FLETC Legal Exam (2025) – Study Guide and Exam Revision Material
a. No, because the officers physically intruded on a constitutionally protect location without
either a warrant or an exception to the 4th Amendment.
CORRECT: The root of the question says that the officers were on Thompson's curtilage. The
officers did not have a warrant to be there and there is no 4th Amendment exception.
Accordingly, the observation was unlawful and the information they obtained cannot be lawfully
used to obtain a warrant.
b. No, because the use of a flashlight violated Thompson's reasonable expectation of privacy.
INCORRECT: Using a flashlight, by itself, does not violate a person's REP.
c. Yes, because the garage does not have curtilage because it is not a dwelling.
INCORRECT: Curtilage is not limited to dwellings and includes areas surrounding a dwelling.
(Review your student text.)
d. Yes, because the garage itself was not within the curtilage of Thompson's dwelling.
INCORRECT: The garage w - ANS ✔✔1. Thompson is suspected of running a counterfeiting
operation out of his garage. The garage is attached to the dwelling. Without a warrant, three
officers step onto his curtilage, shine a flashlight into the garage, and take a quick look. They
observe a number of what appear to be $100 bills hanging from a clothesline. Was the
observation into the garage lawful?
a. No, because the officers physically intruded on a constitutionally protect location without
either a warrant or an exception to the 4th Amendment.
b. No, because the use of a flashlight violated Thompson's reasonable expectation of privacy.
c. Yes, because the garage does not have curtilage because it is not a dwelling.
,d. Yes, because the garage itself was not within the curtilage of Thompson's dwelling.
a. Denied, because the agents had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
INCORRECT: The officers only had reasonable suspicion criminal activity was afoot which would
allow them to make a Terry stop and direct Wooster out of his car. The officers did not have
reasonable suspicion that Wooster was presently armed and dangerous making the Terry frisk
illegal. The crime of operating a stolen credit card ring is not the type of offense which would
give R/S a person is presently armed and dangerous (like one would have with R/S someone
committed a robbery or burglary.)
b. Denied, because the agents had probable cause to remove the cards from his pocket under
the "plain touch" doctrine.
INCORRECT: The Terry frisk was illegal. (See a above.) The credit cards were discovered during
an illegal frisk. If the officers had R/S Wooster was presently armed and dangerous, they could
have frisked Wooster.
Even then the plain to - ANS ✔✔2. Agents develop reasonable suspicion that Wooster is
operating a stolen credit card ring. Upon seeing Wooster driving in his car one afternoon, the
agents follow him. When he arrives at a shopping mall, the agents approach him, identify
themselves, and tell him to put his hands on his automobile. One of the agents frisks him and, in
the upper left hand pocket, feels what is immediately apparent to him as a stack of credit cards
bound by a rubber band. The agent removes the credit cards and, ultimately, determines that
they are stolen. Wooster's motion to suppress the credit cards will be -
a. Denied, because the agents had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
b. Denied, because the agents had probable cause to remove the cards from his pocket under
the "plain touch" doctrine.
c. Granted, because the agents performed an illegal "frisk" of Wooster.
,d. Granted, because a "frisk" may result only in the discov
a. Yes, because Johnson's statements amount to probable cause under a totality of the
circumstances using the Illinois v. Gates test.
CORRECT: The information known to the officers show both that Johnson was reliable and had a
basis of knowledge in what he told the officers. Furthermore, because he is a co-criminal, the
information he provided is presumed reliable. Under a totality of the circumstances this is
enough to establish probable cause.
b. Yes, because Johnson has never provided false information to the officers in the past.
INCORRECT: Even if true, this would go to Johnson's reliability. It would not, however, establish a
basis of knowledge. This alone is not enough.
c. No, because the officers did not corroborate Johnson's statements.
INCORRECT: Because the Gates test was satisfied (reliability and basis of knowledge under a
totality of the circumstances) there was no requirement to corroborate the infor - ANS ✔✔3.
