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. Apparent authority doctrine - if consent to search is given by someone who does not have the authority to do so - but the police reasonably believed they did - the evidence is still admissible in court
GREGG v GEORGIA...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
IN RE GAULT...
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
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
TERRY v OHIO
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
3. 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
U.S. v LEON
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
WILSON v SEITER...
BRADY v U.S
4. 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
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
5. Juvenile court proceedings must possess the elements of basic fundamental fairness; juveniles have the right to a proper hearing - to have an advance notification of that hearing and its purpose - the right to be present at the hearing - the right to
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
IN RE GAULT...
SHERMAN v U.S....
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
6. 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
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
U.S. v SALERNO
MAPP v OHIO
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
7. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
U.S. v SALERNO
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
MAPP v OHIO
8. 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 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
TERRY v OHIO
9. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
U.S. v HAVENS
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
MAPP v OHIO
10. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
D.C. v HELLER
U.S. v HAVENS
HARRIS v U.S.
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
11. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
U.S. v HENSLEY
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
12. 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
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
HARRIS v U.S.
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
13. 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
IN RE WINSHIP...
COLORADO v BERTINE
U.S. v SOKOLOW
ELKINS v U.S
14. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
MARYLAND v BUIE
U.S. v HAVENS
FLORIDA v ROYER
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
15. 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
NEW JERSEY v TLO
IN RE WINSHIP...
MAPP v OHIO
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
16. 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
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
U.S. v SALERNO
CARROLL v U.S
17. 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
U.S. v LEON
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
MARYLAND v BUIE
18. 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
SINGER v U.S
ILLINOIS v GATES
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
FLORIDA v ROYER
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
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
FLORIDA v ROYER
ELKINS v U.S
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
20. 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
BRADY v U.S
TERRY v OHIO
SINGER v U.S
21. 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
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
COLORADO v BERTINE
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
22. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
COLORADO v BERTINE
WILSON v ARKANSAS
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
23. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
U.S. v SALERNO
MARYLAND v BUIE
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
24. 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
D.C. v HELLER
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
25. 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
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
ILLINOIS v GATES
GREGG v GEORGIA...
26. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
IN RE WINSHIP...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
WILSON v SEITER...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
27. 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
MAPP v OHIO
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
U.S. v ROSS
28. 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
CARROLL v U.S
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
MARYLAND v BUIE
HERRERA v COLLINS...
29. Inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegallyseized may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been discovered
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
NIX v WILLIAMS
GREGG v GEORGIA...
30. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
TERRY v OHIO
31. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
CARROLL v U.S
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
U.S. v ROSS
TERRY v OHIO
32. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
TERRY v OHIO
U.S. v LEON
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
33. 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
U.S. v ROSS
WILSON v SEITER...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
34. 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
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
MARYLAND v BUIE
U.S. v HAVENS
35. 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
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
36. (good faith exemption) evidence seized by reasonably well- trained officers acting in good faith - is admissible - even if the seizure technically violated the law
HERRERA v COLLINS...
ILLINOIS v GATES
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
BRADY v U.S
37. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
ELKINS v U.S
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
38. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
ELKINS v U.S
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
U.S. v DUNN
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
39. No specific cause nor a search warrant is needed to search either open fields or non-habitable buildings (see also Oliver v U.S.)
U.S. v DUNN
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
FLORIDA v ROYER
40. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
NEW JERSEY v TLO
HERRERA v COLLINS...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
41. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
ELKINS v U.S
BRADY v U.S
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
SINGER v U.S
42. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
U.S. v HAVENS
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
43. 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
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
SHERMAN v U.S....
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
IN RE WINSHIP...
44. A search cannot shock the conscience - and cannot be exploratory
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
SINGER v U.S
DELAWARE v PROUSE
STACK v BOYLE
45. 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)
WEEKS v U.S
BRADY v U.S
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
GREGG v GEORGIA...
46. 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
MAPP v OHIO
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
U.S. v HAVENS
47. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
SINGER v U.S
U.S. v HAVENS
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
48. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
SHERMAN v U.S....
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
49. 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
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
CARROLL v U.S
WILSON v SEITER...
TERRY v OHIO
50. Specific intent to discriminate against an individual must be demonstrated before that individual's death sentence can be set aside; intent over impact
WEEKS v U.S
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
McCLESKEY v KEMP...