benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU-Pro / 1267 / The police received an anonymous tip informing them that a pharmacist was…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

The police received an anonymous tip informing them that a pharmacist was engaged in the illegal manufacture of synthetic cocaine. As part of its investigation, the police placed an electronic tracking device on the pharmacist's car. The tracking device was attached to the underbody of the pharmacist's car while it was parked outside his home. The police did not secure a warrant before installing the device. By means of the tracking device, the police were able to trail the pharmacist's movements. The police followed the pharmacist every day for almost a month. Finally, one day the police tracked the pharmacist's car to a vacant warehouse on the outskirts of town. While the pharmacist was inside the building, the police peered in the window and saw drug paraphernalia and equipment used in the manufacture of synthetic cocaine. Based on these observations, the police secured a search warrant and gained entry into the building. Once inside, the police arrested the pharmacist and confiscated a large quantity of synthetic cocaine that had just been produced. At his trial for illegal possession and manufacture of a controlled dangerous substance, the pharmacist moves to suppress the cocaine confiscated by the police. The pharmacist's motion will most likely be

category

law

options

  1. denied, because the police acted in good faith when placing the tracking device.
  2. denied, because the police had reasonable suspicion to track the pharmacist's movements.
  3. granted, because the pharmacist had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his car.
  4. granted, because the police did not have a warrant to place the tracking device on the pharmacist's car.
  5. denied, because the police could have discovered the location of the warehouse simply by following the pharmacist's car.
  6. denied, because the evidence would have inevitably been discovered.
  7. denied, because the electronic surveillance of the pharmacist's car did not exceed 30 days.
  8. granted, because the police invaded the pharmacist's privacy by peering into the warehouse window.
  9. granted, because the information upon which the search warrant was based was illegally obtained by means of the tracking device.
  10. granted, because the seizure must be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal search.

src

ori_mmlu-professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

upstream_id / Original problem ID
1267
task_id
980bba0e-8f4f-55e5-99a8-b83ae64ffb59
task_key
default--test--1267
task_revision_id
1
config / split
default / test

Official source

initial import