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