The Fourth Amendment protects the individual’s privacy rights from governmental overreaching.

The Fifth Amendment protects the individual’s rights to have a trial by jury in a criminal proceeding.

Probable cause must be factually supported beyond a reasonable doubt, or a search warrant is invalid.

If an officer has reasonable grounds to believe something is on the premises which is connected to criminal conduct, he is probably entitled to a warrant to search.

Any search conducted without a warrant is “unreasonable” as a matter of law.

An affidavit need only give a general description of the criminal conduct suspected, in order for a search warrant to be properly issued.

When an officer is chasing a suspect in hot pursuit, he may follow him into a building without a search warrant.

An officer may search an impounded vehicle for inventory purposes, and use evidence found in the vehicle against the accused, without ever having obtained a search warrant.

All incriminating statements made by an accused prior to Miranda warnings are inadmissible without exception.

If offered immunity, an individual cannot use the 5th Amendment as a basis to refuse to testify.

Marvin Moocher tends to like to ‘borrow’ his neighbor’s gardening tools. One day, while his neighbor was out, Marvin went to his neighbor’s house, and took some items from the garage without permission. While in the garage, Marvin noticed that his neighbor was growing 25 marijuana plants. Marvin knew his neighbor would be angry when he returned and found his tools gone, and so he decided to preempt the confrontation by calling the police. The police came with a search warrant based on Marvin’s tip, and found the marijuana plants in the neighbor’s garage, as Marvin had reported. The marijuana evidence is

Young Sam was driving along smoking what appeared to be a hand-rolled cigarette, when a police officer happened to pull along side of him, and notice him smoking. The officer pulled behind Sam to observe Sam’s driving, when he observed Sam open his car window and throw out both the cigarette he had been smoking, and a small plastic bag that was partially filled with dark material. Noting the plate number on Sam’s car, the officer went back to where he observed Sam throw the things out the car window, and he retrieved those items. The officer concluded that both the contents of the plastic bag and the cigarette were marijuana, and so he went out and found Sam and arrested him. The plastic bag and cigarette are

When the officer pursued Sam after retrieving the marijuana, Sam attempted to elude the officer, exited his car and ran into an apartment building. The officer followed Sam into the apartment building, without a warrant. The officer arrested Sam inside the building, also without a warrant. This arrest is

While in the building, the officer observed that Sam discarded an item from his pocket as he was running away. After the officer handcuffed Sam, he retrieved the item that he had observed being discarded. This turned out to be a packet of heroin. Sam claimed that the officer should have gotten a warrant to search for the heroin, because the “exigency” of the chase was over once Sam was arrested. The officer claimed that people were entering and exiting the building and he was concerned the evidence would be lost or taken by someone. The court would most likely find

John is being sued in breach of contract related to a pyramid scheme he managed. If called to testify, his own testimony could be used against him, since his conduct was, at best, shady. He faces no criminal charges, but could lose all of his money in this lawsuit. He knows, however, that if he doesn’t testify, it will be difficult for the plaintiff to persuade the jury of his guilt. He, therefore, decides to claim his 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. John may

All statements made before Miranda warnings are given are

The police were convinced that Melinda robbed the bank. They arrested her, read her Miranda rights, and held her for questioning for 60 hours. Although she repeatedly asked for an attorney, the police would not allow her to contact one. She was kept awake during the entire 60 hours, not given water when she asked for it, and denied bathroom privileges. Finally, exhausted and near hysteria, she confessed to the bank robbery. She provided details that only the bank robber could know, and it was clear she was guilty. Melinda’s confession is

With the information Melinda provided during her confession, the police were able to arrest her accomplice Tim. Tim will be

Drug Enforcement Agents were given a tip by a reliable source that cocaine was being stored in a house at 313 N.E. Brook. The agents immediately went to the house and secured it. The agents then went inside, searched the house from top to bottom, seized the cocaine found in a false compartment under a stairway and arrested the occupants of the house. A paralegal for the defense should prepare a motion:

While the agents were present at 313 N.E. Brook, Joe, a neighbor, came over to direct the agents to a shed on Joe’s property that he had permitted the the people from 313N.E. Brook  to use. The agents searched that shed finding marijuana. The crime lab compared known fingerprints of the people from 313 N.E. Brook to those found on the marijuana wrappings. The fingerprints matched. Should a judge allow the marijuana and the fingerprint evidence.