Question

Understanding the Fourth Amendment and the four court cases concerning searches and seizures, in which of the following situations would a warrant be unnecessary

Answer 1

Jonathan Monroe was driving home from work one night. His buddy, angry at him for winning a bet, calls in an anonymous tip that Monroe is carrying an illegal gun. The police want to pull him over.
Stephanie Abbott is suspected of growing marijuana in her home. One morning before leaving her home, she takes the trash out to the corner for pick-up. The police want to search the trash can.
Robert Samuels is accused of not paying child support. There is no evidence that he knew the woman accusing him of fathering her child. The police want a DNA test.
The store Michelle Smith is working in has been robbed several times. The owner thinks that she is responsible for the crimes. The police want to search her home.
https://www.connexus.com/content/media/221529-722009-40547-PM-2006167347/res00000/ppg/examview/images/nar001-1.jpg

Answer 2

1. Tricky. If the police have absolutely no other reason to stop Monroe, then they can't stop him on the mere basis of an anonymous tip like that. (It would be different if the anonymous tip said he was on his way to commit a robbery or murder with the gun, however.) But if they can find any other reason to stop him -- and, quite honestly, they usually can, if he bends even the tiniest traffic law -- then, once they have stopped him for the other reason, the tip allows them to search the car for the weapon without a warrant, because they're generally allowed to frisk you for weapons for their own and public safety once you're in a Terry stop, if they have any reason at all to suspect you might be carrying one.

2. No warrant necessary. You have no expectation of privacy for what you put out in the trash bin.

3. This is weirdly stated. If Samuels has not yet been ordered to pay child support, that is, if the mother has merely asked for him to be ordered to do so, then this is a civil case, not criminal. She would ordinarily sue him for support, presenting her evidence to the court that he is the father, and he would respond, presenting his evidence that he is not. Generally it would be he who would insist on a paternity test, since if he is not the father, that ends her suit right there. If he is the father, of course he wouldn't insist on a paternity test, but the mother has no right to insist upon one either. Nor would she generally need to, since the Court is very likely, in the absence of good evidence from the father to the contrary, to simply accept her assertion.

Now, if Samuels has already been orderd to pay child support, and is not doing so, then this can become a criminal matter, because he is in contempt of court. But in this case, paternity has already been established (by the original order) so there is no point to a DNA test. Furthermore, the police would not even arrest Samuels on the contempt charge unless he failed to appear and the judge issued a bench warrant.

4. Generally a warrant would be necessary. Police can't search your home without a wrarrant unless they have direct and immediate evidence that you are committing, or are about to commit, a serious crime. That's not the case here, so the police would need to take the store owner's evidence to the court and get a warrant for the search.