Constitutional and Case Law Flashcards
7 cards from real Law Enforcement practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 Constitutional and Case Law flashcards as text
Under the automobile exception (Carroll v. United States), officers may search a vehicle without a warrant if they have what?
Answer: Probable cause to believe it contains evidence or contraband
The automobile exception permits a warrantless search of a vehicle when there is probable cause, due to its mobility and reduced expectation of privacy.
A search incident to a lawful arrest allows officers to search what area?
Answer: The arrestee and the area within immediate control
Chimel v. California limits a search incident to arrest to the person and the area within their immediate reach (wingspan).
Under Riley v. California, officers generally must obtain what before searching a cell phone seized during arrest?
Answer: A warrant
Riley held that the search of a cell phone incident to arrest generally requires a warrant due to the vast private data it holds.
For the plain view doctrine to justify a seizure, the officer must be where and the item's incriminating nature must be what?
Answer: Lawfully present; immediately apparent
Plain view requires the officer to be lawfully present and the incriminating character of the item to be immediately apparent.
Consent to search is valid only if it is given how?
Answer: Voluntarily and not through coercion
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte requires that consent to search be voluntary under the totality of the circumstances and free of coercion.
Under exigent circumstances, officers may enter without a warrant in situations such as which of the following?
Answer: Hot pursuit, imminent destruction of evidence, or emergency aid
Exigent circumstances like hot pursuit, risk of evidence destruction, or someone needing emergency aid justify warrantless entry.
In Georgia v. Randolph, when one occupant consents to a search but a physically present co-occupant objects, the search is what?
Answer: Invalid as to the objecting present occupant
Randolph held that a present, objecting co-occupant's refusal renders a consent search unreasonable as to that occupant.