Practice question
Police direct a delivery-company employee to open a customer’s sealed parcel for their investigation. The court finds on the established facts that the inspection was attributable to the State and violated the customer’s constitutional search right, with no applicable exception. The prosecution invokes Marti solely because the person physically opening the parcel was privately employed. Which response is best?
- Private employment always defeats constitutional protection despite the stipulated State attribution.
- Marti’s independent-private-search reasoning does not erase the stipulated governmental and unconstitutional character; the proper customer’s exclusion claim must be respected.
- The police may avoid every search limit by selecting a private pair of hands.
- The company’s logo supplies a judicial warrant.
- Only the parcel’s destination determines admissibility.
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, Sections 2 and 3(2): https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_81561_1991.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.