100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
UPTP EXAM 2 NEWEST 2024 ACTUAL EXAM QUESTIONS AND CORRECT DETAILED (VERIFIED ANSWERS) |ALREADY GRADED A+ $17.99   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. UPTP 2
  4.  
  5. UPTP 2

Exam (elaborations)

UPTP EXAM 2 NEWEST 2024 ACTUAL EXAM QUESTIONS AND CORRECT DETAILED (VERIFIED ANSWERS) |ALREADY GRADED A+

1 review
 3 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • UPTP 2
  • Institution
  • UPTP 2

UPTP EXAM 2 NEWEST 2024 ACTUAL EXAM QUESTIONS AND CORRECT DETAILED (VERIFIED ANSWERS) |ALREADY GRADED A+ UPTP EXAM 2 NEWEST 2024 ACTUAL EXAM QUESTIONS AND CORRECT DETAILED (VERIFIED ANSWERS) |ALREADY GRADED A+

Preview 4 out of 34  pages

Document information

  • February 3, 2024
  • 34
  • 2023/2024
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers

Subjects

  • uptp exam 2
  • uptp exam 2 newest 2024
  • uptp exam 2 newest 2024 actual exam questions and
  • actual exam questions and

Written for

  • UPTP 2
All documents for this subject (5)

1  review

review-writer-avatar

By: DrReiss • 3 months ago

Very helpful

Seller

avatar-seller
erickarimi

Reviews received

Content preview

UPTP EXAM 2 NEWEST 2024 ACTUAL EXAM QUESTIONS
AND CORRECT DETAILED (VERIFIED ANSWERS)
|ALREADY GRADED A+
1. Before being allowed inside a football stadium, all fans were required
to have their personal belongings searched by a private stadium security
officer. When the security officer looked inside Thompson's backpack,
he saw a sawed-off shotgun. The security officer seized the weapon and
turned it over to a federal law enforcement officer. Thompson was later
charged with a federal firearms offense. At his criminal trial, Thompson
files a motion to suppress the sawed-off shotgun, arguing that the
stadium security officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Thompson's motion will likely be: - ANSWER--Denied, because the
stadium security officer was conducting a private search; therefore, the
Fourth Amendment did not apply.


A federal criminal investigator suspected that Johnson was selling drugs
out of his apartment. The investigator asked the manager of the
apartment complex to use her master key to enter Johnson's room and
look for evidence related to drug dealing and report back to him. The
manager entered Johnson's room when he was gone and found a plastic
baggie in a desk drawer that contained a white powdery substance. The
manager took the baggie and gave it to the investigator. After the
investigator confirmed that the substance in the baggie was cocaine, he
arrested Johnson. Johnson's motion to suppress the evidence seized from
his apartment will likely be: - ANSWER--Granted, because the
apartment manager was acting as an agent of the government.


A police officer suspected that Smith was a drug dealer. Smith lived in a
house located at end of a cul-de-sac in a subdivision. One evening, the
officer walked up Smith's driveway and went around to the back of the
house. Unable to see into the house because the windows were too high,

,UPTP EXAM 2 NEWEST 2024 ACTUAL EXAM QUESTIONS
AND CORRECT DETAILED (VERIFIED ANSWERS)
|ALREADY GRADED A+
the officer climbed on the exterior heating / air conditioning unit that
was directly underneath one of the windows. While standing on the unit,
the officer was able lean against the side of Smith's house and see into
the residence. The officer saw evidence that Smith was manufacturing
methamphetamine inside his house. Based solely on his observations,
the officer asked his supervisor for permission to apply for a Warrant (to
search Smith's house. To comply with the Fourth Amendment, the
supervisor should: - ANSWER--Deny the request because the officer
entered the curtilage of Smith's house without a Warrant, consent, or an
exigency to make his observations.


