CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

MBE PRACTICE QUESTIONS


CRIMINAL PROCEDURE QUESTIONS
Question 1
Suspecting criminal activity, a police officer
acting without a warrant peeked through a
small opening in the shutters of an apartment.
The officer observed the apartment’s tenant and
the defendant making methamphetamine. The
officer immediately entered the apartment and
arrested the tenant and the defendant, and he
confiscated the ingredients for the methamphet-
amine, the tools used for methamphetamine
production, and any completed methamphet-
amine for evidence. The search is later ruled
invalid at a suppression hearing.
May the defendant now claim that her Fourth
Amendment rights have been violated by the
seizure of the ingredients, tools, and metham-
phetamine from the apartment?
(A) Yes, because the items will be used in evi-
dence against her.
(B) Yes, if she was an overnight guest of the
tenant.
(C) No, because she was not the owner or
occupier of the apartment.
(D) No, unless she admits to ownership of the
items.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE QUESTIONS 1.
Question 2
The police obtained a valid arrest warrant
for a drug dealer. A reliable informant told the
police that the drug dealer was staying at a
friend’s house until “the heat was off.” Without
having obtained a search warrant, the police
went to the friend’s house, knocked on the door,
and asked the friend if the drug dealer was there.
The friend replied that the drug dealer had been
staying at the house for a few days but had left a
few hours ago. The police pushed open the door
and began searching for the drug dealer. They
found him hiding in a closet along with two five-
pound bricks of marijuana. They arrested both
the drug dealer and the friend. Before his trial
for possession of marijuana, the friend moved to
suppress the marijuana found in the closet.
Should the court grant the motion to suppress?
(A) Yes, because a search warrant was re-
quired.
(B) Yes, because the police may not execute an
arrest warrant at the third party’s home.
(C) No, because the police had probable cause
to believe that the drug dealer was staying
at the friend’s home.
(D) No, because the police had a valid arrest
warrant and the marijuana was found
incident to the arrest.
2. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE QUESTIONS
Question 3
A man was tried in state court for possession
of heroin. The prosecution offered in evidence
five rolled-up toy balloons containing heroin,
which police officers had found on a table in the
man’s apartment. At a hearing on the defense
motion to suppress, testimony was presented that
established that the police had put the apartment
under surveillance, and had watched a police
informant go to the door of the apartment, hand
four balloons of heroin to the man, and leave.
The police had then knocked on the apartment
door, identified themselves as police officers,
and demanded entrance. Having heard nothing
for 30 seconds, the police had then broken down
the door and entered the apartment, discovering
the heroin. The police had intended to arrest
the man for the purchase of heroin, a felony.
When they had gotten inside the apartment, they
discovered that the man had left by a back exit.
He was later arrested at the nearby newsstand.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress,
and the case is on appeal following the man’s
conviction for possession of heroin. How should
the appellate court rule?
(A) Affirm the conviction on the ground that
the error, if any, in admitting the heroin
was harmless error.
(B) Affirm the conviction on the ground that
the police complied with the “knock and
announce rule” even though no one was
there to admit them.
(C) Reverse the conviction on the ground that
the man’s Fourth Amendment rights (as
applied to the states by the Fourteenth
Amendment) have been violated.
(D) Reverse the conviction on the ground that
the “knock and announce rule” was not
satisfied when the police announced their
presence and identity to an empty residence.
Question 4
An underworld informer advised a police
investigator that his neighbor was running an
illegal bookmaking operation in his apartment,
and that the informer had placed bets with the
neighbor at this location. The officer obtained
a search warrant, based on his affidavit reciting
the foregoing facts, and further stating that the
underworld informer was a person who had
given him accurate information in previous
cases, but whose identity could not be revealed
because it might jeopardize other criminal inves-
tigations being carried on by the police. Armed
with the search warrant, police officers went to
the neighbor’s apartment. They entered when
the neighbor opened the door and searched the
apartment. They seized various wagering slips
and bookmaking apparatus (described in the
search warrant) and placed the neighbor under
arrest for illegal gambling. Prior to trial, the
neighbor challenges the validity of the search
warrant.
Was the search warrant valid?
(A) No, because it was based on hearsay infor-
mation.
(B) No, because the officer failed to disclose
the identity of the informer, so that the
accuracy of his information could not be
verified.
(C) Yes, because the identity of the informer is
never required.
(D) Yes, because the affidavit accompanying it
is sufficiently detailed to allow a determina-
tion of probable cause.

