CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

MBE PRACTICE QUESTIONS

 Criminal Procedure Questions 1.

Criminal Procedure Questions

Question 1 Question 2

Suspecting criminal activity, a police officer The police obtained a valid arrest warrant
acting without a warrant peeked through a for a drug dealer. A reliable informant told the
small opening in the shutters of an apartment. police that the drug dealer was staying at a
The officer observed the apartment’s tenant and friend’s house until “the heat was off.” Without
the defendant making methamphetamine. The having obtained a search warrant, the police
officer immediately entered the apartment and went to the friend’s house, knocked on the door,
arrested the tenant and the defendant, and he and asked the friend if the drug dealer was there.
confiscated the ingredients for the methamphet- The friend replied that the drug dealer had been
amine, the tools used for methamphetamine staying at the house for a few days but had left a
production, and any completed methamphet- few hours ago. The police pushed open the door
amine for evidence. The search is later ruled and began searching for the drug dealer. They
invalid at a suppression hearing. found him hiding in a closet along with two five-
pound bricks of marijuana. They arrested both
May the defendant now claim that her Fourth the drug dealer and the friend. Before his trial
Amendment rights have been violated by the for possession of marijuana, the friend moved to
seizure of the ingredients, tools, and metham- suppress the marijuana found in the closet.
phetamine from the apartment?
Should the court grant the motion to suppress?
(A) Yes, because the items will be used in evi-
dence against her. (A) Yes, because a search warrant was re-
quired.
(B) Yes, if she was an overnight guest of the
tenant. (B) Yes, because the police may not execute an
arrest warrant at the third party’s home.
(C) No, because she was not the owner or
occupier of the apartment. (C) No, because the police had probable cause
to believe that the drug dealer was staying
(D) No, unless she admits to ownership of the at the friend’s home.
items.
(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 Question 4

A man was tried in state court for possession An underworld informer advised a police
of heroin. The prosecution offered in evidence investigator that his neighbor was running an
five rolled-up toy balloons containing heroin, illegal bookmaking operation in his apartment,
which police officers had found on a table in the and that the informer had placed bets with the
man’s apartment. At a hearing on the defense neighbor at this location. The officer obtained
motion to suppress, testimony was presented that a search warrant, based on his affidavit reciting
established that the police had put the apartment the foregoing facts, and further stating that the
under surveillance, and had watched a police underworld informer was a person who had
informant go to the door of the apartment, hand given him accurate information in previous
four balloons of heroin to the man, and leave. cases, but whose identity could not be revealed
The police had then knocked on the apartment because it might jeopardize other criminal inves-
door, identified themselves as police officers, tigations being carried on by the police. Armed
and demanded entrance. Having heard nothing with the search warrant, police officers went to
for 30 seconds, the police had then broken down the neighbor’s apartment. They entered when
the door and entered the apartment, discovering the neighbor opened the door and searched the
the heroin. The police had intended to arrest apartment. They seized various wagering slips
the man for the purchase of heroin, a felony. and bookmaking apparatus (described in the
When they had gotten inside the apartment, they search warrant) and placed the neighbor under
discovered that the man had left by a back exit. arrest for illegal gambling. Prior to trial, the
He was later arrested at the nearby newsstand. neighbor challenges the validity of the search
warrant.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress,
and the case is on appeal following the man’s Was the search warrant valid?
conviction for possession of heroin. How should
the appellate court rule? (A) No, because it was based on hearsay infor-
mation.
(A) Affirm the conviction on the ground that
the error, if any, in admitting the heroin (B) No, because the officer failed to disclose
was harmless error. the identity of the informer, so that the
accuracy of his information could not be
(B) Affirm the conviction on the ground that verified.
the police complied with the “knock and
announce rule” even though no one was (C) Yes, because the identity of the informer is
there to admit them. never required.

(C) Reverse the conviction on the ground that (D) Yes, because the affidavit accompanying it
the man’s Fourth Amendment rights (as is sufficiently detailed to allow a determina-
applied to the states by the Fourteenth tion of probable cause.
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.
 Criminal Procedure Questions 3.

Question 5 Question 6

Acting on information from reliable infor- While on routine patrol late one night, a
mants that drugs were being sold by residents at police officer noticed that a car was weaving
a certain fraternity house, the police obtained recklessly across several lanes of traffic. He
a search warrant that entitled them to search stopped the driver, believing that he was driving
the entire premises for illegal narcotics. The while intoxicated. By state law, the officer was
police arrived at the house when a party was in empowered to arrest the driver and take him
progress and were admitted to the house by the to the nearest police station for booking. As
fraternity president after showing the warrant. he approached the vehicle, the officer saw the
Officers proceeded to search the house. In an driver put what appeared to be a bottle in the
upstairs bedroom, they found a young woman glove compartment. The officer arrested the
who was a guest of a fraternity member sleeping driver and then searched his vehicle. In the
on the bed. No one else was in the room. The glove compartment, the officer discovered a
police found a footlocker under the bed and vial containing a small amount of cocaine. The
opened it, finding a variety of illegal drugs. The driver was charged with possession of cocaine.
police then awakened the woman and seized her At a preliminary hearing, the driver’s attorney
purse from her. They found a small quantity of moves to prevent introduction of the cocaine into
marijuana in the purse. The woman was charged evidence on the grounds that the search violated
with a drug possession offense. At her trial, the his client’s federal constitutional rights.
prosecution seeks to admit the marijuana seized
from her purse over the objection of her attorney. Will this motion most likely be granted?

Should the court admit the marijuana? (A) No, because the officer was acting under a
fear for his personal safety.
(A) Yes, because the footlocker was within the
woman’s reach. (B) No, because the search was incident to a
constitutionally valid custodial arrest.
(B) Yes, because the woman was present in a
room where drugs were found. (C) Yes, because the officer needed a warrant to
search the glove compartment.
(C) No, because the woman had no possessory
interest in the premises. (D) Yes, because there was no reasonable or
proper basis on which to justify conducting
(D) No, because the police had no reason to the search.
believe that the woman had drugs on her
person.
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 Question 8
the first floor, the officers went upstairs. A
friend of the owner then entered the house A man and a woman were traveling in the
carrying a briefcase. He set the briefcase on the man’s car when they were stopped by the police
floor, opened it, and then heard the officers. He for running a red light. Before the police came
became frightened, left the briefcase sitting in up to the car, the man told the woman, “You owe
the middle of the floor, and hid in a closet. The me a favor. Keep this package for me,” and gave
police officers returned to the first floor and the woman a small foil package. The woman put
immediately spotted the briefcase, which they the package in her backpack, saying, “O.K., but
knew was not there earlier. Because the briefcase don’t tell me what’s in it.” Before the police even
was open, the officers saw its contents—betting began to question the occupants, the man blurted
slips—and seized them. Because they knew out, “I’m clean, man, but she has a stash,”
that someone had entered the house since they pointing at the woman. The officers searched the
arrived, they re-searched the first floor. They backpack that the woman was holding and found
found the friend and informed him that he was the foil package, which contained heroin. The
under arrest, clapped handcuffs on him, and read woman was arrested, but the man was not.
him his Miranda warnings. One of the officers
patted the friend down to check for weapons. Is the evidence found on the woman admis-
The officer noticed a bulge in the friend’s pocket. sible?
Although the officer knew that the bulge was
unlikely to be a weapon, he reached into the (A) Yes, under the automobile exception.
pocket anyway, and discovered a package that
appeared to be (and later proved to be) heroin. (B) Yes, because due process imputes knowl-
The friend was charged with possession of edge where there is willful ignorance.
narcotics.
(C) No, because due process forbids granting of
At a suppression hearing, will the court agree immunity to the more culpable defendant.
with the public defender’s contention that the
friend’s arrest was unlawful? (D) No, because the woman did not know that
the package contained heroin.
(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.
 Criminal Procedure Questions 5.