A police officer suspected that Smith was a drug dealer. While standing
on a public sidewalk, the officer saw a potted marijuana plant on the
balcony of Smith's house. Based on this observation, the officer asked
his supervisor for permission to apply for a warrant to search Smith's
house. To comply with the Fourth Amendment, the supervisor should: -
ANSWER--Grant the request because the officer's observations was
made from a place where the officer was lawfully present.


Jack is upset that the police do not seem to be doing anything to
eradicate the drug problem in his neighborhood. One afternoon, Jack
breaks into Smith's house, searches it, and finds two kilograms of
packaged cocaine. Jack brings the cocaine to the police station and tells
a narcotics investigator how he obtained it. The government charges
Smith with trafficking cocaine. Did Jack violate Smith's Fourth
Amendment rights by breaking into Smith's house and stealing the
cocaine? - ANSWER--No, because Jack conducted a private search so
the Fourth Amendment did not apply.

,UPTP EXAM 2 NEWEST 2024 ACTUAL EXAM QUESTIONS
AND CORRECT DETAILED (VERIFIED ANSWERS)
|ALREADY GRADED A+


A police officer discovered that Smith, a suspected drug dealer, owned a
twenty-acre parcel of property in a rural part of the county. The officer
went to Smith's property and despite seeing several "No Trespassing"
signs, the officer crawled underneath a barbwire fence and entered the
property. The officer walked several hundred yards through a heavily
wooded area and eventually came upon a clearing. The officer saw
approximately one hundred marijuana plants growing in the clearing as
well as several potted marijuana plants lined up on the ground against
the outside of a small shed. Did the officer violate the Fourth
Amendment in making these observations? - ANSWER--No, because
the officer made his observations from open fields and the "No
Trespassing" signs had no bearing on the Fourth Amendment.


A police officer had a hunch that Smith was a drug dealer and stopped
him as Smith exited a convenience store, The officer obtained Smith's
identification and ran his identification through dispatch. The officer
discovered that Smith had a prior criminal history that included violent
crimes and weapons offenses. The officer frisked Smith and felt a
firearm concealed in Smith's front waistband. The officer removed the
firearm and arrested Smith. Smith motion to suppress the firearm will
likely be: - ANSWER--Granted, because the officer did not have
reasonable suspicion to stop Smith.


A police officer established reasonable suspicion that Smith was
involved in an armed carjacking earlier that day. The officer stopped
Smith at gunpoint, handcuffed him, and then frisked him for weapons. In
Smith's jacket pocket, the officer felt a soft object that he could not

, UPTP EXAM 2 NEWEST 2024 ACTUAL EXAM QUESTIONS
AND CORRECT DETAILED (VERIFIED ANSWERS)
|ALREADY GRADED A+
identify but the officer knew the object was not a weapon. After the
officer squeezed and manipulated the object for several seconds, he
believed it was marijuana in a small plastic bag. The officer reached into
Smith's pocket and removed the object, which turned out to be a small
bag of marijuana. Smith's motion to suppress the marijuana will likely
be: - ANSWER--Granted, because it was not immediately apparent to
the officer that the soft object in Smith's pocket was contraband when he
first felt the object.


A police officer established reasonable suspicion that Smith filled his car
with gasoline and then drove away without paying. The officer stopped
Smith to investigate. After ordering Smith out of his car, the officer
frisked him and found a firearm concealed in Smith's rear waistband,
Smith's motion to suppress the firearm will likely be: - ANSWER--
Granted, because the officer had no justification to frisk Smith.


A federal police officer stops and frisks all males of a specific race
because he believe that males of this specific race commit more crimes
than males of other races. Does this practice violate the Department of
Justice's Guidance for Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Regarding
the Use of Race, Ethnicity, Gender, National Origin, Religion, Sexual
Orientation, or Gender Identity? - ANSWER--Yes, this practice clearly
violates the DOJ's Guidance concerning the use of race, etc.


A police officer received information from a confidential informant that
Neilson was selling meth out of his house. The officer wanted to apply
for a warrant to search Neilson's house based solely on the information

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller erickarimi. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $17.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

73243 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$17.99
  • (1)
  Add to cart