Criminal Procedure Flashcards

Police stop a driver for a broken taillight and, without any additional suspicion, extend the stop 20 minutes to wait for a drug-sniffing dog. Under Rodriguez v. United States, the resulting dog alert and search are:

Answer: Unconstitutional, because prolonging a stop beyond its mission requires independent reasonable suspicion

Rodriguez holds that police may not extend a traffic stop beyond the time needed to complete its mission absent independent reasonable suspicion.

A suspect in custody says, 'Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.' Police continue questioning and obtain a confession. Under Davis v. United States, the confession is:

Answer: Admissible, because the suspect's statement was ambiguous and did not unequivocally invoke the right to counsel

Davis requires an unambiguous request for counsel before police must cease interrogation.

Under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C), a defendant not brought to trial within what period (excluding delays caused by the defendant or court congestion) must be discharged?

Answer: One year from the later of arrest or charging

Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) requires trial within one year of the later of the charge or arrest, subject to chargeable delays.

Officers execute a valid warrant to search a house for a stolen 60-inch television. While searching, an officer opens a small jewelry box and finds drugs. The drugs are:

Answer: Inadmissible, because a television could not be found in a jewelry box, so the search exceeded the warrant's scope

A warrant permits searching only places where the named item could reasonably be found, and a large TV cannot fit in a jewelry box.

Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution differs from Fourth Amendment analysis in that Indiana courts apply:

Answer: A reasonableness test under the totality of the circumstances, per Litchfield v. State, which can provide greater protection than federal law

Litchfield v. State established an independent totality-of-the-circumstances reasonableness analysis balancing suspicion, intrusion, and law enforcement needs.

A defendant is convicted, and on appeal argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, though he did not object when the evidence was introduced at trial. Under Indiana law, the issue is:

Answer: Waived, because a contemporaneous objection at trial is required to preserve the error

Indiana requires a contemporaneous objection when the evidence is offered at trial; a denied suppression motion alone does not preserve the issue.

Police arrest a driver and secure him in a patrol car, then search his vehicle's passenger compartment and find contraband. Under Arizona v. Gant, the search is:

Answer: Invalid unless the arrestee could access the vehicle or it was reasonable to believe it contained evidence of the offense of arrest

Gant limits vehicle searches incident to arrest to situations where the arrestee is unsecured within reach or the vehicle likely contains evidence of the arrest offense.