Log In Create Account
Beta

Flashcards Studio

Practice bar questions and get clear AI feedback on every answer.

Question Type
Question Source
0 tracked cards Remedial Law, Legal and Judicial Ethics, with Practical Exercises
Next

Question

A municipal judge issues a warrant for the residence of Raul and Mila Santos at 36 Amparo Street, Iloilo City, describing the place to be searched as: “the ground floor living room, including the built-in alcove cabinet therein,” to search for illegal drugs and to seize: (i) illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia; (ii) documents showing drug distribution; and (iii) any items reasonably connected to the foregoing. The warrant does not authorize search beyond the ground floor living room. During execution, the team searches the living room and the alcove cabinet and seizes methamphetamine and paraphernalia listed in the warrant. In the alcove cabinet there is a hidden, built-in compartment behind a false back panel; inside this compartment they locate a locked wooden box and a USB drive containing digital copies of the ledger; the USB drive is not expressly listed in the warrant but is readily connected to the ledger. Behind a false back panel in the alcove cabinet, a separate hidden door opens to a small adjacent storage cellar; within the cellar there is a pistol, which the team seizes. The warrant did not authorize search of the cellar. (a) Identify the controlling rule on the extent of search and explain its application to the facts. (b) Are the ledger and USB drive admissible as seized items under the warrant? Why or why not? (c) Is the pistol admissible? If not, what are the possible remedies under the exclusionary framework?

Choose the Best Answer

Clara

Hello