https://www.stuvia.com/user/geniusexpert
JURI 575 Week 7 Quiz:Miranda and the Exclusionary Rule |
Full Questions and Answers | 2026 Update | 100% Correct. Submission Details:
Time: 24 minutes
Current Score: 85 out of 100
Quiz: Miranda and the Exclusionary Rule Kept Score: 85 out of 100
Due Aug 13 at 11:59pm Points 100 Questions 17
Time Limit 60 Minutes
Instructions
The quiz:
Covers the Learn material from Module 7: Week 7.
Contains 17 multiple-choice, true/false, and short answer
questions. Is limited to 1 hour.
Allows 1 attempt.
Is worth 100 points.
Submit this assignment by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday of Module 7: Week 7.
Attempt History
Attempt Time Score
Correct answers are hidden.
LATEST Attempt 1 24 minutes 85 out of 100
Score for this quiz: 85 out of 100
Submitted Aug 13 at 7:53pm
This attempt took 24 minutes.
Question 1 pts
When officers engage in a “question first and warn later”
interrogation, a suspect’s subsequent Mirandized confession is
still admissible.
True
False
pts
Question 2
Once a police officer reads a suspect his Miranda warnings, and
the suspect tells the officer that he does not want to speak or
that he wants an attorney, the officer can never reinitiate
questioning.
True
False
Question 3 pts
A defendant must unambiguously invoke his right to remain silent
and his right to counsel.
True
False
Question 4 pts
A person is “in custody” for Miranda purposes only when he has
been placed under formal arrest.
True
False
Question 5 pts
When a suspect who is in custody makes voluntary statements to
an undercover law enforcement officer, there is no
requirement that the officer give the suspect Miranda
warnings.
True
False
Question 6 pts
The determination of whether a suspect is “in custody” for purposes of
Miranda is a subjective inquiry.
True
False
Question 7 pts
A suspects statements obtained in violation of Miranda may be
excluded from evidence.
True
False
Question 8 pts
One day Moff Gideon was walking down the street when he was
approached by a law enforcement officer. The officer asked Moff
if he could ask him a few questions about a burglary that
happened a few days prior. Moff agreed to speak to the officer,
and he walked with the officer down to the police station. Once
they were at the police station, Moff started to have second
thoughts. He asked the officer if he could leave, and the officer
said “anytime you want to leave is fine.” Moff did not want to
seem uncooperative, so he stayed. The officer then questioned
Moff for two and a half hours but did not read Moff his Miranda
warnings. Moff confessed to the burglaries and was placed
under arrest. Moff wants to file a motion to suppress the statements
he made during questioning. Based on these facts:
Moff’s motion to suppress will be successful because Moff was
in custody and should have been read his Miranda warnings
before the interrogation.
Moff’s motion to suppress will only be successful if he can show
that his statements were involuntary based on the totality of
the circumstances.
Moff cannot file a motion to suppress because he confessed to
the burglaries.
Moff’s motion to suppress will be successful because anytime a
suspect goes to the police station, they should be read Miranda
warnings.
Question 9 pts
Whether a person has been interrogated for purposes of Miranda
requires the court to evaluate:
The perceptions of the suspect
Words or actions that the officers should have known were likely to
elicit an incriminating response
Any questions the police officers asked
All of the above
Question 10 pts
Jeremy Bentham was arrested for charges of distribution of
cocaine. After he was arrested, officers read Bentham his
Miranda warnings and brought him to the police station to ask
him questions. Bentham remained silent thereby refusing to
answer the police officers’ questions. After one hour of trying to
get Bentham to answer questions, an officer decided to try a
different method. Knowing that Bentham just recently lost his 2-
year-old daughter, instead of asking Bentham a direct question,
he said, in Bentham’s presence, “It’s sad that you don’t want to
answer any questions. I heard the other day that a little girl who
was trying to find candy in her mother’s purse found one of her
pills and ate it. It was laced with fentanyl and the little girl died.
She was only three and she was so cute. That could have been
anyone’s daughter.” Bentham immediately confessed. Bentham’s
lawyer moves to suppress the confession arguing that the officer
violated Bentham’s right to remain silent when he continued to
interrogate Bentham after he chose to remain silent. At trial the
judge is likely to:
Grant the motion to suppress Bentham’s confession because
the officer’s statement was reasonably likely to elicit an
incriminating response.
Grant the motion to suppress because the police should have
never continued to question Bentham after he remained
silent.
Deny the motion to suppress because Bentham made a
voluntary statement.
Deny the motion to suppress because Bentham did not invoke his
right to remain silent.