Johnson is arrested for drunk driving and failing to pay child support. He agrees to share
information with the police to avoid prosecution. Having been personally involved in every
aspect of an ongoing stolen paycheck operation, Johnson explained the intimate details to the
police of what he saw and did with Fred, a co-criminal. Based on his statements alone, the
officers seek a search warrant for the co-criminal's premises where Johnson stated he saw many
of the stolen checks the day before. Can Johnson's statement alone establish Probable Cause to
support a warrant application?
a. Yes, because Johnson's statements amount to probable cause under a totality of the
circumstances using the Illinois v. Gates test.
b. Yes, because Johnson has never provided false information to the officers in the past.
c. No, because the officers did not corroborate Johnson's statements.
, d. No, because statements alone can never
a. Granted, because the officer could have entered the home the previous evening under the
"exigent circumstances" exception to the warrant requirement, and seeking a warrant is nothing
more than a court order of the "exigent circumstances" exception.
INCORRECT: The root sets forth nothing which would establish an exigent circumstance.
b. Granted, because the officer did not violate Sweeney's reasonable expectation of privacy in
making the observation on which the search warrant will be based.
CORRECT: The officer was in a public place (where he had the right to be) and the open curtain
exposed the inside of the house to the public. The homeowner had no REP in what he exposed
to the street outside.
Accordingly, what the officer saw in the window was lawfully obtained and can establish
information that may be used in the warrant.
c. Denied, because the officer's view into Sweeney's home amounted to an intrusion int - ANS
✔✔4. An officer is walking down a public sidewalk in the early evening hours, just after dark.
Glancing in the direction of Sweeney's home, the officer notices that, while Sweeney has drawn
the curtains in the front window, there is a gap through which the officer sees what he knows to
be a large marijuana plant. The following morning, based solely upon this information, the
officer seeks a search warrant for Sweeney's home. The request for a search warrant will be -
a. Granted, because the officer could have entered the home the previous evening under the
"exigent circumstances" exception to the warrant requirement, and seeking a warrant is nothing
more than a court order of the "exigent circumstances" exception.
b. Granted, because the officer did not violate Sweeney's reasonable expectation of privacy in
making the observation on which the search warrant will be based.
c. Denied, because the officer's view into S
a. No, because the officers physically intruded on a constitutionally protect location without
either a warrant or an exception to the 4th Amendment.
CORRECT: The root of the question says that the officers were on Thompson's curtilage. The
officers did not have a warrant to be there and there is no 4th Amendment exception.
Accordingly, the observation was unlawful and the information they obtained cannot be lawfully
used to obtain a warrant.
b. No, because the use of a flashlight violated Thompson's reasonable expectation of privacy.
INCORRECT: Using a flashlight, by itself, does not violate a person's REP.
c. Yes, because the garage does not have curtilage because it is not a dwelling.
INCORRECT: Curtilage is not limited to dwellings and includes areas surrounding a dwelling.
(Review your student text.)
d. Yes, because the garage itself was not within the curtilage of Thompson's dwelling.
INCORRECT: The garage w - ANS ✔✔1. Thompson is suspected of running a counterfeiting
operation out of his garage. The garage is attached to the dwelling. Without a warrant, three
officers step onto his curtilage, shine a flashlight into the garage, and take a quick look. They
observe a number of what appear to be $100 bills hanging from a clothesline. Was the
observation into the garage lawful?
a. No, because the officers physically intruded on a constitutionally protect location without
either a warrant or an exception to the 4th Amendment.
b. No, because the use of a flashlight violated Thompson's reasonable expectation of privacy.
c. Yes, because the garage does not have curtilage because it is not a dwelling.
,d. Yes, because the garage itself was not within the curtilage of Thompson's dwelling.
a. Denied, because the agents had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
INCORRECT: The officers only had reasonable suspicion criminal activity was afoot which would
allow them to make a Terry stop and direct Wooster out of his car. The officers did not have
reasonable suspicion that Wooster was presently armed and dangerous making the Terry frisk
illegal. The crime of operating a stolen credit card ring is not the type of offense which would
give R/S a person is presently armed and dangerous (like one would have with R/S someone
committed a robbery or burglary.)
b. Denied, because the agents had probable cause to remove the cards from his pocket under
the "plain touch" doctrine.
