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