Case 11.3 ​Jack has been released from confinement early and placed on probation. He found a job and rented an apartment in his hometown. One day, he responded to a knock on the door and sees his probation officer, Stephanie Stone.  She tells him that she has decided to conduct a surprise inspection of his home. Jack insists that he has been a very good citizen and is no longer involved in any criminal behavior. Stephanie has no evidence that this is not true, but insists on conducting a complete search of the home anyway. Stephanie finds nothing out of the ordinary, but asks if Jack will follow her to the office for a drug test, just in case. Jack says, “Sure, I have nothing to hide.” Unfortunately for Jack, the drug test is positive for an illegal substance and his parole is revoked.Was Jack’s drug test obtained lawfully?

​Every essential element of the crime charged must be proved by the government beyond reasonable _____ in order to convict and punish a defendant for the crime charged.

Administrative searches and functions are those that are related to special need of government and the community.

While incarcerated, prison and jail inmates have reduced Fourth Amendment protection as compared to those of persons outside the institution.

The case establishing limits to identification checkpoints in public housing projects was _____.

Case 12.1 ​Police respond to an armed robbery call at a local deli. The store owner shows the video of the suspect with a gun, provides the direction the suspect fled and tells police that $375.00 in cash was taken.  The police spot the suspect fleeing on foot two blocks away and give chase. The suspect runs through a city park and is stopped near a playground. Officer Smith conducts a frisk of the suspect for the handgun but finds no gun. Officer Smith immediately asks the suspect “where’s the gun?” The suspect hesitates and Officer Smith says “Look, there a lot of little kids here; we don’t want one of them to find the gun and have a tragedy.” The suspect points to a garbage can near the playground and states “it’s in the can.” Another officer retrieves the gun. The suspect is then taken into custody, searched and brought to the police station where he is placed, handcuffed, in an interrogation room. He is provided a written copy of his Miranda warning and the warning is read to him.  The search of the suspect produces $ 450.00 in cash and a cell phone. ​ The suspect is questioned regarding the gun and the robbery. The detectives present the now-unloaded gun in an evidence bag, which the suspect identifies as the one he threw in the can. The suspect admits the gun is his, claiming he found it a week prior in an alley by his apartment.  He remains silent in response to questions regarding the robbery and states “I am not talking about anything else that happened today.” The suspect is then directed to stand in a lineup with five other persons. The store owner positively identifies the suspect. The suspect is charged with the armed robbery, unlawful possession of a weapon and possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes. ​In the above scenario, did Officer Smith’s pre-Miranda questioning of the suspect regarding the location of the location of the gun violate the Fifth Amendment?

Case 8.1 Police 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?​

Federal law authorizes the use of “roving wiretaps” to cover suspects who use a series of different telephones.

During a traffic stop, the Fourth Amendment prohibits officers from looking into the interior of the vehicle.

If a suspect is taken into custody but not questioned, they still have a constitutional right to Miranda warnings.