In United States v. Karo, the police planted a beeper in a can of ether so they could electronically monitor the beeper once the can was taken inside the home. The police wanted to verify that the can remained in the home while they obtained a search warrant. How did the U.S. Supreme Court view the police use of technology?
a. The Court found that, since the officers did not physically enter the home without a warrant, this was an acceptable method of tracking evidence without invading a person’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy.
b. The Court found that, while the officers did not physically enter the home without a warrant, the use of technology in this manner was the same as if the officers had entered the home.
c. The Court found that the means justified the ends, and that there was minimal intrusion into the home to accomplish a greater good.
d. The Court found that because the home owner was not aware of the device in his home, the owner did not suffer from a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to privacy.
b. The Court found that, while the officers did not physically enter the home without a warrant, the use of technology in this manner was the same as if the officers had entered the home.
You might also like to view...
Explain the historical and social contexts that gave rise to these process theories.
What will be an ideal response?
Paul Whisenand created the Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
Testimony that a woman who reported that she had been raped previously filed a false police report stating that someone stole her engagement ring is:
a. not admissible due to Rape Shield laws. b. admissible as character. c. admissible as Other Acts Evidence. d. not admissible because the ring is irrelevant to this case.
The redesigned UCR expands the forcible rape category to include forcible sodomy, sexual assault with object, and forcible fondling
Indicate whether the statement is true or false