Question 5
Acting on information from reliable infor-
mants that drugs were being sold by residents at
a certain fraternity house, the police obtained
a search warrant that entitled them to search
the entire premises for illegal narcotics. The
police arrived at the house when a party was in
progress and were admitted to the house by the
fraternity president after showing the warrant.
Officers proceeded to search the house. In an
upstairs bedroom, they found a young woman
who was a guest of a fraternity member sleeping
on the bed. No one else was in the room. The
police found a footlocker under the bed and
opened it, finding a variety of illegal drugs. The
police then awakened the woman and seized her
purse from her. They found a small quantity of
marijuana in the purse. The woman was charged
with a drug possession offense. At her trial, the
prosecution seeks to admit the marijuana seized
from her purse over the objection of her attorney.
Should the court admit the marijuana?
(A) Yes, because the footlocker was within the
woman’s reach.
(B) Yes, because the woman was present in a
room where drugs were found.
(C) No, because the woman had no possessory
interest in the premises.
(D) No, because the police had no reason to
believe that the woman had drugs on her
person.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE QUESTIONS 3.
Question 6
While on routine patrol late one night, a
police officer noticed that a car was weaving
recklessly across several lanes of traffic. He
stopped the driver, believing that he was driving
while intoxicated. By state law, the officer was
empowered to arrest the driver and take him
to the nearest police station for booking. As
he approached the vehicle, the officer saw the
driver put what appeared to be a bottle in the
glove compartment. The officer arrested the
driver and then searched his vehicle. In the
glove compartment, the officer discovered a
vial containing a small amount of cocaine. The
driver was charged with possession of cocaine.
At a preliminary hearing, the driver’s attorney
moves to prevent introduction of the cocaine into
evidence on the grounds that the search violated
his client’s federal constitutional rights.
This motion will most likely be:
(A) Denied, because the officer was acting
under a fear for his personal safety.
(B) Denied, because the search was incident to
a constitutionally valid custodial arrest.
(C) Granted, because the officer needed a
warrant to search the glove compartment.
(D) Granted, because there was no reason-
able or proper basis on which to justify
conducting the search.
4. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE QUESTIONS

Question 7 (D) No, because the police had a right to

search the friend for gambling slips, and
Police officers were executing a search the discovery of the heroin was merely
warrant at a home suspected of containing incidental to a lawful search.
evidence of illegal gambling. No one was at
home when the police arrived. After searching
the first floor, the officers went upstairs. A
friend of the owner then entered the house
carrying a briefcase. He set the briefcase on the
floor, opened it, and then heard the officers. He
became frightened, left the briefcase sitting in
the middle of the floor, and hid in a closet. The
police officers returned to the first floor and
immediately spotted the briefcase, which they
knew was not there earlier. Because the briefcase
was open, the officers saw its contents—betting
slips—and seized them. Because they knew
that someone had entered the house since they
arrived, they re-searched the first floor. They
found the friend and informed him that he was
under arrest, clapped handcuffs on him, and read
him his Miranda warnings. One of the officers
patted the friend down to check for weapons.
The officer noticed a bulge in the friend’s pocket.
Although the officer knew that the bulge was
unlikely to be a weapon, he reached into the
pocket anyway, and discovered a package that
appeared to be (and later proved to be) heroin.
The friend was charged with possession of
narcotics.

At a suppression hearing, will the court agree

with the public defender’s contention that the
friend’s arrest was illegal?

(A) Yes, because the police officer who

searched the friend knew that he did not
have a weapon in his pocket.

(B) Yes, because the friend’s mere presence in

the house did not give the police probable
cause to believe he had committed a crime,
and they had no basis for searching him at
all, because he did not act toward them in a
threatening manner.

(C) No, because the contents of the briefcase

gave the police probable cause to arrest the
man.

