riminal Law Essay: 4th Amendment Model Questions
Model Question A
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to be secure in their persons, papers, houses, and effects, against unreasonable seizures and searches, prohibiting an issue of warrants, but upon probable cause, supported by affirmation or oath, and specifically describing the persons or things to be seized, and the place to be searched. The Court should dismiss Lewis’s pretrial motions to exclude the purse seized from his car, a motion based upon asserted violations of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The police officers have a right to search a car without a warrant in a variety of specific situations. The Supreme Court in the case of Carroll v. United States has established the exception providing that when law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the car has contraband or evidence of a crime located in it, a search may be conducted immediately, without a warrant. Thus, in the present case, the police officer had a right to conduct a search because he was informed by the bulletin about the crime committed.
Model Question B
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right of people to be secure in their persons and houses against unreasonable searches without a warrant issued upon probable cause, supported by affirmation or oath, and specifically describing the persons or things to be seized, and the place to be searched. In support of his motion, Lewis should claim that the police enforcement officers violated his right protected by the Fourth Amendment by conducting the search without a warrant being issued. In opposition to the motion, the prosecutor should argue that the search was related to Lewis’ arrest and did not violate his rights because it was conducted with a warrant obtained. According to Weeks v. United States and Carroll v. United States, the common-law rule permits searches as an incident to the arrest even without a warrant. In this case, a warrant was obtained, and no Lewis’ rights were violated. Thus, the testimony cannot be excluded