In Illinois v. Caballes (2005), SCOTUS ruled that: a. drivers ...

[Redwolflake15]

In Illinois v. Caballes (2005), SCOTUS ruled that:
 
  a. drivers of automobiles have a reasonable expectation of privacy that protects them from the use of drug-sniffing dogs without a warrant.
   b. drug-sniffing dogs can only be used if there is reasonable suspicion the driver has narcotics.
  c. drug-sniffing dog searches are prone to many errors and are so intimidating that officials must have probable cause to use them.
   d. the use of well-trained drug-sniffing dogs to expose contraband items that would remain hidden in a routine traffic stop does not intrude on a driver's reasonable expectation of privacy, and the Fourth Amendment does not apply.

Question 2

What is the first question in the three main steps in Fourth Amendment analyses?
 
  a. Was the law enforcement action a search or a seizure?
  b. If the action was a search or a seizure, was it reasonable?
  c. If the action was an unreasonable search, does the Fourth Amendment ban its use as evidence?
   d. If the action was reasonable, can the evidence be used to impeach a witness?

[AngeliqueG]

Answer to Question 1

d

Answer to Question 2

a

[Redwolflake15]

Great answer, keep it coming

[mohan]

Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it