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. No specific cause nor a search warrant is needed to search either open fields or non-habitable buildings (see also Oliver v U.S.)
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
U.S. v DUNN
WILSON v ARKANSAS
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
2. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
3. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
ROPER v SIMMONS...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
4. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
WEEKS v U.S
5. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
6. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
MARYLAND v BUIE
HERRERA v COLLINS...
7. A stop and frisk search may be performed when there isreasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law - past tense
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
U.S. v HENSLEY
8. 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
IN RE GAULT...
SINGER v U.S
COLORADO v BERTINE
WILSON v SEITER...
9. 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
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
NEW JERSEY v TLO
NIX v WILLIAMS
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
10. Indigents have the right to a legal counsel during the trial stage; the state will appoint an attorney to the case if the individual cannot afford one
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
MAPP v OHIO
STACK v BOYLE
D.C. v HELLER
11. 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
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
U.S. v ROSS
BRADY v U.S
12. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
MAPP v OHIO
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
13. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
GREGG v GEORGIA...
MARYLAND v BUIE
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
14. 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
IN RE GAULT...
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
SINGER v U.S
15. 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
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
DELAWARE v PROUSE
HARRIS v U.S.
HERRERA v COLLINS...
16. 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
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
GREGG v GEORGIA...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
MARYLAND v BUIE
17. 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
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
BRADY v U.S
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
18. 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)
GREGG v GEORGIA...
U.S. v SALERNO
MAPP v OHIO
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
19. 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
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
SINGER v U.S
NIX v WILLIAMS
U.S. v ROSS
20. 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
U.S. v ROSS
D.C. v HELLER
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
21. Inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegallyseized may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been discovered
ROPER v SIMMONS...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
NIX v WILLIAMS
DELAWARE v PROUSE
22. 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)
HERRERA v COLLINS...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
U.S. v SOKOLOW
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
23. Civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding
MARYLAND v BUIE
U.S. v ROSS
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
FLORIDA v ROYER
24. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
IN RE WINSHIP...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
WILSON v ARKANSAS
U.S. v HAVENS
25. 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
WEEKS v U.S
FLORIDA v ROYER
TERRY v OHIO
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
26. 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
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
HARRIS v U.S.
ROPER v SIMMONS...
NIX v WILLIAMS
27. 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
NIX v WILLIAMS
GREGG v GEORGIA...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
28. 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
CARROLL v U.S
U.S. v LEON
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
BRADY v U.S
29. Evidence that is unlawfully seized by any official cannot be used in federal court; the exclusionary rule is applied to the federal courts
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
ELKINS v U.S
30. 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
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
CARROLL v U.S
U.S. v HAVENS
ILLINOIS v GATES
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
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
U.S. v SALERNO
TERRY v OHIO
BRADY v U.S
32. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
STACK v BOYLE
33. 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
FLORIDA v ROYER
HERRERA v COLLINS...
COLORADO v BERTINE
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
34. Garbage containers outside of the curtilage of the home are considered abandoned and may be searched without a warrant and without cause
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
CARROLL v U.S
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
35. 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
STACK v BOYLE
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
36. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
37. (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
SINGER v U.S
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
38. 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
COLORADO v BERTINE
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
FLORIDA v ROYER
39. Evidence seized by reasonably well- trained officers acting in good faith - is admissible - even if the seizure technically violated the law; known as the good faith exemption
IN RE WINSHIP...
U.S. v HAVENS
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
U.S. v LEON
40. 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
ROPER v SIMMONS...
HARRIS v U.S.
U.S. v SOKOLOW
IN RE GAULT...
41. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
U.S. v LEON
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
42. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
IN RE WINSHIP...
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
43. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
D.C. v HELLER
MAPP v OHIO
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
44. Specific intent to discriminate against an individual must be demonstrated before that individual's death sentence can be set aside; intent over impact
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
WILSON v SEITER...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
U.S. v HAVENS
45. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
FLORIDA v ROYER
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
ROPER v SIMMONS...
46. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
IN RE WINSHIP...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
47. 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
MARYLAND v BUIE
SHERMAN v U.S....
NIX v WILLIAMS
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
48. Police may conduct brief - scientifically random/systemic - suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints
U.S. v SALERNO
DELAWARE v PROUSE
ROPER v SIMMONS...
MAPP v OHIO
49. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
50. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
NIX v WILLIAMS
MARYLAND v BUIE
SINGER v U.S
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG