Danny obtains a warrant to search a local warehouse for “any evidence of illegal activity.” He discovers some marijuana in an employee’s locker. At trial, the employee challenges the seizure on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Is it?
a. No, because Danny had a valid warrant, signed by the judge.
b. No, because the warrant stated that Danny could search for evidence of illegal activity.
c. Yes, because the warrant was too vague.
d. Yes, because there was no proof that Danny knew the identity of the employee.
c. Yes, because the warrant was too vague.
You might also like to view...
The defense of diminished capacity
A. has tests as rigorous for those of insanity B. is a missing element defense C. is an affirmative defense D. usually results in institutionalization if successful
What is a Death with Dignity Act?
What will be an ideal response?
Whether a paralegal is entitled to overtime compensation is dependent on the title given to the paralegal by his or her employer.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
Where dangers associated with a product are so obvious that manufacturers need not warn users of them. This is the definition of what defense?
a. assumption of the risk b. commonly known dangers c. knowledgeable user d. unforeseeable product misuse