Question 11 pts
After arresting a defendant for charges of possession of child
pornography, Officers Cannon and Ball forgot to read the
defendant his Miranda warnings. Before realizing that they had
failed to read him his warnings, they started asking him
questions about his collection of child pornography. The
defendant told officers that he had a secret stash of child
pornography hidden on a computer that was locked inside of a
closet in his basement. He told the officers that he kept the key
to this closet inside of a desk drawer at his office. The officers
obtained a search warrant for his office desk drawer and for the
basement closet, and they locate the additional child
pornography. At trial the defense attorney moves to suppress
his client’s statements and the child pornography. Which of the
following answers best describes the result of the suppression
motion?
The judge will grant the motion to suppress defendant’s statements
but will deny the motion to suppress the child pornography.
The judge will grant both motions to suppress.
The judge will deny both motions to suppress.
The judge will grant the motion to suppress the pornogra phy but
deny the motion to suppress defendant’s statements.
pts
Question 12
Officer Brandywine suspected that Tru Steele, a 15-year-old high
school student, was involved in a series of bank robberies.
Officer Brandywine decided to visit Tru after his high school
basketball practice. He walked up to Tru’s coach and asked the
coach if he could ask Tru to speak to him. The coach asked Tru
to come speak to the officer and the three of them went back to
the coach’s office. The officer then began asking Tru about the
bank robberies. Tru said that he didn’t know anything about the
bank robberies, and that he wanted to call his parents. The officer
told Tru that he could call his parents in a little bit, and he
continued to ask him questions about the bank robberies. After
about 40 minutes of questioning, Tru confessed. After Tru
confessed, the officer placed Tru under arrest and read him his
Miranda warnings. The defense attorney files a motion to
suppress Tru’s confession alleging that the officer violated
Miranda by not reading Tru his Miranda warnings prior to
questioning him. Which of the following facts is likely to be
considered by the court in determining whether Tru was in
custody and therefore should have been read his Miranda
warnings prior to questioning:
The fact that the officer questioned Tru for 40 minutes.
The fact that Tru was a minor.
The fact that the interrogation took place at a school as opposed to
the police station.
All of the above.
Question 13 pts
In which of the following scenarios does an officer violate the
principles established in Miranda?
When an officer questioning a suspect in the defendant’s home fails
to read the defendant his Miranda warnin gs.
When an officer questioning a suspect at a traffic stop fails to read the
defendant his Miranda warnin gs.
When an officer continues to question a suspect immediately after the
suspect has invoked his right to remain silent.
When an officer continues to question a suspect after the suspect
remains quiet in response to being read his Miranda warnings.
pts
Question 14
Johnny Rocket was arrested on murder charges and held in
custody for those charges at Ferris Wheel Prison in New York. In
June of 2019, officers went to Ferris Wheel to ask Johnny if he
would be willing to talk to them about a separate complaint that
he had molested his child.
Johnny invoked his right to counsel and the police officers left. A
few days later, the officers came back to the prison, and
requested to speak to Johnny about the molestation complaint
again. They read Johnny his Miranda warnings and he signed a
waiver. He then confessed to molesting his child. Under these
facts, Johnny’s confession:
Is admissible because he signed a waiver of his right to counsel.
Is admissible because he voluntarily decided to speak to officers.
Is inadmissible because he had already invoked his right to counsel,
and he did not initiate the subsequent encounters.
Is inadmissible because a suspect can never be approached to reinitiate
questioning after he requests to have counsel present.
Question 15 pts
In 100-200 words, describe the factors the court considers when
determining whether a person is considered “in custody” for
purposes of Miranda.
Your Answer:
When determining whether a person is considered "in custody" for
purposes of Miranda rights, the court considers what factors restrained
the individual's freedoms. Such as the physical place of questioning,
whether it occurs in a police station or other confined space.
Psychological, like the tone and demeanor of law enforcement, if the
interaction feels coercive or authoritative. How long the questioning went
on, whether the person is informed they can leave, and whether they are
handcuffed or physically restrained in any way. Ultimately, the court
assesses whether a reasonable person in the individual's situation would
feel free to leave, which determines if the Miranda warnin gs should be
given.
Question 16 pts
Define what the term “interrogation” means for purposes of
Miranda. Your Answer:
"Interrogation" under Miranda refers to questioning or actions by authorities
that aim to get self-incriminating responses from a detained individual. It
triggers the need for Miranda rights to be read, protecting an individual's
right to remain silent and have an attorney present.
Question 17 pts
In 100-200 words, explain what the Edwards rule is and how it impacts
custodial interrogations.
Your Answer:
The Edwards rule came from the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v.
