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. 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 HODARI D
DELAWARE v PROUSE
IN RE WINSHIP...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
2. 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
D.C. v HELLER
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
WILSON v SEITER...
3. 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.
IN RE GAULT...
U.S. v SALERNO
IN RE WINSHIP...
4. 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
U.S. v DUNN
STACK v BOYLE
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
5. 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
WEEKS v U.S
BRADY v U.S
WILSON v SEITER...
ILLINOIS v GATES
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
U.S. v SALERNO
SINGER v U.S
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
7. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
BRADY v U.S
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
ELKINS v U.S
8. 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
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
ILLINOIS v GATES
9. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
BRADY v U.S
10. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
GREGG v GEORGIA...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
NEW JERSEY v TLO
11. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
NIX v WILLIAMS
ROPER v SIMMONS...
FLORIDA v ROYER
12. 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
ILLINOIS v GATES
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
13. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
WILSON v ARKANSAS
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
U.S. v HAVENS
STACK v BOYLE
14. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
U.S. v HAVENS
CARROLL v U.S
TERRY v OHIO
15. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
ELKINS v U.S
BRADY v U.S
WEEKS v U.S
FLORIDA v ROYER
16. 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 HAVENS
SHERMAN v U.S....
COLORADO v BERTINE
WILSON v ARKANSAS
17. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
U.S. v SALERNO
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
MARYLAND v BUIE
18. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
HERRERA v COLLINS...
NIX v WILLIAMS
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
19. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
ELKINS v U.S
WILSON v ARKANSAS
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
20. A stop and frisk search may be performed when there isreasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law - past tense
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
COLORADO v BERTINE
TERRY v OHIO
U.S. v HENSLEY
21. Specific intent to discriminate against an individual must be demonstrated before that individual's death sentence can be set aside; intent over impact
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
U.S. v DUNN
ELKINS v U.S
22. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
U.S. v HAVENS
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
ELKINS v U.S
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
23. 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
ROPER v SIMMONS...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
24. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
U.S. v DUNN
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
U.S. v HAVENS
25. 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
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
26. 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
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
SINGER v U.S
HERRERA v COLLINS...
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
MARYLAND v BUIE
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
28. Police may conduct brief - scientifically random/systemic - suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints
DELAWARE v PROUSE
FLORIDA v ROYER
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
HARRIS v U.S.
29. 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
ELKINS v U.S
U.S. v LEON
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
30. 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
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
COLORADO v BERTINE
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
31. 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)
SHERMAN v U.S....
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
GREGG v GEORGIA...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
32. 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
U.S. v DUNN
U.S. v ROSS
BRADY v U.S
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
33. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
MARYLAND v BUIE
CARROLL v U.S
GREGG v GEORGIA...
34. 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
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
IN RE GAULT...
WILSON v SEITER...
FLORIDA v ROYER
35. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
SHERMAN v U.S....
WILSON v ARKANSAS
IN RE WINSHIP...
U.S. v DUNN
36. 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
COLORADO v BERTINE
SHERMAN v U.S....
D.C. v HELLER
WILSON v ARKANSAS
37. 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
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
MARYLAND v BUIE
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
38. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
MARYLAND v BUIE
MAPP v OHIO
39. 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 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
40. 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)
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
D.C. v HELLER
ROPER v SIMMONS...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
41. 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
WEEKS v U.S
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
CARROLL v U.S
42. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
TERRY v OHIO
IN RE GAULT...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
43. 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
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
COLORADO v BERTINE
U.S. v SOKOLOW
44. Inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegallyseized may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been discovered
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
U.S. v SALERNO
NIX v WILLIAMS
HERRERA v COLLINS...
45. 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
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
46. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
MAPP v OHIO
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
U.S. v DUNN
47. 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
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
MAPP v OHIO
TERRY v OHIO
U.S. v LEON
48. Garbage containers outside of the curtilage of the home are considered abandoned and may be searched without a warrant and without cause
ROPER v SIMMONS...
ILLINOIS v GATES
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
49. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
MAPP v OHIO
50. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
MARYLAND v BUIE
WILSON v ARKANSAS
HARRIS v U.S.
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
Sorry!:) No result found.
Can you answer 50 questions in 15 minutes?
Let me suggest you:
Browse all subjects
Browse all tests
Most popular tests
Major Subjects
Tests & Exams
AP
CLEP
DSST
GRE
SAT
GMAT
Certifications
CISSP go to https://www.isc2.org/
PMP
ITIL
RHCE
MCTS
More...
IT Skills
Android Programming
Data Modeling
Objective C Programming
Basic Python Programming
Adobe Illustrator
More...
Business Skills
Advertising Techniques
Business Accounting Basics
Business Strategy
Human Resource Management
Marketing Basics
More...
Soft Skills
Body Language
People Skills
Public Speaking
Persuasion
Job Hunting And Resumes
More...
Vocabulary
GRE Vocab
SAT Vocab
TOEFL Essential Vocab
Basic English Words For All
Global Words You Should Know
Business English
More...
Languages
AP German Vocab
AP Latin Vocab
SAT Subject Test: French
Italian Survival
Norwegian Survival
More...
Engineering
Audio Engineering
Computer Science Engineering
Aerospace Engineering
Chemical Engineering
Structural Engineering
More...
Health Sciences
Basic Nursing Skills
Health Science Language Fundamentals
Veterinary Technology Medical Language
Cardiology
Clinical Surgery
More...
English
Grammar Fundamentals
Literary And Rhetorical Vocab
Elements Of Style Vocab
Introduction To English Major
Complete Advanced Sentences
Literature
Homonyms
More...
Math
Algebra Formulas
Basic Arithmetic: Measurements
Metric Conversions
Geometric Properties
Important Math Facts
Number Sense Vocab
Business Math
More...
Other Major Subjects
Science
Economics
History
Law
Performing-arts
Cooking
Logic & Reasoning
Trivia
Browse all subjects
Browse all tests
Most popular tests