All Third Party Consent Valid
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- CRIMINAL1
Example wrong choices
16003_four_motions · CRIMINAL · Choice AWhile driving, Paul was stopped by police for going through a red light. A routine check of his license through the police department computer indicated that a bench warrant had been issued for his arrest for failing to appear in connection with four parking tickets that had been issued to vehicles registered to him. The officers advised him that he was under arrest. Although they did not handcuff him, they ordered him to empty his pockets onto the hood of the police car. A marijuana cigarette that was in one of his pockets was subsequently offered against him at his trial for possession of a controlled substance.
Why it's attractive
The arrest was lawful (bench warrant); the pocket-emptying was a search of the person incident to that arrest. This is the most universally recognized Fourth Amendment exception.
Why it's wrong
The arrest was lawful (bench warrant); the pocket-emptying was a search of the person incident to that arrest. This is the most universally recognized Fourth Amendment exception.
16003_four_motions · CRIMINAL · Choice CStephen was riding in a car owned by his friend, Barnabas. Police stopped the car and asked to see Barnabas's driver's license. After Barnabas showed it to them, they asked his permission to search the car. Barnabas said, 'Sure, go ahead.' Upon searching under the seat in which Stephen had been sitting, the police found a package of heroin, which was offered at Stephen's trial for illegally possessing narcotics.
Why it's attractive
The friend (car owner) explicitly said 'Sure, go ahead.' A car owner has authority over the car and can consent to a search even over a passenger's objection. The defendant's non-consent is not dispositive.
Why it's wrong
The friend (car owner) explicitly said 'Sure, go ahead.' A car owner has authority over the car and can consent to a search even over a passenger's objection. The defendant's non-consent is not dispositive.
16003_four_motions · CRIMINAL · Choice DLuke was arrested for driving while intoxicated. After he was taken to jail, his car was towed to the police auto pound. There, a police officer taking inventory of the car's contents found a weapon in the car that had been used in the commission of a crime with which Luke was subsequently charged.
Why it's attractive
The car was lawfully impounded after the DUI arrest. The police have the right to inventory the contents of an impounded vehicle. Evidence incidentally discovered is admissible.
Why it's wrong
The car was lawfully impounded after the DUI arrest. The police have the right to inventory the contents of an impounded vehicle. Evidence incidentally discovered is admissible.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →