How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Law Educator, Esq. Your Own Question
Law Educator, Esq.
Law Educator, Esq., Lawyer
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 112775
Experience:  Attorney with over 20 years law enforcement, prosecution, civil rights and defense experience
10285032
Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...
Law Educator, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Criminal Justice

Customer Question

1. In United States v. Robinson, the Supreme Court recognized
that justification for a lawful arrest
A. doesn’t need to be specific.
B. must include all probable contraband being searched for.
C. is sufficient for a search.
D. isn’t sufficient for a search.
2. In Illinois v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court ruled that permission
given by a third person to law enforcement officers to
conduct a warrantless search would be
A. valid if the third person reasonably believes that he or
she has that authority, even if he or she doesn’t.
B. invalid because the third person doesn’t have the authority.
C. valid because the third person has the authority.
D. invalid because warrantless searches of third parties
are illegal.
3. Consent to a warrantless search of an apartment may be given by
A. the landlord.
B. the tenant.
C. either the landlord or tenant.
D. a keyholder to the apartment’s front door.
4. According to Bumper v. Rodriguez, consent to search a premises
A. is legal even if the officer claims authority he or she doesn’t have.
B. must be freely and voluntarily given.
C. must be obtained within three hours of the search.
D. can’t be withdrawn.
5. There’s no voluntary consent to a search when
A. an officer tells a suspect he’s going to get a warrant.
B. the spouse authorizes the search.
C. an officer claims that the occupant doesn’t have a right to resist the search.
D. only one member of a four-person household authorizes the search.
6. Based on the plain view doctrine, there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy when it
comes to
A. checkbooks. C. cellphones.
B. binoculars. D. VIN numbers.
7. If officers stop a vehicle and then develop reasonable suspicion that the occupants of
the car are armed and dangerous, they may then
A. arrest the occupants of the car.
B. call for a warrant to frisk the occupants.
C. frisk the occupants and conduct a limited search of the car.
D. search the car in its entirety.
8. According to Minnesota v. Dickerson, if contraband inside a suspect’s pockets isn’t
apparent during a pat-down search, the officer
A. may not further manipulate the pocket.
B. may manipulate the package to identify it.
C. must ask the suspect to empty his or her pockets.
D. must tell the suspect to empty his or her pockets.
9. If law enforcement officers have probable cause to search a specific container in a
vehicle, they
A. may search the container but not the entire vehicle.
B. must request consent to search the container.
C. may search the entire vehicle.
D. must apply for a warrant to search.
10. After a vehicle is impounded, law enforcement officers
A. may search the car for contraband.
B. may conduct an inventory search.
C. must contact the owner for consent to search.
D. may do nothing but hold the vehicle for safekeeping.
Submitted: 5 years ago.
Category: Criminal Law
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 5 years ago.
3) Tenant

4) Is legal even if the officer claims he has authority he does or does not have.

5) When the officer claims the occupant has no right to refuse.

6) Vin Numbers

7) Frisk occupants and conduct limited search.

8) May not further manipulate the object

9) Must apply for a warrant

10) Conduct an inventory search


If you have additional questions, please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. Please consider that I am answering the question or question that is posed in your posting based upon my reading of your post and sometimes misunderstandings can occur. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered.

Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.

There can also be a delay of an hour or more in between my answers because I may be helping other customers or taking a break.

You can always request me through my profile at http://www.justanswer.com/profile.aspx?PF=10285032&FID=39 or beginning your question with “For PaulMJD…”

Law Educator, Esq. and 3 other Criminal Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 5 years ago.
Sorry can you answer these last two

1. In United States v. Robinson, the Supreme Court recognized
that justification for a lawful arrest
A. doesn’t need to be specific.
B. must include all probable contraband being searched for.
C. is sufficient for a search.
D. isn’t sufficient for a search.
2. In Illinois v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court ruled that permission
given by a third person to law enforcement officers to
conduct a warrantless search would be
A. valid if the third person reasonably believes that he or
she has that authority, even if he or she doesn’t.
B. invalid because the third person doesn’t have the authority.
C. valid because the third person has the authority.
D. invalid because warrantless searches of third parties
are illegal.
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 5 years ago.
1) Is sufficient for a search

2) Valid if the authority is reasonably believed (A)


If you have additional questions, please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. Please consider that I am answering the question or question that is posed in your posting based upon my reading of your post and sometimes misunderstandings can occur. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered.

Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.

There can also be a delay of an hour or more in between my answers because I may be helping other customers or taking a break.

You can always request me through my profile at http://www.justanswer.com/profile.aspx?PF=10285032&FID=39 or beginning your question with “For PaulMJD…”



2)
Law Educator, Esq. and 3 other Criminal Law Specialists are ready to help you