Assignment 5 Answers
Ch. 5
1. Police officers rent a motel room adjoining Mary Wanna’s room and conduct surveillance of her conversations by pressing their ears against the common wall. The walls are thin and they are able to hear everything Mary says. Does this violate the Fourth Amendment? Explain. 10pts In United States v. Jackson, the Supreme Court ruled there was nothing unusual about officers pressing their ears against the wall of the adjoining room because the officers were using nothing more than their normal powers of hearing, in a motel room that they rented. The court stated that a suspect who carries on a conversation in a motel room, aware that the walls are thin and neighbors are just a few feet away, has no constitutional grounds for complaint if a police officer in the next room is listening therefore Mary Wanna’s Fourth Amendment rights have not been violated.
2. Police officers rent a motel room adjoining Mary Wanna’s room to conduct surveillance of her conversations but this time the walls are too thick for them to hear. They pay a motel cleaning lady to go into her room, listen as she cleans, and report back every word she hears. She reports back a highly incriminating conversation she overheard. Does this violate the Fourth Amendment? Explain. 10pts The Hoffa doctrine states that “defendants have no constitutionally protected privacy interest in information they knowingly disclose to a third party.” The cleaning lady was in Mary Wanna’s hotel room by invitation. Despite she was paid by officers, every conversation which she heard was knowingly carried on in her presence. Therefore, the use of the cleaning lady was not a violation of Mary Wanna’s Fourth Amendment rights.
3. Does requiring airline passengers to undergo magnetometer screening and have their carry-on luggage x-rayed before boarding a plane involve a search? Why are individualized suspicion and a search warrant not required? Explain both answers. 10pts Screening procedures that
1. Police officers rent a motel room adjoining Mary Wanna’s room and conduct surveillance of her conversations by pressing their ears against the common wall. The walls are thin and they are able to hear everything Mary says. Does this violate the Fourth Amendment? Explain. 10pts In United States v. Jackson, the Supreme Court ruled there was nothing unusual about officers pressing their ears against the wall of the adjoining room because the officers were using nothing more than their normal powers of hearing, in a motel room that they rented. The court stated that a suspect who carries on a conversation in a motel room, aware that the walls are thin and neighbors are just a few feet away, has no constitutional grounds for complaint if a police officer in the next room is listening therefore Mary Wanna’s Fourth Amendment rights have not been violated.
2. Police officers rent a motel room adjoining Mary Wanna’s room to conduct surveillance of her conversations but this time the walls are too thick for them to hear. They pay a motel cleaning lady to go into her room, listen as she cleans, and report back every word she hears. She reports back a highly incriminating conversation she overheard. Does this violate the Fourth Amendment? Explain. 10pts The Hoffa doctrine states that “defendants have no constitutionally protected privacy interest in information they knowingly disclose to a third party.” The cleaning lady was in Mary Wanna’s hotel room by invitation. Despite she was paid by officers, every conversation which she heard was knowingly carried on in her presence. Therefore, the use of the cleaning lady was not a violation of Mary Wanna’s Fourth Amendment rights.
3. Does requiring airline passengers to undergo magnetometer screening and have their carry-on luggage x-rayed before boarding a plane involve a search? Why are individualized suspicion and a search warrant not required? Explain both answers. 10pts Screening procedures that