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