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. 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
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
U.S. v LEON
2. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
BRADY v U.S
HARRIS v U.S.
WILSON v SEITER...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
3. 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
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
ILLINOIS v GATES
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
4. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
COLORADO v BERTINE
U.S. v SOKOLOW
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
5. 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
U.S. v LEON
SHERMAN v U.S....
GREGG v GEORGIA...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
6. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
SINGER v U.S
WILSON v SEITER...
7. 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
U.S. v ROSS
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
8. 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
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
9. 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
NIX v WILLIAMS
COLORADO v BERTINE
STACK v BOYLE
NEW JERSEY v TLO
10. 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)
NIX v WILLIAMS
U.S. v HAVENS
GREGG v GEORGIA...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
11. 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)
ILLINOIS v GATES
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
12. Civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
NEW JERSEY v TLO
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
13. 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
STACK v BOYLE
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
14. 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
HERRERA v COLLINS...
IN RE GAULT...
MARYLAND v BUIE
MAPP v OHIO
15. 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 HAVENS
U.S. v SOKOLOW
U.S. v DUNN
ILLINOIS v GATES
16. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
WEEKS v U.S
COLORADO v BERTINE
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
17. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
WEEKS v U.S
MARYLAND v BUIE
U.S. v SOKOLOW
U.S. v HAVENS
18. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
19. 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
WILSON v ARKANSAS
SHERMAN v U.S....
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
TERRY v OHIO
20. Police may conduct brief - scientifically random/systemic - suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints
NEW JERSEY v TLO
WILSON v ARKANSAS
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
DELAWARE v PROUSE
21. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
IN RE GAULT...
U.S. v HAVENS
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
22. 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
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
STACK v BOYLE
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
U.S. v SALERNO
23. 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
HARRIS v U.S.
U.S. v HAVENS
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
24. 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
GREGG v GEORGIA...
WILSON v SEITER...
STACK v BOYLE
HERRERA v COLLINS...
25. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
MAPP v OHIO
U.S. v DUNN
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
WEEKS v U.S
26. Inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegallyseized may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been discovered
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
NIX v WILLIAMS
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
GREGG v GEORGIA...
27. 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
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
U.S. v LEON
COLORADO v BERTINE
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
DELAWARE v PROUSE
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
U.S. v HAVENS
29. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
U.S. v ROSS
BRADY v U.S
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
U.S. v LEON
30. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
STACK v BOYLE
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
31. 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
NIX v WILLIAMS
COLORADO v BERTINE
CARROLL v U.S
IN RE GAULT...
32. 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
NEW JERSEY v TLO
FLORIDA v ROYER
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
BRADY v U.S
33. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
ROPER v SIMMONS...
D.C. v HELLER
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
34. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
U.S. v SOKOLOW
MAPP v OHIO
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
35. (good faith exemption) evidence seized by reasonably well- trained officers acting in good faith - is admissible - even if the seizure technically violated the law
U.S. v SOKOLOW
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
36. 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
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
MARYLAND v BUIE
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
U.S. v LEON
37. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
HARRIS v U.S.
IN RE GAULT...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
IN RE WINSHIP...
38. 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
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
GREGG v GEORGIA...
39. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
FLORIDA v ROYER
IN RE GAULT...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
D.C. v HELLER
40. 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
ILLINOIS v GATES
U.S. v ROSS
HERRERA v COLLINS...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
41. 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
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
ILLINOIS v GATES
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
42. 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
SINGER v U.S
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
U.S. v DUNN
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
43. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
D.C. v HELLER
MAPP v OHIO
WILSON v SEITER...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
44. 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
U.S. v SALERNO
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
TERRY v OHIO
45. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
HERRERA v COLLINS...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
U.S. v DUNN
46. Evidence that is unlawfully seized by any official cannot be used in federal court; the exclusionary rule is applied to the federal courts
ILLINOIS v GATES
SHERMAN v U.S....
ELKINS v U.S
IN RE WINSHIP...
47. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
48. A search cannot shock the conscience - and cannot be exploratory
HERRERA v COLLINS...
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
D.C. v HELLER
49. 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
ROPER v SIMMONS...
MARYLAND v BUIE
DELAWARE v PROUSE
50. 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
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
D.C. v HELLER
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK