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. 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
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
SHERMAN v U.S....
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
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
WEEKS v U.S
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
STACK v BOYLE
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
3. Inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegallyseized may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been discovered
NIX v WILLIAMS
WILSON v ARKANSAS
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
ILLINOIS v GATES
4. 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)
HARRIS v U.S.
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
DELAWARE v PROUSE
GREGG v GEORGIA...
5. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
TERRY v OHIO
WEEKS v U.S
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
6. 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
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
CARROLL v U.S
NEW JERSEY v TLO
SINGER v U.S
7. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
MAPP v OHIO
ILLINOIS v GATES
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
TERRY v OHIO
8. 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
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
IN RE GAULT...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
9. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
CARROLL v U.S
SHERMAN v U.S....
10. 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 LEON
SINGER v U.S
COLORADO v BERTINE
TERRY v OHIO
11. 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
GREGG v GEORGIA...
U.S. v SALERNO
U.S. v ROSS
HERRERA v COLLINS...
12. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
IN RE WINSHIP...
COLORADO v BERTINE
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
13. (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
WILSON v ARKANSAS
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
14. 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
HERRERA v COLLINS...
U.S. v SALERNO
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
IN RE GAULT...
15. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
U.S. v HAVENS
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
16. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
IN RE WINSHIP...
SHERMAN v U.S....
ROPER v SIMMONS...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
17. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
ILLINOIS v GATES
HARRIS v U.S.
HERRERA v COLLINS...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
18. Police may conduct brief - scientifically random/systemic - suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints
HARRIS v U.S.
IN RE GAULT...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
DELAWARE v PROUSE
19. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
HARRIS v U.S.
20. 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 HODARI D
MARYLAND v BUIE
COLORADO v BERTINE
SINGER v U.S
21. 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
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
GREGG v GEORGIA...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
22. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
D.C. v HELLER
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
23. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
U.S. v HAVENS
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
DELAWARE v PROUSE
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
24. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
SINGER v U.S
U.S. v SALERNO
NIX v WILLIAMS
25. 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
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
ILLINOIS v GATES
WILSON v ARKANSAS
U.S. v DUNN
26. 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
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
ILLINOIS v GATES
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
U.S. v SALERNO
27. 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
DELAWARE v PROUSE
U.S. v DUNN
FLORIDA v ROYER
WILSON v SEITER...
28. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
U.S. v LEON
D.C. v HELLER
WEEKS v U.S
29. 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
WILSON v SEITER...
DELAWARE v PROUSE
TERRY v OHIO
30. 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
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
STACK v BOYLE
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
31. 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
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
WILSON v SEITER...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
32. A stop and frisk search may be performed when there isreasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law - past tense
ROPER v SIMMONS...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
U.S. v HENSLEY
FLORIDA v ROYER
33. Specific intent to discriminate against an individual must be demonstrated before that individual's death sentence can be set aside; intent over impact
U.S. v SALERNO
U.S. v ROSS
ROPER v SIMMONS...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
34. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
HERRERA v COLLINS...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
ROPER v SIMMONS...
35. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
U.S. v SOKOLOW
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
36. 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
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
DELAWARE v PROUSE
WILSON v SEITER...
MAPP v OHIO
37. Civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
FLORIDA v ROYER
ROPER v SIMMONS...
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
U.S. v LEON
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
STACK v BOYLE
39. 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 DUNN
MARYLAND v BUIE
COLORADO v BERTINE
MAPP v OHIO
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
BRADY v U.S
U.S. v HENSLEY
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
41. 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
SHERMAN v U.S....
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
U.S. v DUNN
42. 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...
HARRIS v U.S.
FLORIDA v ROYER
GREGG v GEORGIA...
43. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
WILSON v SEITER...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
44. 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
STACK v BOYLE
MARYLAND v BUIE
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
45. Evidence that is unlawfully seized by any official cannot be used in federal court; the exclusionary rule is applied to the federal courts
COLORADO v BERTINE
ELKINS v U.S
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
FLORIDA v ROYER
46. 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
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
SHERMAN v U.S....
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
WILSON v ARKANSAS
47. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
NIX v WILLIAMS
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
48. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
COLORADO v BERTINE
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
49. 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
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
FLORIDA v ROYER
CARROLL v U.S
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
50. A search cannot shock the conscience - and cannot be exploratory
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
U.S. v LEON
ELKINS v U.S
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA