In this case, the Supreme Court held that the full search of the ...

[student77]

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the full search of the house was unreasonable, but a search of the arrestee was permitted to remove any weapons that the arrestee
 
  might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape and to seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.
  a. Knowles v. Iowa
  b. Chimel v. California
  c. Sibron v. New York
  d. Rawlings v. Kentucky

Question 2

There is no bright line drawn identifying when a non-stop (voluntary questioning) becomes an investigatory detention. Should the police be required to notify persons that they are free to leave (or not) before any questioning?
 
  What will be an ideal response?

[joechoochoy]

Answer to Question 1

Answer: b

Answer to Question 2

Answer: Good answers will discuss the Terry v. Ohio case and its progeny. Currently there is no requirement that police tell persons whether they are free to leave or are being detained. Students should take a position and support it with sound argument and reasoning. For example, the basic premise of privacy and freedom guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment could support an argument that a bright-line notice rule be adopted requiring police to notify person under all circumstances whether they are free to leave. A discussion on the need for police to not only catch the guilty but exonerate the innocent could support the existing law.

[student77]

Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it

[diana chang]

YES! Correct, THANKS for helping me on my review