ten years old b. handwritten c. regularly kept d. not stored on computers

Q: Statements made to a physician for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment _____. a. may be both privileged and an exception to the hearsay rule b. are an exception to the hearsay rule only if part of an excited utterance c. are an exception only if offered in the form of medical records d. are not an exception in any jurisdiction

Q: The Fourth Amendment does not protect what the senses perceive in public places. Public places do NOT include:a. public parks.b. private businesses open to the public.c. streets.d. employees-only areas of private businesses.

Q: Under Federal rules, testimony about statements made by a person to show that the person was mentally ill _____. a. are hearsay and not admissible b. are not hearsay c. are hearsay but admissible because of their indicia of reliability d. are excludable under Ohio v. Roberts

Q: The special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to persons, places, papers, and effects does not include protection for: a. telephone calls. b. curtilage. c. offices. d. open fields.

Q: Which matter describes a firmly rooted hearsay exception in the law of evidence? a. excited utterance b. statement of an accomplice c. personal diaries d. statements made while mentally incompetent

Q: The twopronged test of privacy to determine whether or not a police action is actually a "˜search" is referred to as the:a. Subjective and Objective Privacy testsb. Moral and Legal Privacy testsc. Prosecutorial and Defense Privacy testsd. Habeas Corpus and the Corpus Delicti tests

Q: Which of the following places is/are notlikely to be considered part of the curtilage?a. A garage b. A poolc. Warehouses on the same property d. A porch

Q: Under the "forfeiture by wrongdoing" rule, a defendant who deliberately makes a witness unavailable waives _____. a. the right to object to hearsay with regard to that witness b. the privilege against self-incrimination c. the right to cross-examine any witness who presents hearsay about the unavailable witness d. the privilege to challenge the competence of any witness who presents hearsay about the unavailable witness

Q: For "testimonial" statements, Washington v. Crawford _____. a. aligns the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause. b. creates divergence between hearsay exception and the Confrontation Clause. c. changes nothing about the traditional relationship between the confrontation clause and hearsay exceptions. d. will have no impact on hearsay exceptions in state evidence codes.

Q: According to the Supreme Court, a police officer is permitted to use drug sniffing dogs during a routine stop for a traffic violation: a. because the driver of the car does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy while lawfully stopped. b. only if the officer can establish probable cause that the driver has contraband in the car. c. only if the officer has probable cause and a search warrant. d. only if the driver has consented to the search.

Q: The Crawford v. Washington decision protects _____. a. defendants b. the government c. each side equally d. only factually guilty defendants

Q: Police used a thermal imager to scan Kyllo's home because they had information that he was growing marijuana in his home. Officers did not have a warrant and claimed the search was in plain view. The Supreme Court ruled that:a. use of a thermal imager did not alter the fact that the officers observed the marijuana in plain view.b. use of a thermal imager to explore details of a home that in the past would have been unknown without a physical intrusion into the home is a search and subject to Fourth Amendment requirements.c. thermal imagers are common devices and, therefore, the search was in plain view.d. the use of a thermal imager is always illegal.

Q: Prior to Crawford v. Washington, if a form of statement was traditionally recognized as an exception to the hearsay rule it was also recognized as an exception to the _____. a. Confrontation Clause b. right to counsel c. privilege against self-incrimination d. right to notice of the charges

Q: In California v. Ciraolo (1986), a case involving the police using a plane to fly 1000 feet over Ciraolo's yard to see if he was growing marijuana, the Supreme Court ruled:a. the plane enhanced the police officer's natural vision and, therefore, the Fourth Amendment was implicated and the officers should be held to the probable cause and warrant requirements.b. the plane enhanced the officer's vision but they had probable cause based on other evidence.c. the plane didn"t enhance the officer's vision, therefore it was a plain view search outside the purview of the Fourth Amendment.d. the Fourth Amendment restricts officers from using airplanes to search for drugs.

Q: With regard to testimonial hearsay, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Ohio v. Roberts in _____. a. U.S. v. Inadi. b. Pointer v. Texas. c. Crawford v. Washington. d. Minnesota v. Murphy.

Q: An officer who uses a flash light to look inside the front seat of a locked, illegally parked automobile on a public street and notices a bag of marijuana on a front seat has: a. conducted an illegal search because he enhanced his normal senses with a flashlight. b. conducted an illegal search because he looked into the windows of a locked car. c. not conducted a search at all and his actions are not in violation of the Fourth Amendment because the marijuana was in plain view. d. conducted a legal search because under the Fourth Amendment he can use a flashlight.

Q: An officer who smells marijuana as he drives by a car with an open window:a. cannot compel the driver to stop the car so he can investigate without a warrant.b. is limited to noting the license plate number of the vehicle and initiating a stakeout of the owner's home in order to gather additional evidence.c. is authorized to stop the car to investigate without a warrant or probable cause because it is a plain search and outside the scope of the Fourth Amendment.d. is authorized to stop and investigate because he has probable cause under the Fourth Amendment.

Q: Exceptions to the hearsay rule mandate that the hearsay offered have some _____. a. relation to the unavailability of the declarant b. indicia of reliability c. means of being corroborated d. relation to the burden of proof

Q: According to the plain view doctrine: a. plain view is an exception to the search warrant requirement. b. plain view is a Fourth Amendment search. c. plain view observations always fall outside of the Fourth Amendment restrictions. d. once in plain view, an item may be searched to confirm that it is able to be seized.

