Multistate Bar
Examination (MBE)
Criminal Procedure
Questions
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Criminal Procedure – Questions
Question 1
State X enacted a statute "to regulate administratively the conduct of motor vehicle junkyard
businesses in order to deter motor vehicle theft and trafficking in stolen motor vehicles or parts
thereof." The statute requires a junkyard owner or operator "to permit representatives of the
Department of Motor Vehicles or of any law enforcement agency upon request during normal
business hours to take physical inventory of motor vehicles and parts thereof on the premises."
The statute also states that a failure to comply with any of its requirements constitutes a felony.
Police officers assigned to Magnolia City's Automobile Crimes Unit periodically visited all
motor vehicle junkyards in town to make the inspections permitted by the statute. Janet owned
such a business in Magnolia City. One summer day, the officers asked to inspect the vehicles
on her lot. Janet said, "Do I have a choice?" The officers told her she did not. The officers
conducted their inspection and discovered three stolen automobiles.
Janet is charged with receiving stolen property. Janet moves pretrial to suppress the evidence
relating to the three automobiles on the ground that the inspection was unconstitutional.
Her motion should be
(A) sustained, because the statute grants unbridled discretion to law enforcement officers to
make warrantless searches.
(B) sustained, because the stated regulatory purpose of the statute is a pretext to circumvent the
warrant requirement in conducting criminal investigations.
(C) denied, because the statute deals reasonably with a highly regulated industry.
(D) denied, because administrative searches of commercial establishments do not require
warrants.
1
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Criminal Procedure – Questions
Question 2
Nora, executive director of an equal housing opportunity organization, was the leader of a sit-
in at the offices of a real estate management company. The protest was designed to call
attention to the company's racially discriminatory rental practices. When police demanded that
Nora desist from trespassing on the company's property, she refused and was arrested. In Nora's
trial for trespass, the prosecution peremptorily excused all non-whites from the jury, arguing
to the court that even though Nora was white, minority groups would automatically support
Nora because of her fight against racism in housing accommodations.
If Nora is convicted of trespass by an all-white jury and appeals, claiming a violation of her
constitutional rights, the court should
(A) affirm the conviction, because Nora was not a member of the class discriminated against.
(B) affirm the conviction, because peremptory challenge of the non-whites did not deny Nora
the right to an impartial jury.
(C) reverse the conviction, because racially based peremptory challenges violate equal
protection of the law.
(D) reverse the conviction, because Nora was denied the right to have her case heard by a fair
cross section of the community.
2
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Criminal Procedure – Questions
Question 3
The police had, over time, accumulated reliable information that Jason operated a large
cocaine-distribution network, that he and his accomplices often resorted to violence, and that
they kept a small arsenal of weapons in his home.
One day, the police received reliable information that a large brown suitcase with leather straps
containing a supply of cocaine had been delivered to Jason's home and that it would be moved
to a distribution point the next morning. The police obtained a valid search warrant to search
for and seize the brown suitcase and the cocaine and went to Jason's house.
The police knocked on Jason's door and called out, "Police. Open up. We have a search
warrant." After a few seconds with no response, the police forced the door open and entered.
Hearing noises in the basement, the police ran down there and found Jason with a large brown
suitcase with leather straps. They seized the suitcase and put handcuffs on Jason. A search of
his person revealed a switchblade knife and a .45-caliber pistol. Jason cursed the police and
said, "You never would have caught me with the stuff if it hadn't been for that lousy snitch
Harvey!"
The police then fanned out through the house, looking in every room and closet. They found
no one else, but one officer found an Uzi automatic weapon in a box on a closet shelf in Jason's
bedroom.
In addition to charges relating to the cocaine in the suitcase, Jason is charged with unlawful
possession of weapons.
Jason moves pretrial to suppress the use as evidence of the weapons seized by the police and
of the statement he made.
As to the switchblade knife and the .45-caliber pistol, Jason's motion to suppress should be
(A) granted, because the search and seizure were the result of illegal police conduct in executing
the search warrant.
(B) granted, because the police did not inform Jason that he was under arrest and did not read
him his Miranda rights.
(C) denied, because the search and seizure were incident to a lawful arrest.
(D) denied, because the police had reasonable grounds to believe that there were weapons in
the house.
