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. 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
BRADY v U.S
WEEKS v U.S
CARROLL v U.S
2. 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
IN RE GAULT...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
WILSON v SEITER...
3. 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....
D.C. v HELLER
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
4. 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
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
FLORIDA v ROYER
U.S. v SOKOLOW
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
5. 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 RODRIGUEZ
HARRIS v U.S.
6. 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
GREGG v GEORGIA...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
7. 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
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
FLORIDA v ROYER
U.S. v LEON
8. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
9. 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...
IN RE WINSHIP...
FLORIDA v ROYER
U.S. v LEON
10. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
ILLINOIS v GATES
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
U.S. v SOKOLOW
11. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
HERRERA v COLLINS...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
WEEKS v U.S
12. 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
ELKINS v U.S
WILSON v ARKANSAS
DELAWARE v PROUSE
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
13. 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
HARRIS v U.S.
D.C. v HELLER
ELKINS v U.S
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
14. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
U.S. v HAVENS
IN RE WINSHIP...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
15. 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
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
CARROLL v U.S
COLORADO v BERTINE
MAPP v OHIO
16. 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 ROSS
U.S. v DUNN
WILSON v ARKANSAS
GREGG v GEORGIA...
17. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
U.S. v HAVENS
18. 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
ROPER v SIMMONS...
COLORADO v BERTINE
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
19. Specific intent to discriminate against an individual must be demonstrated before that individual's death sentence can be set aside; intent over impact
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
COLORADO v BERTINE
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
20. 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.
ILLINOIS v GATES
U.S. v HAVENS
21. 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
DELAWARE v PROUSE
CARROLL v U.S
BRADY v U.S
U.S. v DUNN
22. 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
HERRERA v COLLINS...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
STACK v BOYLE
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
23. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
SINGER v U.S
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
STACK v BOYLE
24. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
U.S. v HAVENS
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
25. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
WILSON v ARKANSAS
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
IN RE WINSHIP...
U.S. v ROSS
26. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
U.S. v DUNN
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
U.S. v SOKOLOW
27. 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
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
28. 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)
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
29. Police may conduct brief - scientifically random/systemic - suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
DELAWARE v PROUSE
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
D.C. v HELLER
30. A stop and frisk search may be performed when there isreasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law - past tense
U.S. v HENSLEY
SINGER v U.S
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
IN RE GAULT...
31. 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
ELKINS v U.S
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
ILLINOIS v GATES
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
32. Civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
DELAWARE v PROUSE
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
33. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
SHERMAN v U.S....
ILLINOIS v GATES
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
WEEKS v U.S
34. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
ELKINS v U.S
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
FLORIDA v ROYER
35. Garbage containers outside of the curtilage of the home are considered abandoned and may be searched without a warrant and without cause
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
GREGG v GEORGIA...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
36. 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
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
NIX v WILLIAMS
TERRY v OHIO
ELKINS v U.S
37. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
MAPP v OHIO
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
U.S. v LEON
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
38. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
HARRIS v U.S.
39. 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
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
40. 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)
IN RE WINSHIP...
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
WILSON v SEITER...
GREGG v GEORGIA...
41. 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
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
42. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
MAPP v OHIO
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
HERRERA v COLLINS...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
43. 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
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
WILSON v SEITER...
44. 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
WILSON v SEITER...
HARRIS v U.S.
U.S. v DUNN
45. 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
WILSON v ARKANSAS
U.S. v ROSS
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
U.S. v HENSLEY
46. 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
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
IN RE GAULT...
47. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
HARRIS v U.S.
ROPER v SIMMONS...
BRADY v U.S
48. (good faith exemption) evidence seized by reasonably well- trained officers acting in good faith - is admissible - even if the seizure technically violated the law
IN RE GAULT...
FLORIDA v ROYER
U.S. v HENSLEY
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
49. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
WILSON v ARKANSAS
CARROLL v U.S
IN RE GAULT...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
50. 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
HARRIS v U.S.
WILSON v SEITER...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...