Q: For most exceptions to the hearsay rule under the Federal Rules of Evidence and in most states, _____. a. unavailability of the declarant is not required b. unavailability of the declarant is required c. availability of the declarant is required d. the unavailability of the declarant does not need be explained by counsel

Q: In U.S. v. White, involving incriminating statements heard by law enforcement because of warrantless electronic eavesdropping of defendant White's coconspirator, the Supreme Court held that:a. live participant monitoring was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, but electronic eavesdropping was not.b. White had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his conversation with the co-conspirator.c. three-party bugging jeopardizes our sense of security and therefore was unreasonable.d. the use of government informants in the respondent's home violated the Fourth Amendment.

Q: The rule against hearsay and the _____ Clause of the Sixth Amendment deal with similar testimonial issues. a. Venue b. Counsel c. Public Trial d. Confrontation

Q: Case 7.2Brenda Lee is found murdered on the rear porch of her sorority house after having a heated argument with her boyfriend, Britt Reid, earlier in the evening. The women in the sorority house claim not to have any knowledge of the murder. The medical examiner conducts an autopsy and forensic testing reveals DNA evidence and blood other than the victim's on her clothing. Joe Carbone, a member of a fraternity two houses away, comes forward two days later and provides a statement that one of the sorority sisters, Shirley Temple, told Joe that she saw Britt Reid kill the victim. Bernie is ultimately charged with the murder of Brenda Lee.At the murder trial, Joe is a witness testifying for the State. As the State's first witness, Joe testifies that Shirley told him that she saw the defendant kill the victim of the case. Joe's statement is being offered to show that the defendant killed the victim. Is this hearsay? Shirley is not testifying at trial.a. Yes, because Shirley is not available to allow the accuracy of Joe's statement to be tested.b. Yes, because the testimony violates the Confrontation Clause of the First amendment.c. No, because it requires the fact finder to draw inferences as to the defendants' intent.d. No, because it is based on Joe's own actions and observations and Joe is available for cross-examination.

Q: According to the Supreme Court opinion in U.S. v. White(1971), involving a friend wired for sound to the police: a. a defendant has a constitutionally protected expectation that a person he is conversing with will not reveal the conversation to the police. b. a person contemplating illegal activities must realize and risk that his friend may be reporting to the police. c. a suspect's friend may relate the substance of conversations between the two without violating the Fourth Amendment, but the amendment is violated if the friend records those conversations for the police without a warrant. d. anytime electronic devices are used to obtain evidence, a search warrant is required.

Q: Case 7.1While shoplifting five laptops from an electronics store in the mall, the actors Jack and Diane are confronted by the store manager. Jack brutally assaults the store manager as Diane looks on. They leave the manager unconscious on the floor of the store. Passing shoppers alert mall security officers who chase the two into the mall parking lot. Police are notified and arrive as Jack and Diane flee the scene in a small red pickup truck and stop the vehicle. Mall security provides physical and clothing description of the two suspects and the pickup truck.Police pursue the pickup through several residential streets. During the pursuit several items appearing to laptops are thrown from the passenger window of the truck. The locations are reported via radio for other units to collect the evidence.The fleeing pickup blows several red lights causing minor accidents. The pursuing police units temporarily lose sight of the pickup. Within minutes the pickup is found in an alleyway crashed into a retaining wall behind 427 Oak Street. The pickup is unoccupied with the keys still in the ignition. The license plates on the vehicle are stolen. Found in the pickup is one laptop, a blood covered sleeve of a shirt. Also found in the pickup is old mail addressed to a Jack Bowers of 123 Elm Street which is approximately 1 mile away.While patrol searches for the suspects, detectives respond to the Bower residence and find no one home. They speak with the building manager who reports seeing Mr. Bower and his girlfriend drive off earlier in the day. The manager reports that Mr. Bower owns a small red pickup. The detectives notice surveillance cameras on the apartment complex and ask the manager to view and copy the video from that day. Caught on video are Brower and girlfriend apparently changing the license plates on the pickup and leaving in the truck 30 minutes prior to the incident at the mall. The vehicle identification number on the pickup is registered to Jack Bower with different license plates.Jack and Diane are located by patrol three blocks from the pickup hiding behind two dumpsters.Jack's shirt is torn and bloody. He has bruises and blood on his hands. Both claim that they were carjacked two hours prior and had been walking toward the police station. The two are arrested.A search incident to arrest under covers 3 packets of heroin, a hypodermic needle and cell phone in Jack's pockets. A large, aluminum-lined handbag (commonly called a boosting bag) with several boxed cell phones and 2 bags of heroin are found in Diane's possession.Detectives respond to the hospital where the store manager is being treated for serious injuries, including a skull fracture and damage to his eye socket and jaw. The injuries are photographed and documented.Detectives also retrieve surveillance video from the store and mall for evidence. The two suspects are charged with robbery, eluding, destruction of evidence, possession of a controlled dangerous substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia as well as possession of burglary tools.The detective testifies: "I showed Mr. (store manager) a display of seven photographs, When he saw the picture of Jack Bower, he gasped and began to cry." Would this statement be considered hearsay?a. Yes, because the testimony was offered as evidence of the truth of the matter asserted.b. Yes, because the testimony violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth amendment.c. No, because it requires the fact finder to draw inferences as to the defendants' intent.d. No, because the store manager's conduct was not meant as a communication.

Q: In California v. Greenwood (1988), the Supreme Court held:a. there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the trash we place in the waste baskets located in our homes.b. there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the trash we place in bags/cans we place outside for pick- up on the front curb of our homes.c. there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the trash we place on the front curbs outside our homes because the trash is still on our property.d. there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in trash unless we have shredded it.

Q: According to the Supreme Court in Smith v. Maryland (1979), a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in:a. his or her personal diary.b. telephone conversations.c. the telephone numbers that they dial.d. the briefcase they carry in a public place.