Question 8
A man and a woman were traveling in the
man’s car when they were stopped by the police
for running a red light. Before the police came
up to the car, the man told the woman, “You owe
me a favor. Keep this package for me,” and gave
the woman a small foil package. The woman put
the package in her backpack, saying, “O.K., but
don’t tell me what’s in it.” Before the police even
began to question the occupants, the man blurted
out, “I’m clean, man, but she has a stash,”
pointing at the woman. The officers searched the
backpack that the woman was holding and found
the foil package, which contained heroin. The
woman was arrested, but the man was not.
Is the evidence found on the woman admis-
sible?
(A) Yes, under the automobile exception.
(B) Yes, because due process imputes knowl-
edge where there is willful ignorance.
(C) No, because due process forbids granting of
immunity to the more culpable defendant.
(D) No, because the woman did not know that
the package contained heroin.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE QUESTIONS 5.
Question 9
The police suspected that a young man who
had been convicted of burglary and was out of
prison on parole had stolen a rare diamond that
was on display at a local museum. They went to
the young man’s home, where he lived with his
mother, the owner of the house. The young man
was not at home, but the police asked his mother
if they might enter and search the house for
the diamond. The mother allowed the police to
enter, and she also consented to show them the
room where her son slept and kept his personal
belongings. There was a locked trunk in the
room, and the police asked the mother to open
it for them. She told the police that her son had
the only key to the trunk, which he always kept
locked. She also told them that, as far as she was
concerned, they could go ahead and open the
trunk if they were able to do so without a key.
The police pried the trunk open and found the
missing diamond inside.
Did this constitute a valid search?
(A) No, because the police did not inform the
mother that she could refuse permission to
allow the search.
(B) No, because the mother did not have
authority to consent to the search of the
trunk.
(C) Yes, under the doctrine of parens patriae.
(D) Yes, because the mother owned the house
and thus could consent to the search of the
entire premises.
6. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE QUESTIONS
Question 10
A suspect was arrested for burglarizing
an apartment. He was duly given Miranda
warnings, and invoked his right to remain silent.
When the suspect was put into the lockup, the
police took from him his wallet, watch, and
other personal possessions. Following standard
procedure, a police officer immediately began
to make an inventory of the suspect’s personal
effects. During the course of the inventory, the
officer noticed that the suspect’s watch bore an
inscription with the name of a person whose
apartment had been burglarized two days earlier.
The officer concluded that the suspect had
probably burglarized that apartment as well as
the one for which he was arrested. She reported
the inscription on the watch to the detective who
had arrested the suspect, and the suspect was
subsequently charged with the earlier burglary
as well.
Did the officer violate the suspect’s constitu-
tional rights by reading the inscription?
(A) Yes, because items to be inventoried may
be listed, but they may not be closely ex-
amined.
(B) Yes, because no search warrant was
obtained.
(C) No, because the inventory was a routine
procedure of the kind the police normally
conduct when an incarceration takes place.
(D) No, because it gave her probable cause to
believe that the suspect had committed the
earlier burglary.
Question 11
A public high school’s drug policy strictly
prohibited the use, possession, or sale of any
drug on school grounds, including any prescrip-
tion or over-the-counter medication, unless
supervised by a nurse. During lunch, the school
principal observed a student ingesting two white
pills. The student admitted to the principal that
the pills were aspirins and had been given to
her by a senior. School officials approached the
senior and demanded to search her backpack.
When no aspirins were found in the backpack,
the officials required the senior to submit to a
private physical search by the female school
nurse. Some aspirins were subsequently found
in the waistband of the senior’s gym shorts that
she was wearing under her school uniform,
and she was suspended. The senior’s mother
sued school officials, claiming that the physical
search violated her daughter’s Fourth Amend-
ment rights against unreasonable searches and
seizures. In response, the school officials filed
a motion for summary judgment against the
mother’s claim.
The facts above are stipulated to by the
parties. Should the court grant the motion for
summary judgment?
(A) Yes, because the search revealed that the
senior had violated the drug policy.
(B) Yes, because the school officials had
reasonable grounds to believe that the
search was necessary.
(C) No, because the trier of fact could deter-
mine that the search was excessively intru-
sive in light of the nature of the infraction.
(D) No, because the trier of fact could deter-
mine that the school officials did not have
probable cause to conduct a physical search
based on the uncorroborated statement of a
minor.