Question 9 Question 10

The police suspected that a young man who A suspect was arrested for burglarizing
had been convicted of burglary and was out of an apartment. He was duly given Miranda
prison on parole had stolen a rare diamond that warnings, and invoked his right to remain silent.
was on display at a local museum. They went to When the suspect was put into the lockup, the
the young man’s home, where he lived with his police took from him his wallet, watch, and
mother, the owner of the house. The young man other personal possessions. Following standard
was not at home, but the police asked his mother procedure, a police officer immediately began
if they might enter and search the house for to make an inventory of the suspect’s personal
the diamond. The mother allowed the police to effects. During the course of the inventory, the
enter, and she also consented to show them the officer noticed that the suspect’s watch bore an
room where her son slept and kept his personal inscription with the name of a person whose
belongings. There was a locked trunk in the apartment had been burglarized two days earlier.
room, and the police asked the mother to open The officer concluded that the suspect had
it for them. She told the police that her son had probably burglarized that apartment as well as
the only key to the trunk, which he always kept the one for which he was arrested. She reported
locked. She also told them that, as far as she was the inscription on the watch to the detective who
concerned, they could go ahead and open the had arrested the suspect, and the suspect was
trunk if they were able to do so without a key. subsequently charged with the earlier burglary
The police pried the trunk open and found the as well.
missing diamond inside.
Did the officer violate the suspect’s constitu-
Did this constitute a valid search? tional rights by reading the inscription?

(A) No, because the police did not inform the (A) Yes, because items to be inventoried may
mother that she could refuse permission to be listed, but they may not be closely ex-
allow the search. amined.

(B) No, because the mother did not have (B) Yes, because no search warrant was
authority to consent to the search of the obtained.
trunk.
(C) No, because the inventory was a routine
(C) Yes, under the doctrine of parens patriae. procedure of the kind the police normally
conduct when an incarceration takes place.
(D) Yes, because the mother owned the house
and thus could consent to the search of the (D) No, because it gave her probable cause to
entire premises. believe that the suspect had committed the
earlier burglary.
6. Criminal Procedure Questions

Question 11 Question 12

A public high school’s drug policy strictly The police received a tip from a reliable
prohibited the use, possession, or sale of any informant that a former student at the local
drug on school grounds, including any prescrip- university was selling narcotics. A brief investi-
tion or over-the-counter medication, unless gation revealed that the former student, a college
supervised by a nurse. During lunch, the school dropout, still hung around the university campus,
principal observed a student ingesting two white had no visible means of support, and yet drove
pills. The student admitted to the principal that a large luxury car and wore flashy clothing
the pills were aspirins and had been given to and jewelry. The police picked up the former
her by a senior. School officials approached the student the next time he showed up on campus,
senior and demanded to search her backpack. took him to the station, and questioned him all
When no aspirins were found in the backpack, night long without a break and without letting
the officials required the senior to submit to a him communicate with anyone else. When the
private physical search by the female school former student tired from the interrogation, he
nurse. Some aspirins were subsequently found admitted that he sold cocaine to his friend, who
in the waistband of the senior’s gym shorts that is a current student at the university. Based on
she was wearing under her school uniform, this information, the police went to the current
and she was suspended. The senior’s mother student’s dormitory room. When they arrived,
sued school officials, claiming that the physical they found the door open but no one was in the
search violated her daughter’s Fourth Amend- room. The police entered, searched the room,
ment rights against unreasonable searches and and discovered a vial of white powder. Later
seizures. In response, the school officials filed laboratory tests established the powder to be
a motion for summary judgment against the cocaine. The former student was then charged
mother’s claim. with the sale of narcotics. At his trial, the prose-
cution attempted to admit the cocaine discovered
The facts above are stipulated to by the in the dormitory room into evidence.
parties. Should the court grant the motion for
summary judgment? What is the former student’s best argument for
preventing the cocaine from being admitted into
(A) Yes, because the search revealed that the evidence?
senior had violated the drug policy.
(A) The search of the dormitory room was
(B) Yes, because the school officials had conducted without a warrant and without
reasonable grounds to believe that the consent.
search was necessary.
(B) The police arrested the former student
(C) No, because the trier of fact could deter- without a warrant.
mine that the search was excessively intru-
sive in light of the nature of the infraction. (C) The former student’s confession was not
voluntary under the circumstances.
(D) No, because the trier of fact could deter-
mine that the school officials did not have (D) The police failed to give the former student
probable cause to conduct a physical search Miranda warnings.
based on the uncorroborated statement of a
minor.
 Criminal Procedure Questions 7.

