Reference no: EM133333005

Questions

1. Sam and Toby shared an apartment. The police came to the apartment to ask for consent to search the apartment. Sam agreed. But Toby refused to give consent. The police entered the apartment and conducted the search. They found drugs that belonged to Toby.

A- Sam's consent was valid and the search was legal.
B- Sam's consent was invalid and the search was illegal.

2. Alan and Bob shared a house. The police came to the house to ask for consent to search the house. Alan answered the door and gave consent to the police. The police conducted the search and found credit cards stolen by Bob. At that time, Bob was in the basement. When he came upstairs, the police had already found the credit cards. Bob told the police he would not have given consent and they must leave.

A. Alan's consent was valid and the stolen credit cards can be used as evidence against Bob
B- Alan's consent was invalid and the stolen cards cannot be used as evidence against Bob.

3. Georgia v. Randolph: The police responded to a domestic violence call. When they arrived, the wife told the police about the domestic dispute and her husband's drug abuse. She indicated that there were drugs in the house. The police asked her for consent to enter the house. She agreed. The defendant, however, refused to give consent. The police entered the house and found evidence of drug abuse. The Court ruled that the consent given by the wife was

A- valid
B- invalid

5. Which one of the following best describes the ruling of the Court in Illinois v. Rodriguez?

A- When police conduct a search based on an invalid consent, the search under all circumstances is illegal.
B- When police conduct a search based on an invalid consent the search can be legal if the police demonstrate that they made a reasonable mistake regarding the consenting party's authority to give
consent.

6. Illinois v. Rodriguez: This police responded to a woman's call and found on her signs of a severe beating. She told the police that the defendant had assaulted her. She took the police to the defendant's apartment and let them in with her key. She also referred the apartment as "our apartment." Upon entering the apartment, the police observed drugs.

In the case the court held that ?

A. The consent the woman gave to the police to enter the apartment was valid for she had common authority ? over the apartment.
B- the consent the woman gave to the police to enter the apartment was invalid for she had no common authority over the apartment.