1. Paul Princi, the principal at a local public high school, heard a rumor that Susie Senior was using drugs. Based on this information, he ordered a drug test of Susie. The school nurse conducted the test and Susie tested positive for cocaine. Based on this information, Princi conducted a search of Susieís locker and cocaine was found. Susie was suspended from school and is being prosecuted for possession of a controlled substance. Susieís attorney has moved to suppress any evidence resulting from the drug test and the locker search at Susieís criminal trial.

Which (if any) of the following statements are correct?

I. The drug testing of Susie did not violate the Fourth Amendment because suspicionless drug testing of high school students is permissible.

II. The evidence obtained from the drug test and locker searches will not be suppressed at Susieís trial because they were seized by school personnel and not the police.

III. The search of Susieís locker violates the Fourth Amendment because Princi did not have probable cause to search the locker

a) II only

b) I and II, but not III

c) II and III, but not I

d) I, II and III

e) neither I, nor II, nor III

2. The local police believe that there is a large amount of underage drinking and drug use at Bellaís, a local dischoteque, and station two uniformed officers outside the club. As Peter exits the club at midnight, the officers approach him and say," Excuse us, but we would like to ask you something. Peter stops walking. They then ask Peter, "How old are you and have you been drinking alcohol?" Peter, who had been drinking, says, "Iím twenty and just had two beers." He is later prosecuted for underage drinking. If Peter moves to suppress his statement, the court should rule it:

a) inadmissible as the product of a seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment

b) inadmissible, because although the police actions up to stopping Peter were proper, he was not given Miranda warnings before being questioned

c) admissible, because the officers had reasonable suspicion for their seizure of Peter and their subsequent questioning of him was proper

d) admissible, because the police violated neither Peterís Fourth nor Fifth Amendment rights

3. Officer Olvera suspected that Dan Driver was engaged in dealing drugs. Olvera observed Dan fail to stop at a stop sign. Olvera pulled Dan over and requested that Dan give him his license and registration. Dan complied. Olvera called in the information to the dispatcher. While waiting for a response, Olvera and Dan engaged in casual conversation. The talk turned to recent school bombings. Olvera asked Dan, "You donít have any explosives in your trunk, do you?" Dan immediately responded that he didnít. At that point, Olvera asked, "You donít mind if I look, do you?" Dan responded "Thatís OK, go ahead." Olvera went to the back of the vehicle, opened the trunk and saw several large cardboard boxes inside, which he opened. In one of the boxes, he found a quantity of drugs, which he seized. Dan truthfully testified at the suppression hearing that he did not want Olvera to open the boxes in the trunk.

Was the seizure of the drugs valid under the Fourth Amendment?

a) Yes, because the automobile exception extends to containers in the trunk

b) Yes, because a reasonable person would have understood Danís consent to extend to the boxes in the trunk

c) No, because the scope of Danís consent did not extend to opening the boxes in the trunk

d) No, because Olveraís deception rendered Driverís consent involuntary.