Discuss the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

The United States Drug Enforcement Agency suspected that Deft, a U.S. citizen was the leader of an illegal drug smuggling operation that was smuggling heroin into the United States from Mexico and South America. Deft maintained an expensive well secured home in Los Angeles where he resided most of the year, but would frequently take extended trips into Mexico and South America to arrange for the purchase of heroin. After learning from Mexican police officials that Deft was currently living in a small village outside Mexico City, United States Drug Enforcement Agency agents boarded a small plane in San Diego and flew to the village in the middle of the night. The agents then proceeded to a small house where they broke down the door and seized Deft from his bed. They handcuffed Deft and put him on the plane and flew back to San Diego where Deft was then transported by vehicle to the nearest federal prison. While Deft was being transported, other federal law enforcement agents received a tip from a reliable informant that Delia, a known member of the Deft’s drug smuggling operation, was located in a house in Denver, Colorado. The agents proceeded to the house, broke down the door and arrested Delia. Both Deft and Delia have been charged with possession of illegal narcotics because heroin was found in each of their homes when arrested. Both Deft and Delia were tried separately and each of them has brought a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during their arrests.
How should the courts rule on the motions?
A
Grant both Deft’s and Delia’s motion.
B
Grant neither Deft’s nor Delia’s motion.
C
Grant Deft’s motion but not Delia’s.
D
Grant Delia’s motion but not Deft’s.
Corwin was an elected official who was the target of an investigation by law enforcement officers who suspected Corwin of criminal behavior. After reviewing the evidence, the appropriate district attorney has decided to seek an indictment of Corwin charging him with soliciting and receiving bribes. Young, a deputy district attorney, has been asked by the district attorney to review the evidence, which the district attorney may present to the grand jury, and to assess the likelihood that any resulting indictment will withstand constitutional attack. A notebook listing several prominent lobbyists with dates and amount of money next to their names was found by police in Corwin’s residence when they inadvertently executed a search warrant for drugs at Corwin’s home which had been issued for a different address. Despite Corwin’s protests, the police had forcibly entered his home and discovered the notebook lying on top of the desk in Corwin’s study.
Young should advise the district attorney that a constitutional attack on an indictment against Corwin would probably
A
Succeed, because there will be no admissible evidence before the grand jury on which to base the indictment.
B
Succeed, because a portion of the evidence against Corwin was obtained in violation of constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches.
C
Fail, because there is no constitutional right to an indictment for a non-capital offense, and Corwin is therefore precluded from raising any constitutional challenge to the indictment.
D
Fail, because the grand jury may permissibly consider evidence that would be barred from a criminal trial by the exclusionary rule.
Officer Smith received reliable information that Bookie was running an illegal bookmaking operation in his apartment, and that the informer who provided this information has placed bets with Bookie at this location.
Officer Smith obtained a search warrant, based upon his affidavit reciting the foregoing facts, and further stating that the informer is a person who had given him accurate information in previous cases, but whose identity cannot be revealed because it might jeopardize other criminal investigations being carried on by the police.
Armed with the search warrant, Officers Bob and Charlie arrived at Bookie’s apartment and, after properly announcing their presence and intent to execute a search warrant, entered the apartment and observed Bookie in the midst of conducting an illegal bookmaking transaction. They seized various wager slips and bookmaking apparatus (described in the search warrant), and place Bookie under arrest.
Immediately thereafter, Charlie conducted a thorough search of Bookie’s person, and discovered that Bookie was carrying a revolver. Bookie has a prior felony conviction, and it is illegal in the jurisdiction for a convicted felon to carry such a weapon.
Based upon the evidence obtained by Bob and Charlie, Bookie is prosecuted for illegal bookmaking and unlawful possession of firearms.
Was the search warrant valid?
A
No, because based on hearsay information.
B
No, because Officer Smith failed to disclose the identity of the informer, so that the accuracy of his information could not be verified.