Question 12
The police received a tip from a reliable
informant that a former student at the local
university was selling narcotics. A brief investi-
gation revealed that the former student, a college
dropout, still hung around the university campus,
had no visible means of support, and yet drove
a large luxury car and wore flashy clothing
and jewelry. The police picked up the former
student the next time he showed up on campus,
took him to the station, and questioned him all
night long without a break and without letting
him communicate with anyone else. When the
former student tired from the interrogation, he
admitted that he sold cocaine to his friend, who
is a current student at the university. Based on
this information, the police went to the current
student’s dormitory room. When they arrived,
they found the door open but no one was in the
room. The police entered, searched the room,
and discovered a vial of white powder. Later
laboratory tests established the powder to be
cocaine. The former student was then charged
with the sale of narcotics. At his trial, the prose-
cution attempted to admit the cocaine discovered
in the dormitory room into evidence.
What is the former student’s best argument for
preventing the cocaine from being admitted into
evidence?
(A) The search of the dormitory room was
conducted without a warrant and without
consent.
(B) The police arrested the former student
without a warrant.
(C) The former student’s confession was not
voluntary under the circumstances.
(D) The police failed to give the former student
Miranda warnings.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE QUESTIONS 7.
Question 13
A driver was operating her car on a city
street when she was stopped by a police officer
for speeding. As the police officer reached the
driver’s car, he saw her put something into her
purse. The officer told the driver, “Ma’am, you
were speeding; that’s why I stopped you. I’d
like your driver’s license, and, by the way, what
did you just put into your purse?” The driver
responded, “It’s just a marijuana cigarette, but
don’t worry, I’ve only had two and my driving
judgment hasn’t been impaired.” The officer
took her purse, removed the “joint,” and charged
the driver with possession of marijuana as well
as speeding. At the driver’s trial for marijuana
possession, the prosecution seeks to introduce
the marijuana cigarette into evidence. The
driver’s attorney moves to suppress the evidence.
The defense motion should be:
(A) Granted, because the cigarette is fruit of the
poisonous tree.
(B) Granted, because the police officer did not
have a valid search warrant.
(C) Denied, because the police officer’s asking
about the contents of the driver’s purse did
not constitute custodial interrogation.
(D) Denied, provided the police officer had a
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
8. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE QUESTIONS
Question 14
A woman called the police to report that
she had been assaulted. She gave the police a
detailed description of her attacker, and they
picked up a man who matched the descrip-
tion who was found near the site of the alleged
attack. The police took the man to the police
station and read him his Miranda warnings. The
man asked for a public defender to be appointed.
Before the public defender arrived, the woman
came to the police station and was told there
would be a lineup as soon as the suspect’s lawyer
arrived. On the way to the viewing room, the
woman passed a holding cell where the man was
being held. She pointed at him and said loudly,
“That’s the man who attacked me!” The man did
not respond in any way. The woman later picked
the man out of a lineup.
At the trial, if the prosecutor wishes to intro-
duce evidence that the man said nothing when
the woman confronted him, would such evidence
be admissible?
(A) Yes, because it accurately describes how
the man responded.
(B) Yes, because the man had been read his
Miranda warnings and knew that any
behavior could be used against him.
(C) No, because the man’s right against self-
incrimination would be violated if he were
required to speak.
(D) No, because counsel was not present at the
time of the incident.
Question 15
A defendant was arrested on suspicion of
running an illegal “moonshine” operation.
After taking the defendant back to the police
station, an officer began questioning the suspect,
thinking that his partner had already given the
defendant a Miranda warning. The defendant
voluntarily confessed to each and every element
of the crime.
At trial, the defendant took the witness stand
and testified on his own behalf, declaring that
he was innocent and that a distillery that the
officers found at his home belonged to someone
else. The prosecution, on cross-examination,
produced the confession that the defendant gave
concerning his illegal activities. The defense
counsel objected to the admission of the confes-
sion.
How should the court rule on the defendant’s
objection?
(A) Sustained, because all evidence obtained in
violation of Miranda rights is inadmissible.
(B) Sustained, because the prosecution did not
get permission from the court in advance to
use the confession for any purpose.
(C) Overruled, because the prosecution may
question the defendant on cross-examina-
tion concerning any issue that was brought
out in his defense.
(D) Overruled, but the confession should be
admitted only for the limited purpose of
impeachment.

