law

TTTBE #33: Early Answer for Patrons

Added 2017-07-23 23:01:21 +0000 UTC

This question primarily tested your reading comprehension skills. The setup paragraphs tell us that the police officer had "no articulable reason" to search a car after a routine traffic stop but did so anyway.

"Articulable suspicion" -- that is, a thing you're worried about and can put into words -- is the lowest level the police need to escalate their encounters with citizens; e.g., to conduct a "stop-and-frisk" on a public street. For searching an entire car, the officer would most likely need an even higher standard, that of "probable cause."

This means the right answer -- as most of you, including Thomas, guessed -- was "A," that the search was unconstitutional because of a lack of any reasonable suspicion on the part of the police officer.

"B" is the incorrect answer because police can search cars without getting a search warrant if there are exigent circumstances; imagine, for example, that you get pulled over in a traffic stop and the cop hears muffled screams coming from your trunk. You better believe that cop can pop the trunk without a warrant.

"C" (that this sort of search is routine for a traffic stop) is just wrong as a matter of both fact and law.

"D" (that being fidgety gives rise to probable cause) is analytically false.

But ask yourself this: if I replaced "stolen peaches" with "stolen cocaine," how many of you would have fallen for the ostensible link between fidgety-ness and coke use?

Thomas is now 16-for-33 (48.5%) and is just one correct answer away from the elusive .500 mark.