CThe United States Drug Enforcement Agency suspected that Deft, a U.S. citizen was the leader of an illegal drug smuggling operation that was smuggling heroin into the United States from Mexico and South America. Deft maintained an expensive well secured home in Los Angeles where he resided most of the year, but would frequently take extended trips into Mexico and South America to arrange for the purchase of heroin. After learning from Mexican police officials that Deft was currently living in a small village outside Mexico City, United States Drug Enforcement Agency agents boarded a small plane in San Diego and flew to the village in the middle of the night. The agents then proceeded to a small house where they broke down the door and seized Deft from his bed. They handcuffed Deft and put him on the plane and flew back to San Diego where Deft was then transported by vehicle to the nearest federal prison. While Deft was being transported, other federal law enforcement agents received a tip from a reliable informant that Delia, a known member of the Deft’s drug smuggling operation, was located in a house in Denver, Colorado. The agents proceeded to the house, broke down the door and arrested Delia. Both Deft and Delia have been charged with possession of illegal narcotics because heroin was found in each of their homes when arrested. Both Deft and Delia were tried separately and each of them has brought a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during their arrests.
How should the courts rule on the motions?
A
Grant both Deft’s and Delia’s motion.
B
Grant neither Deft’s nor Delia’s motion.
C
Grant Deft’s motion but not Delia’s.
D
Grant Delia’s motion but not Deft’s.
Corwin was an elected official who was the target of an investigation by law enforcement officers who suspected Corwin of criminal behavior. After reviewing the evidence, the appropriate district attorney has decided to seek an indictment of Corwin charging him with soliciting and receiving bribes. Young, a deputy district attorney, has been asked by the district attorney to review the evidence, which the district attorney may present to the grand jury, and to assess the likelihood that any resulting indictment will withstand constitutional attack. A notebook listing several prominent lobbyists with dates and amount of money next to their names was found by police in Corwin’s residence when they inadvertently executed a search warrant for drugs at Corwin’s home which had been issued for a different address. Despite Corwin’s protests, the police had forcibly entered his home and discovered the notebook lying on top of the desk in Corwin’s study.
Young should advise the district attorney that a constitutional attack on an indictment against Corwin would probably
A
Succeed, because there will be no admissible evidence before the grand jury on which to base the indictment.
B
Succeed, because a portion of the evidence against Corwin was obtained in violation of constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches.
C
Fail, because there is no constitutional right to an indictment for a non-capital offense, and Corwin is therefore precluded from raising any constitutional challenge to the indictment.
D
Fail, because the grand jury may permissibly consider evidence that would be barred from a criminal trial by the exclusionary rule.
Officer Smith received reliable information that Bookie was running an illegal bookmaking operation in his apartment, and that the informer who provided this information has placed bets with Bookie at this location.
Officer Smith obtained a search warrant, based upon his affidavit reciting the foregoing facts, and further stating that the informer is a person who had given him accurate information in previous cases, but whose identity cannot be revealed because it might jeopardize other criminal investigations being carried on by the police.
Armed with the search warrant, Officers Bob and Charlie arrived at Bookie’s apartment and, after properly announcing their presence and intent to execute a search warrant, entered the apartment and observed Bookie in the midst of conducting an illegal bookmaking transaction. They seized various wager slips and bookmaking apparatus (described in the search warrant), and place Bookie under arrest.
Immediately thereafter, Charlie conducted a thorough search of Bookie’s person, and discovered that Bookie was carrying a revolver. Bookie has a prior felony conviction, and it is illegal in the jurisdiction for a convicted felon to carry such a weapon.
Based upon the evidence obtained by Bob and Charlie, Bookie is prosecuted for illegal bookmaking and unlawful possession of firearms.
Was the search warrant valid?
A
No, because based on hearsay information.
B
No, because Officer Smith failed to disclose the identity of the informer, so that the accuracy of his information could not be verified.
C