INCORRECT: The Terry frisk was illegal. (See a above.) The credit cards were discovered during
an illegal frisk. If the officers had R/S Wooster was presently armed and dangerous, they could
have frisked Wooster.
Even then the plain to - ANS ✔✔2. Agents develop reasonable suspicion that Wooster is
operating a stolen credit card ring. Upon seeing Wooster driving in his car one afternoon, the
agents follow him. When he arrives at a shopping mall, the agents approach him, identify
themselves, and tell him to put his hands on his automobile. One of the agents frisks him and, in
the upper left hand pocket, feels what is immediately apparent to him as a stack of credit cards
bound by a rubber band. The agent removes the credit cards and, ultimately, determines that
they are stolen. Wooster's motion to suppress the credit cards will be -
a. Denied, because the agents had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
b. Denied, because the agents had probable cause to remove the cards from his pocket under
the "plain touch" doctrine.
c. Granted, because the agents performed an illegal "frisk" of Wooster.
,d. Granted, because a "frisk" may result only in the discov
a. Yes, because Johnson's statements amount to probable cause under a totality of the
circumstances using the Illinois v. Gates test.
CORRECT: The information known to the officers show both that Johnson was reliable and had a
basis of knowledge in what he told the officers. Furthermore, because he is a co-criminal, the
information he provided is presumed reliable. Under a totality of the circumstances this is
enough to establish probable cause.
b. Yes, because Johnson has never provided false information to the officers in the past.
INCORRECT: Even if true, this would go to Johnson's reliability. It would not, however, establish a
basis of knowledge. This alone is not enough.
c. No, because the officers did not corroborate Johnson's statements.
INCORRECT: Because the Gates test was satisfied (reliability and basis of knowledge under a
totality of the circumstances) there was no requirement to corroborate the infor - ANS ✔✔3.
Johnson is arrested for drunk driving and failing to pay child support. He agrees to share
information with the police to avoid prosecution. Having been personally involved in every
aspect of an ongoing stolen paycheck operation, Johnson explained the intimate details to the
police of what he saw and did with Fred, a co-criminal. Based on his statements alone, the
officers seek a search warrant for the co-criminal's premises where Johnson stated he saw many
of the stolen checks the day before. Can Johnson's statement alone establish Probable Cause to
support a warrant application?
a. Yes, because Johnson's statements amount to probable cause under a totality of the
circumstances using the Illinois v. Gates test.
b. Yes, because Johnson has never provided false information to the officers in the past.
c. No, because the officers did not corroborate Johnson's statements.
, d. No, because statements alone can never
a. Granted, because the officer could have entered the home the previous evening under the
"exigent circumstances" exception to the warrant requirement, and seeking a warrant is nothing
more than a court order of the "exigent circumstances" exception.
INCORRECT: The root sets forth nothing which would establish an exigent circumstance.
b. Granted, because the officer did not violate Sweeney's reasonable expectation of privacy in
making the observation on which the search warrant will be based.
CORRECT: The officer was in a public place (where he had the right to be) and the open curtain
exposed the inside of the house to the public. The homeowner had no REP in what he exposed
to the street outside.
Accordingly, what the officer saw in the window was lawfully obtained and can establish
information that may be used in the warrant.
c. Denied, because the officer's view into Sweeney's home amounted to an intrusion int - ANS
✔✔4. An officer is walking down a public sidewalk in the early evening hours, just after dark.
Glancing in the direction of Sweeney's home, the officer notices that, while Sweeney has drawn
the curtains in the front window, there is a gap through which the officer sees what he knows to
be a large marijuana plant. The following morning, based solely upon this information, the
officer seeks a search warrant for Sweeney's home. The request for a search warrant will be -
a. Granted, because the officer could have entered the home the previous evening under the
"exigent circumstances" exception to the warrant requirement, and seeking a warrant is nothing
more than a court order of the "exigent circumstances" exception.
b. Granted, because the officer did not violate Sweeney's reasonable expectation of privacy in
making the observation on which the search warrant will be based.
c. Denied, because the officer's view into S