3
Examination (MBE)
Criminal Procedure
Questions
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Criminal Procedure – Questions
Question 1
State X enacted a statute "to regulate administratively the conduct of motor vehicle junkyard
businesses in order to deter motor vehicle theft and trafficking in stolen motor vehicles or parts
thereof." The statute requires a junkyard owner or operator "to permit representatives of the
Department of Motor Vehicles or of any law enforcement agency upon request during normal
business hours to take physical inventory of motor vehicles and parts thereof on the premises."
The statute also states that a failure to comply with any of its requirements constitutes a felony.
Police officers assigned to Magnolia City's Automobile Crimes Unit periodically visited all
motor vehicle junkyards in town to make the inspections permitted by the statute. Janet owned
such a business in Magnolia City. One summer day, the officers asked to inspect the vehicles
on her lot. Janet said, "Do I have a choice?" The officers told her she did not. The officers
conducted their inspection and discovered three stolen automobiles.
Janet is charged with receiving stolen property. Janet moves pretrial to suppress the evidence
relating to the three automobiles on the ground that the inspection was unconstitutional.
Her motion should be
(A) sustained, because the statute grants unbridled discretion to law enforcement officers to
make warrantless searches.
(B) sustained, because the stated regulatory purpose of the statute is a pretext to circumvent the
warrant requirement in conducting criminal investigations.
(C) denied, because the statute deals reasonably with a highly regulated industry.
(D) denied, because administrative searches of commercial establishments do not require
warrants.
1
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Criminal Procedure – Questions
Question 2
Nora, executive director of an equal housing opportunity organization, was the leader of a sit-
in at the offices of a real estate management company. The protest was designed to call
attention to the company's racially discriminatory rental practices. When police demanded that
Nora desist from trespassing on the company's property, she refused and was arrested. In Nora's
trial for trespass, the prosecution peremptorily excused all non-whites from the jury, arguing
to the court that even though Nora was white, minority groups would automatically support
Nora because of her fight against racism in housing accommodations.
If Nora is convicted of trespass by an all-white jury and appeals, claiming a violation of her
constitutional rights, the court should
(A) affirm the conviction, because Nora was not a member of the class discriminated against.
(B) affirm the conviction, because peremptory challenge of the non-whites did not deny Nora
the right to an impartial jury.
(C) reverse the conviction, because racially based peremptory challenges violate equal
protection of the law.
(D) reverse the conviction, because Nora was denied the right to have her case heard by a fair
cross section of the community.
2
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Criminal Procedure – Questions
Question 3
The police had, over time, accumulated reliable information that Jason operated a large
cocaine-distribution network, that he and his accomplices often resorted to violence, and that
they kept a small arsenal of weapons in his home.
One day, the police received reliable information that a large brown suitcase with leather straps
containing a supply of cocaine had been delivered to Jason's home and that it would be moved
to a distribution point the next morning. The police obtained a valid search warrant to search
for and seize the brown suitcase and the cocaine and went to Jason's house.
The police knocked on Jason's door and called out, "Police. Open up. We have a search
warrant." After a few seconds with no response, the police forced the door open and entered.
Hearing noises in the basement, the police ran down there and found Jason with a large brown
suitcase with leather straps. They seized the suitcase and put handcuffs on Jason. A search of
his person revealed a switchblade knife and a .45-caliber pistol. Jason cursed the police and
said, "You never would have caught me with the stuff if it hadn't been for that lousy snitch
Harvey!"
The police then fanned out through the house, looking in every room and closet. They found
no one else, but one officer found an Uzi automatic weapon in a box on a closet shelf in Jason's
bedroom.
In addition to charges relating to the cocaine in the suitcase, Jason is charged with unlawful
possession of weapons.
Jason moves pretrial to suppress the use as evidence of the weapons seized by the police and
of the statement he made.
As to the switchblade knife and the .45-caliber pistol, Jason's motion to suppress should be
(A) granted, because the search and seizure were the result of illegal police conduct in executing
the search warrant.
(B) granted, because the police did not inform Jason that he was under arrest and did not read
him his Miranda rights.
(C) denied, because the search and seizure were incident to a lawful arrest.
(D) denied, because the police had reasonable grounds to believe that there were weapons in
the house.
3
