The correct answer is: (B) Yes, because the man had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the cooler.

The exclusionary rule is a rule of evidence that is intended to deter unlawful police conduct by making any evidence that was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment inadmissible in a criminal proceeding. One protection created by the Fourth Amendment is that a government actor must have probable cause and a warrant or warrant exception to conduct a search of a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Here, the Fourth Amendment applies because a police officer is conducting a search. Additionally, the man likely has a reasonable expectation in the contents of the cooler because he had it in his hands, it was closed and not open for the public to see. The stop of the man was appropriate because the officer likely had reasonable suspicion that the man was committing the offense of public intoxication because the man was pulling a cooler, late at night and was walking in the middle of the road instead of the sidewalk. Reasonable suspicion is a belief based upon articulable facts that criminal activity is afoot. It does not rise to the level of probable cause but is more than a mere hunch. Whether reasonable suspicion exists will be based on the totality of the circumstances. When an officer has reasonable suspicion, the officer may make an investigatory stop to determine whether or not his reasonable suspicion is supported by facts he obtains during the stop. This type of stop is often called a Terry stop. The stop can last only long enough to confirm or dispel the officer's suspicions. If the officer does not develop probable cause during the stop, the stop must end. Here, the officer made a legal stop based on reasonable suspicion but when he approached the man, he observed that the beer was unopened and the man had normal use of his faculties. This is not enough to give the officer probable cause that the man was intoxicated, thus the stop should have ended there. Instead, the officer conducted a search of the cooler. The search was therefore, illegal and any evidence seized pursuant to the search would be inadmissible at trial.

(A) Incorrect. Yes, because the officer lacked probable cause to make the stop since all he observed was the man walking in the street with a cooler.

This answer choice is incorrect because it assumes that the officer needed probable cause to stop the man. A legal stop can be made where the officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime is happening or is about to happen. The threshold for reasonable suspicion is less than probable cause. Because the stop of the man is not the even that triggers the exclusionary rule, this is incorrect.

(C) Incorrect. No, because the officer was allowed to check for weapons.

This answer choice is incorrect because it extends an officer's authority in a Terry stop too far. During a Terry stop, if an officer has reasonable suspicion that the person stopped may have weapons, the officer may do a pat down of the person to check for and secure weapons. The officer may not manipulate the person's pockets or conduct a search of the person or his belongings. Here, the officer made a lawful stop and if he had reasonable suspicion that the man had a weapon, the officer could have conducted a lawful pat down for weapons, however he could not do a search of the man or the man's belongings, including the cooler.

(D) Incorrect. No, because the officer made an illegal stop.

This answer choice is incorrect because the officer made a legal Terry stop. The officer was in a college town where there a lot of drinking likely occurs. He saw the man pulling the cooler with a beer in his hand and he saw the man fall down. This is likely enough to give the officer reasonable suspicion that a crime--public intoxication--was afoot and the officer could make a lawful stop to confirm or dispel his suspicion.