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