Pre-Test Question 3

 Question 3 is based on the following fact situation: 

Dennis robbed a bank and fled in a getaway car driven by an accomplice, not realizing that one of the bundles of money he took had the serial numbers recorded and had a tiny tracking device attached to the wrapper. The bank contacted its security consultant, who obtained portable tracking equipment and was able to trace the bundle of money to Dennis’s house. The police were notified and they arrived at Dennis’s house a few hours after the robbery. They knocked on the door and announced their presence, and saw someone matching the de­scription of the robber in the hallway. They entered and arrested the suspect, Dennis, and then conducted a protective sweep of the house for the accomplice, who they believed had a gun. They did not find him, but while checking a closet they discovered several of the bundles of money from the bank and a gun Dennis had used in the robbery. The police also discovered two clear plastic bags of what appeared to be marijuana sitting on top of a dresser. They seized the money, the gun, and the two bags; later testing confirmed that the substance in the bags was marijuana.

The court should:

(A)  Grant the motion as to the marijuana but not as to the money or the gun because the money and gun were found as a result of the protective sweep for Dennis’s accomplice.

(B)  Grant the motion as to the money and the gun but not as to the marijuana because the bags containing the marijuana were clearly visible on the dresser during the search.

(C)  Grant the motion as to all of the evidence seized.

(D)  Deny the motion as to all the evidence seized.

Go To Question 4