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. 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
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
U.S. v HAVENS
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
2. 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
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
U.S. v SALERNO
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
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.
MARYLAND v BUIE
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
DELAWARE v PROUSE
4. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
MAPP v OHIO
U.S. v ROSS
5. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
STACK v BOYLE
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
SHERMAN v U.S....
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
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 DUNN
CARROLL v U.S
U.S. v SALERNO
NEW JERSEY v TLO
7. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
SINGER v U.S
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
8. 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...
COLORADO v BERTINE
ROPER v SIMMONS...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
9. 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)
NIX v WILLIAMS
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
GREGG v GEORGIA...
HERRERA v COLLINS...
10. 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
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
11. 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
U.S. v SOKOLOW
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
U.S. v ROSS
NEW JERSEY v TLO
12. 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)
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
HERRERA v COLLINS...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
13. Police may conduct brief - scientifically random/systemic - suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints
MARYLAND v BUIE
DELAWARE v PROUSE
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
14. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
COLORADO v BERTINE
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
WILSON v ARKANSAS
15. 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
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
ELKINS v U.S
U.S. v ROSS
16. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
DELAWARE v PROUSE
STACK v BOYLE
WEEKS v U.S
17. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
SINGER v U.S
18. 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
NEW JERSEY v TLO
U.S. v LEON
U.S. v SOKOLOW
19. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
STACK v BOYLE
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
20. Evidence that is unlawfully seized by any official cannot be used in federal court; the exclusionary rule is applied to the federal courts
TERRY v OHIO
ELKINS v U.S
HERRERA v COLLINS...
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
21. 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
U.S. v ROSS
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
CARROLL v U.S
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
22. 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
WEEKS v U.S
U.S. v LEON
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
23. 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 JAMES DANIEL GOOD
ROPER v SIMMONS...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
U.S. v LEON
24. A search cannot shock the conscience - and cannot be exploratory
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
U.S. v HENSLEY
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
MARYLAND v BUIE
25. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
SINGER v U.S
STACK v BOYLE
FLORIDA v ROYER
26. Civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
27. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
IN RE GAULT...
28. 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
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
WILSON v ARKANSAS
FLORIDA v ROYER
TERRY v OHIO
29. 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
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
ILLINOIS v GATES
NIX v WILLIAMS
30. (good faith exemption) evidence seized by reasonably well- trained officers acting in good faith - is admissible - even if the seizure technically violated the law
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
MARYLAND v BUIE
31. A stop and frisk search may be performed when there isreasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law - past tense
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
STACK v BOYLE
U.S. v HENSLEY
32. 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
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
D.C. v HELLER
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
33. 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
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
U.S. v HAVENS
34. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
NIX v WILLIAMS
FLORIDA v ROYER
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
35. No specific cause nor a search warrant is needed to search either open fields or non-habitable buildings (see also Oliver v U.S.)
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
U.S. v DUNN
U.S. v SOKOLOW
NIX v WILLIAMS
36. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
BRADY v U.S
ROPER v SIMMONS...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
37. 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
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
38. 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
ROPER v SIMMONS...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
D.C. v HELLER
39. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
MAPP v OHIO
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
U.S. v ROSS
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
40. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
DELAWARE v PROUSE
U.S. v HAVENS
ROPER v SIMMONS...
U.S. v LEON
41. 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
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
42. 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
BRADY v U.S
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
43. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
BRADY v U.S
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
U.S. v DUNN
ELKINS v U.S
44. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
WEEKS v U.S
WILSON v SEITER...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
45. 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
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
SINGER v U.S
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
46. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
GREGG v GEORGIA...
IN RE WINSHIP...
IN RE GAULT...
COLORADO v BERTINE
47. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
48. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
U.S. v SOKOLOW
HERRERA v COLLINS...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
49. 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
WILSON v SEITER...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
U.S. v HAVENS
50. 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
WEEKS v U.S
WILSON v SEITER...
IN RE GAULT...
TERRY v OHIO