Question 13 Question 14

A driver was operating her car on a city A woman called the police to report that
street when she was stopped by a police officer she had been assaulted. She gave the police a
for speeding. As the police officer reached the detailed description of her attacker, and they
driver’s car, he saw her put something into her picked up a man who matched the descrip-
purse. The officer told the driver, “Ma’am, you tion who was found near the site of the alleged
were speeding; that’s why I stopped you. I’d attack. The police took the man to the police
like your driver’s license, and, by the way, what station and read him his Miranda warnings. The
did you just put into your purse?” The driver man asked for a public defender to be appointed.
responded, “It’s just a marijuana cigarette, but Before the public defender arrived, the woman
don’t worry, I’ve only had two and my driving came to the police station and was told there
judgment hasn’t been impaired.” The officer would be a lineup as soon as the suspect’s lawyer
took her purse, removed the “joint,” and charged arrived. On the way to the viewing room, the
the driver with possession of marijuana as well woman passed a holding cell where the man was
as speeding. At the driver’s trial for marijuana being held. She pointed at him and said loudly,
possession, the prosecution seeks to introduce “That’s the man who attacked me!” The man did
the marijuana cigarette into evidence. The not respond in any way. The woman later picked
driver’s attorney moves to suppress the evidence. the man out of a lineup.

Should the defense motion be granted? At the trial, if the prosecutor wishes to intro-
duce evidence that the man said nothing when
(A) Yes, because the cigarette is fruit of the the woman confronted him, would such evidence
poisonous tree. be admissible?

(B) Yes, because the police officer did not have (A) Yes, because it accurately describes how
a valid search warrant. the man responded.

(C) No, because the police officer’s asking (B) Yes, because the man had been read his
about the contents of the driver’s purse did Miranda warnings and knew that any
not constitute custodial interrogation. behavior could be used against him.

(D) No, provided the police officer had a (C) No, because the man’s right against self-
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. incrimination would be violated if he were
required to speak.

(D) No, because counsel was not present at the

time of the incident.
8. Criminal Procedure Questions

Question 15 Question 16

A defendant was arrested on suspicion of The defendant was arrested, given Miranda
running an illegal “moonshine” operation. warnings, and charged with burglary. At the
After taking the defendant back to the police police station, he telephoned his mother and
station, an officer began questioning the suspect, asked her to come to the station to post bail.
thinking that his partner had already given the Instead, his mother immediately called the
defendant a Miranda warning. The defendant family attorney. In the meantime, the police had
voluntarily confessed to each and every element begun questioning the defendant. Although he
of the crime. never told the police to stop the questioning, his
answers were at first vague or clearly unrespon-
At trial, the defendant took the witness stand sive. During the course of the questioning, the
and testified on his own behalf, declaring that family attorney phoned the station and told the
he was innocent and that a distillery that the police that she had been hired to represent the
officers found at his home belonged to someone defendant and would be there in half an hour.
else. The prosecution, on cross-examination, The police did not inform the defendant of the
produced the confession that the defendant gave attorney’s call. Ten minutes later, the defendant
concerning his illegal activities. The defense admitted to committing the burglary, and signed
counsel objected to the admission of the confes- a statement to that effect prepared by the police.
sion. The attorney arrived a few minutes later and
advised the defendant to remain silent, but he
How should the court rule on the defendant’s told her that he had already signed a confession.
objection?
How should the court rule on the attorney’s
(A) Sustained, because all evidence obtained in pretrial motion to exclude the confession as
violation of Miranda rights is inadmissible. evidence at trial?
(B) Sustained, because the prosecution did not (A) Grant the motion, because the police had a
get permission from the court in advance to duty to inform the defendant that an attor-
use the confession for any purpose. ney was coming to represent him.
(C) Overruled, because the prosecution may (B) Grant the motion, because the defendant
question the defendant on cross-examina- has been deprived of his Sixth Amendment
tion concerning any issue that was brought right to counsel.
out in his defense.
(C) Deny the motion, because the defendant’s
(D) Overruled, but the confession should be statement admitting the crime was volun-
admitted only for the limited purpose of tary.
impeachment.
(D) Deny the motion, because the defendant
waived his Miranda rights.
 Criminal Procedure Questions 9.