Question 16
The defendant was arrested, given Miranda
warnings, and charged with burglary. At the
police station, he telephoned his mother and
asked her to come to the station to post bail.
Instead, his mother immediately called the
family attorney. In the meantime, the police had
begun questioning the defendant. Although he
never told the police to stop the questioning, his
answers were at first vague or clearly unrespon-
sive. During the course of the questioning, the
family attorney phoned the station and told the
police that she had been hired to represent the
defendant and would be there in half an hour.
The police did not inform the defendant of the
attorney’s call. Ten minutes later, the defendant
admitted to committing the burglary, and signed
a statement to that effect prepared by the police.
The attorney arrived a few minutes later and
advised the defendant to remain silent, but he
told her that he had already signed a confession.
How should the court rule on the attorney’s
pretrial motion to exclude the confession as
evidence at trial?
(A) Grant the motion, because the police had a
duty to inform the defendant that an attor-
ney was coming to represent him.
(B) Grant the motion, because the defendant
has been deprived of his Sixth Amendment
right to counsel.
(C) Deny the motion, because the defendant’s
statement admitting the crime was volun-
tary.
(D) Deny the motion, because the defendant
waived his Miranda rights.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE QUESTIONS 9.
Question 17
A defendant was arrested for murder and
given Miranda warnings. After seeming to
struggle with his decision, the defendant stated
that he did not want to say anything. The
arresting officer then gave him her card, telling
him that if he ever changes his mind and needs
to get anything off his chest about the crime, to
call her at any time. After the defendant was put
into a jail cell, he asked a guard to call the police
officer because he wanted to talk. The officer
met with the defendant and again gave him
Miranda warnings. The defendant indicated that
he was waiving his rights and provided details
about the murder that had not been made public.
If the defendant’s counsel brings a pretrial
motion to suppress those statements, how should
the court rule?
(A) Deny the motion, because the defendant
reinitiated the interrogation.
(B) Deny the motion, because the defendant
provided details that had not been made
public.
(C) Grant the motion, because the police
officer’s act of giving the defendant her card
constituted an interrogation.
(D) Grant the motion, because the defendant
was not free to leave.
10. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE QUESTIONS
Question 18
A woman was arrested, given Miranda
warnings, and questioned about an armed
robbery. After she asked to speak with an
attorney, the police stopped questioning her
about the robbery. Several hours later, the police
gave the woman a fresh set of Miranda warnings
and began to question her about a different
robbery. She did not repeat her request for an
attorney and instead made several incriminating
statements about the robbery. At the woman’s
trial for the robbery for which she made incrimi-
nating statements, the prosecution seeks to have
her statements introduced into evidence.
If the woman’s attorney objects on appropriate
grounds, how should the court rule?
(A) Overrule the objection, because the police
did not badger the woman into confessing.
(B) Overrule the objection, because the woman
did not renew her request for an attorney
after receiving fresh Miranda warnings.
(C) Sustain the objection, because the police
did not honor the woman’s request.
(D) Sustain the objection, because a confes-
sion obtained in violation of a defendant’s
Miranda rights but otherwise voluntary
may be used against the defendant.
Question 19
A state statute requires that a person who
is suspected of committing a crime must be
informed of the nature of that crime before
questioning may begin. The state supreme court
has held that statements obtained in violation of
a suspect’s statutory rights may not be admitted
into evidence. The defendant, who was arrested
on suspicion of committing an arson, was told
“You have the right to remain silent; anything
you say can and will be used against you in a
court of law; you have the right to the presence
of an attorney during questioning; and if you
cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed
for you.” In response to questioning, the defen-
dant gave a statement implicating himself in the
arson. He was charged and brought to trial in
state court for arson.
At trial, should the statement be excluded
from evidence?
(A) Yes, because the Miranda warnings were
not proper.
(B) Yes, because the questioning violated state
law.
(C) No, because proper Miranda warnings were
given in compliance with federal constitu-
tional requirements.
(D) No, because the requirement of informing
the suspect of the nature of the charges
against him is not a state constitutional
requirement.
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE QUESTIONS 11.

Question 20

Acting on an anonymous telephone call, the

police went to a woman’s apartment, pounded on
the door, and demanded to search it for possible
stolen property. The woman refused. The police
then kicked open the door and placed the woman
under arrest. The woman then offered to give the
officers some inside information in exchange for
her release. Before she could say anything else,
the woman was given Miranda warnings by the
police. Thereafter, she told the police that she
knew of a large supply of stolen property stored
at a nearby warehouse and said that she and a
friend had been selling the stolen property out
of the warehouse for years. The police raided
the warehouse and recovered the stolen property.
The woman was charged with conspiracy to
sell stolen property and for possession of stolen
property. At her trial, the woman moved to
suppress the statements.

Which of the following is the woman’s best

argument in support of the motion to suppress?

(A) The woman was intimidated by the forced

entry into her home and, because her state-
ments were involuntary and coerced, their
use against her would violate due process
of law.

(B) The woman is entitled to know the identity

of her accuser, and the state cannot supply
this information.

(C) The woman’s statements were fruits of an

unlawful arrest, and although the Miranda
warnings may have been sufficient to
protect her right against self-incrimination,
they were not sufficient to purge the taint of
the illegal arrest.

(D) The police should have given the woman

Miranda warnings prior to entry into her
home, and the warnings were ineffectual
once the woman offered to give informa-
tion.