1|Page
FLETC-BOP Midterm Legal Examination||Verified
Exam!!||, 2026/2027-Question Federal Correctional
Legal Competency Assessment||Newest Exam!!!
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.
,2|Page
d. Yes, because the garage itself was not within the
curtilage of Thompson's dwelling. - Answer-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.)
,3|Page
d. Yes, because the garage itself was not within the
curtilage of Thompson's dwelling.
INCORRECT: The garage was attached to the house so it
was very likely on the curtilage. More importantly, the
officers were unlawfully on the curtilage when they made
their observations.
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.
, 4|Page
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
- Answer-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.
FLETC-BOP Midterm Legal Examination||Verified
Exam!!||, 2026/2027-Question Federal Correctional
Legal Competency Assessment||Newest Exam!!!
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.
,2|Page
d. Yes, because the garage itself was not within the
curtilage of Thompson's dwelling. - Answer-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.)
,3|Page
d. Yes, because the garage itself was not within the
curtilage of Thompson's dwelling.
INCORRECT: The garage was attached to the house so it
was very likely on the curtilage. More importantly, the
officers were unlawfully on the curtilage when they made
their observations.
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.
, 4|Page
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
- Answer-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.
