Substrate Record: qid 1960

← back to the Substrate Record

qid 1960 · law

Question: Late one evening, a police department received a telephone call from an unidentified woman who reported hearing loud shrieks and screams from a neighboring home. The caller furnished the police with the address where the disturbance was taking place. When the police arrived at the home, they discovered the homeowner, bludgeoned to death. The murder weapon was a blood-stained baseball bat found near the victim's body. A subsequent investigation revealed that the homeowner had recently been separated from her husband who had since moved to another city. After questioning several of the victim's friends and relatives, the police concluded that the husband was a prime suspect in the murder. Thus, two detectives went to question the husband about the killing. When they arrived at his apartment, the detectives persuaded the landlord to let them into his apartment. Finding no one inside, they searched the apartment. Before leaving, the detectives took a box of cereal, which they planned to use for a fingerprint comparison. The prints from the cereal box matched those found on the baseball bat. The police provided the grand jury investigating the murder with the fingerprint comparison. The husband is subsequently subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury. Before his scheduled appearance, the husband files a motion to suppress evidence of the fingerprint comparison, contending that the evidence was illegally obtained. His motion should be

1. granted, because the cereal box was not in plain sight during the search.
2. denied, because the exclusionary rule has not been extended to grand jury hearings.
3. granted, because the grand jury is barred from considering illegally obtained evidence.
4. granted, because the warrantless search of the husband's apartment was unconstitutional.
5. denied, because the landlord gave the police permission to enter the apartment.
6. granted, because the police had no proof of the husband's involvement at the time of the search.
7. denied, because the fingerprint evidence was crucial to the investigation.
8. granted, because the police did not have the husband's consent to search his apartment.
9. denied, because the husband was not present during the search of his apartment.

Our answer: B. denied, because the exclusionary rule has not been extended to grand jury hearings. Source quote machine-checked (exact quote)

A machine check confirms the quoted words appear at the source. A person has not yet reviewed these. EARN MARKS as a Human Reviewer