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