Podcast
Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson
Download our mobile app to listen on the go
Get App
Questions and Answers
According to the landmark case of Carroll v. United States, the 'automobile exception' to the written warrant requirement was established because
According to the landmark case of Carroll v. United States, the 'automobile exception' to the written warrant requirement was established because
- The search and seizure of vehicles is always considered valid.
- It is not practical to obtain a warrant when searching a vehicle. (correct)
- The Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches of automobiles.
- The Supreme Court wanted to protect the privacy of vehicle owners.
According to Chief Justice Taft in Carroll v. United States, what constitutes a valid search and seizure without a warrant?
According to Chief Justice Taft in Carroll v. United States, what constitutes a valid search and seizure without a warrant?
- A belief that an automobile contains illegal merchandise.
- Probable cause to believe that a vehicle is carrying contraband.
- The presence of a competent official authorized to search.
- All of the above. (correct)
In Carroll v. United States, the Supreme Court recognized a necessary difference between searching a vehicle and searching a structure because
In Carroll v. United States, the Supreme Court recognized a necessary difference between searching a vehicle and searching a structure because
- Structures are protected by the Fourth Amendment.
- Contraband is more likely to be found in vehicles.
- Vehicles can be quickly moved out of the jurisdiction. (correct)
- A warrant is always required to search a structure.
Flashcards are hidden until you start studying
