SUBJECTS
|
BROWSE
|
CAREER CENTER
|
POPULAR
|
JOIN
|
LOGIN
Business Skills
|
Soft Skills
|
Basic Literacy
|
Certifications
About
|
Help
|
Privacy
|
Terms
|
Email
Search
Test your basic knowledge |
Criminal Law 101: Court Cases
Start Test
Study First
Subject
:
law
Instructions:
Answer 50 questions in 15 minutes.
If you are not ready to take this test, you can
study here
.
Match each statement with the correct term.
Don't refresh. All questions and answers are randomly picked and ordered every time you load a test.
This is a study tool. The 3 wrong answers for each question are randomly chosen from answers to other questions. So, you might find at times the answers obvious, but you will see it re-enforces your understanding as you take the test each time.
1. Inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegallyseized may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been discovered
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
IN RE GAULT...
NIX v WILLIAMS
2. A stop and frisk search may be conducted when there is reasonable suspicion to believe that an individual is now or is about to engage in criminal behavior
SINGER v U.S
TERRY v OHIO
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
CARROLL v U.S
3. Suspects must be informed of their basic rights at the point of arrest - particularly the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during any interrogations; confessions must meet the tests of voluntariness and awareness
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
TERRY v OHIO
4. Reasonable suspicion is the standard to be used by public school officials to conduct searches on public school grounds of individuals who may be violating either the law or school rules
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
STACK v BOYLE
IN RE GAULT...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
5. (good faith exemption) evidence seized by reasonably well- trained officers acting in good faith - is admissible - even if the seizure technically violated the law
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
U.S. v LEON
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
6. Plain view doctrine - if the officer is legally present - the offending objects are in plain view - and the incriminating nature is readily apparent - the items may be seized without a warrant
WEEKS v U.S
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
HARRIS v U.S.
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
7. If probable cause of another offense arises during a routine vehicle/traffic stop - every occupant and every part of the vehicle and its contents - including closed and locked containers in the vehicle - may be searched; search justification arises o
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
U.S. v ROSS
ROPER v SIMMONS...
D.C. v HELLER
8. Officers may search the suspect and the adjoining space region incident to a lawful arrest; if there is reasonable suspicion to believe that there is hidden danger present - officers may conduct a protective sweep of the area - but it is only to be a
ELKINS v U.S
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
MARYLAND v BUIE
SINGER v U.S
9. Made it more difficult for inmates to win unconstitutional conditions of confinement cases; inmates must demonstrate specific unconstitutional conditions of confinement - and specific intent on the part of specific prison officials to maintain those
WILSON v SEITER...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
HARRIS v U.S.
10. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
11. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
SINGER v U.S
WILSON v SEITER...
MAPP v OHIO
12. Police may stop and search a vehicle without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle is carrying individuals or articles that offend the law - and the vehicle is now or is about to be moved
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
CARROLL v U.S
13. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
HERRERA v COLLINS...
IN RE GAULT...
U.S. v HENSLEY
SINGER v U.S
14. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
WEEKS v U.S
WILSON v SEITER...
15. Plea bargaining is legal as long as an attorney is present to protect the defendant's rights - the plea is voluntarily made - and the defendant has a full knowledge of the consequences
BRADY v U.S
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
16. A vehicle that has been impounded by police officials can be searched in its entirety; all items found in the vehicle - include closed and locked items - may also searched
U.S. v HAVENS
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
COLORADO v BERTINE
STACK v BOYLE
17. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
MARYLAND v BUIE
18. If the criminal conduct is the product of government agent creativity/if the government induced the individual to commit a crime that they otherwise would not have committed - the government action would be considered entrapment and the individual wo
BRADY v U.S
SHERMAN v U.S....
STACK v BOYLE
U.S. v HAVENS
19. Reasonable suspicion can be used as the basis for investigative searches and seizures in situations involving pre-eminent public interests; specifically - reasonable suspicion is the standard to be used to allow investigatory searches of individuals
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
FLORIDA v ROYER
20. Allows the death penalty to be administered as long as the capital sentence is not mandatory - aggravating and mitigating circumstances are considered - and a bifurcated proceeding (i.e. - different judges determine guilt and sentence)
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
IN RE WINSHIP...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
GREGG v GEORGIA...
21. Evidence that is unlawfully seized by any official cannot be used in federal court; the exclusionary rule is applied to the federal courts
ELKINS v U.S
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
WILSON v SEITER...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
22. An investigatory search may be conducted if the totality of the circumstances establishes reasonable suspicion to believe that a person matches the drug courier profile
U.S. v SOKOLOW
HERRERA v COLLINS...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
WILSON v ARKANSAS
23. Totality of the circumstances test - taken piecemeal - the evidence may not amount to probable cause - but if taken together as a whole the evidence achieves that level - the legal standard of proof for the search has been met
ILLINOIS v GATES
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
24. Failure to appear test - bail may be denied if there is probable cause to believe that defendants will fail to appear at future judicial proceedings
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
U.S. v HENSLEY
WILSON v ARKANSAS
STACK v BOYLE
25. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
IN RE WINSHIP...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
WEEKS v U.S
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
26. A search cannot shock the conscience - and cannot be exploratory
MARYLAND v BUIE
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
WEEKS v U.S
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
27. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
ILLINOIS v GATES
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
COLORADO v BERTINE
DELAWARE v PROUSE
28. Bail bond agents may use physical force to capture their bondees who have skipped bail - as long as the force used is reasonably related to the custody and/or transportation of the bondees
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
D.C. v HELLER
COLORADO v BERTINE
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
29. Defendants have the right to trial by jury if the potential sentence is more than six months of incarceration (see also Baldwin v New York)
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
ELKINS v U.S
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
WILSON v SEITER...
30. Randomized consent searches of individuals who are on public transportation is acceptable - even though such searches carry some degree of implied coercion and are not truly voluntary; the governing test is whether a reasonable person feels free to d
IN RE WINSHIP...
SHERMAN v U.S....
U.S. v ROSS
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
31. Dangerousness test - bail may be denied if there is clear and convincing evidence that defendant are dangerous and pose a threat to the community at large and the court participants in particular
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
U.S. v SALERNO
COLORADO v BERTINE
32. The erroneous admission of a coerced confession at trial does not constitute grounds for an automatic mistrial; in some cases - an involuntary confession can be taken and legally admitted as evidence; the totality of the circumstances is to be consid
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
U.S. v ROSS
SINGER v U.S
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
33. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
DELAWARE v PROUSE
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
SINGER v U.S
MARYLAND v BUIE
34. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
ILLINOIS v GATES
IN RE WINSHIP...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
35. No specific cause nor a search warrant is needed to search either open fields or non-habitable buildings (see also Oliver v U.S.)
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
IN RE WINSHIP...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
U.S. v DUNN
36. A stop and frisk search may be performed when there isreasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law - past tense
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
U.S. v HENSLEY
ELKINS v U.S
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
37. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
38. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
MARYLAND v BUIE
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
ELKINS v U.S
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
39. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
U.S. v HAVENS
ROPER v SIMMONS...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
40. The 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals to possess a firearm for personal use; specifically - there is a constitutional right to keep a handgun in the home for self defense
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
D.C. v HELLER
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
ILLINOIS v GATES
41. Specific intent to discriminate against an individual must be demonstrated before that individual's death sentence can be set aside; intent over impact
MAPP v OHIO
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
42. Garbage containers outside of the curtilage of the home are considered abandoned and may be searched without a warrant and without cause
SINGER v U.S
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
ELKINS v U.S
DELAWARE v PROUSE
43. Police may conduct brief - scientifically random/systemic - suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
BRADY v U.S
DELAWARE v PROUSE
44. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
FLORIDA v ROYER
GREGG v GEORGIA...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
45. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
U.S. v LEON
IN RE WINSHIP...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
TERRY v OHIO
46. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
SINGER v U.S
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
47. Inmates have the right to an institutional disciplinary hearing - written advance notice of the hearing - to present evidence/witnesses/testify in their own behalf at the hearing - and a formal ruling is to be placed in their file
U.S. v SALERNO
FLORIDA v ROYER
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
48. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
WILSON v SEITER...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
49. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
D.C. v HELLER
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
NIX v WILLIAMS
WILSON v SEITER...
50. Evidence discarded by an individual fleeing from the police is admissible in court - even if the police had no advance cause to focus attention upon the person who discarded the material
ILLINOIS v GATES
U.S. v ROSS
FLORIDA v ROYER
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D