Question 17 Question 18

A defendant was arrested for murder and A woman was arrested, given Miranda
given Miranda warnings. After seeming to warnings, and questioned about an armed
struggle with his decision, the defendant stated robbery. After she asked to speak with an
that he did not want to say anything. The attorney, the police stopped questioning her
arresting officer then gave him her card, telling about the robbery. Several hours later, the police
him that if he ever changes his mind and needs gave the woman a fresh set of Miranda warnings
to get anything off his chest about the crime, to and began to question her about a different
call her at any time. After the defendant was put robbery. She did not repeat her request for an
into a jail cell, he asked a guard to call the police attorney and instead made several incriminating
officer because he wanted to talk. The officer statements about the robbery. At the woman’s
met with the defendant and again gave him trial for the robbery for which she made incrimi-
Miranda warnings. The defendant indicated that nating statements, the prosecution seeks to have
he was waiving his rights and provided details her statements introduced into evidence.
about the murder that had not been made public.
If the woman’s attorney objects on appropriate
If the defendant’s counsel brings a pretrial grounds, how should the court rule?
motion to suppress those statements, how should
the court rule? (A) Overrule the objection, because the police
did not badger the woman into confessing.
(A) Deny the motion, because the defendant
reinitiated the interrogation. (B) Overrule the objection, because the woman
did not renew her request for an attorney
(B) Deny the motion, because the defendant after receiving fresh Miranda warnings.
provided details that had not been made
public. (C) Sustain the objection, because the police
did not honor the woman’s request.
(C) Grant the motion, because the police
officer’s act of giving the defendant her card (D) Sustain the objection, because a confes-
constituted an interrogation. sion obtained in violation of a defendant’s
Miranda rights but otherwise voluntary
(D) Grant the motion, because the defendant may be used against the defendant.
was not free to leave.
10. Criminal Procedure Questions

Question 19 Question 20

A state statute requires that a person who Acting on an anonymous telephone call, the
is suspected of committing a crime must be police went to a woman’s apartment, pounded on
informed of the nature of that crime before the door, and demanded to search it for possible
questioning may begin. The state supreme court stolen property. The woman refused. The police
has held that statements obtained in violation of then kicked open the door and placed the woman
a suspect’s statutory rights may not be admitted under arrest. The woman then offered to give the
into evidence. The defendant, who was arrested officers some inside information in exchange for
on suspicion of committing an arson, was told her release. Before she could say anything else,
“You have the right to remain silent; anything the woman was given Miranda warnings by the
you say can and will be used against you in a police. Thereafter, she told the police that she
court of law; you have the right to the presence knew of a large supply of stolen property stored
of an attorney during questioning; and if you at a nearby warehouse and said that she and a
cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed friend had been selling the stolen property out
for you.” In response to questioning, the defen- of the warehouse for years. The police raided
dant gave a statement implicating himself in the the warehouse and recovered the stolen property.
arson. He was charged and brought to trial in The woman was charged with conspiracy to
state court for arson. sell stolen property and for possession of stolen
property. At her trial, the woman moved to
At trial, should the statement be excluded suppress the statements.
from evidence?
Which of the following is the woman’s best
(A) Yes, because the Miranda warnings were argument in support of the motion to suppress?
not proper.
(A) The woman was intimidated by the forced
(B) Yes, because the questioning violated state entry into her home and, because her state-
law. ments were involuntary and coerced, their
use against her would violate due process
(C) No, because proper Miranda warnings were of law.
given in compliance with federal constitu-
tional requirements. (B) The woman is entitled to know the identity
of her accuser, and the state cannot supply
(D) No, because the requirement of informing this information.
the suspect of the nature of the charges
against him is not a state constitutional (C) The woman’s statements were fruits of an
requirement. 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.