Arizona (1981), and it holds that once a suspect in police custody invokes
their right to remain silent and requests an attorney, all police-initiated
attempts at further interrogation must cease. This rule protects an
individual’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and ensures
that those who asserted their desire for legal counsel are not subjected to
coercive tactics or pressure to incriminate themselves. It also creates a
boundary that police must respect and follow during investigations and
questioning, which reinforces the principle that a suspect's decision to
invoke their rights should be respected.
Quiz Score: 85 out of 100
JURI 575 Week 7 Quiz:Miranda and the Exclusionary Rule |
Full Questions and Answers | 2026 Update | 100% Correct. Submission Details:
Time: 24 minutes
Current Score: 85 out of 100
Quiz: Miranda and the Exclusionary Rule Kept Score: 85 out of 100
Due Aug 13 at 11:59pm Points 100 Questions 17
Time Limit 60 Minutes
Instructions
The quiz:
Covers the Learn material from Module 7: Week 7.
Contains 17 multiple-choice, true/false, and short answer
questions. Is limited to 1 hour.
Allows 1 attempt.
Is worth 100 points.
Submit this assignment by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday of Module 7: Week 7.
Attempt History
Attempt Time Score
Correct answers are hidden.
LATEST Attempt 1 24 minutes 85 out of 100
Score for this quiz: 85 out of 100
Submitted Aug 13 at 7:53pm
This attempt took 24 minutes.
Question 1 pts
When officers engage in a “question first and warn later”
interrogation, a suspect’s subsequent Mirandized confession is
still admissible.
True
False
pts
Question 2
Once a police officer reads a suspect his Miranda warnings, and
the suspect tells the officer that he does not want to speak or
that he wants an attorney, the officer can never reinitiate
questioning.
True
False
Question 3 pts
A defendant must unambiguously invoke his right to remain silent
and his right to counsel.
True
False
Question 4 pts
A person is “in custody” for Miranda purposes only when he has
been placed under formal arrest.
True
False
Question 5 pts
When a suspect who is in custody makes voluntary statements to
an undercover law enforcement officer, there is no
requirement that the officer give the suspect Miranda
warnings.
True
False
Question 6 pts
The determination of whether a suspect is “in custody” for purposes of
Miranda is a subjective inquiry.
True
False
Question 7 pts
A suspects statements obtained in violation of Miranda may be
excluded from evidence.
True
False
Question 8 pts
One day Moff Gideon was walking down the street when he was
approached by a law enforcement officer. The officer asked Moff
if he could ask him a few questions about a burglary that
happened a few days prior. Moff agreed to speak to the officer,
and he walked with the officer down to the police station. Once
they were at the police station, Moff started to have second
thoughts. He asked the officer if he could leave, and the officer
said “anytime you want to leave is fine.” Moff did not want to
seem uncooperative, so he stayed. The officer then questioned
Moff for two and a half hours but did not read Moff his Miranda
warnings. Moff confessed to the burglaries and was placed
under arrest. Moff wants to file a motion to suppress the statements
he made during questioning. Based on these facts:
Moff’s motion to suppress will be successful because Moff was
in custody and should have been read his Miranda warnings
before the interrogation.
Moff’s motion to suppress will only be successful if he can show
that his statements were involuntary based on the totality of
the circumstances.
Moff cannot file a motion to suppress because he confessed to
the burglaries.
Moff’s motion to suppress will be successful because anytime a
suspect goes to the police station, they should be read Miranda
warnings.
Question 9 pts
Whether a person has been interrogated for purposes of Miranda
requires the court to evaluate:
The perceptions of the suspect
Words or actions that the officers should have known were likely to
elicit an incriminating response
Any questions the police officers asked
All of the above
Question 10 pts
Jeremy Bentham was arrested for charges of distribution of
cocaine. After he was arrested, officers read Bentham his
Miranda warnings and brought him to the police station to ask
him questions. Bentham remained silent thereby refusing to
answer the police officers’ questions. After one hour of trying to
get Bentham to answer questions, an officer decided to try a
different method. Knowing that Bentham just recently lost his 2-
year-old daughter, instead of asking Bentham a direct question,
he said, in Bentham’s presence, “It’s sad that you don’t want to
answer any questions. I heard the other day that a little girl who
was trying to find candy in her mother’s purse found one of her
pills and ate it. It was laced with fentanyl and the little girl died.
She was only three and she was so cute. That could have been
anyone’s daughter.” Bentham immediately confessed. Bentham’s
lawyer moves to suppress the confession arguing that the officer
violated Bentham’s right to remain silent when he continued to
interrogate Bentham after he chose to remain silent. At trial the
judge is likely to:
Grant the motion to suppress Bentham’s confession because
the officer’s statement was reasonably likely to elicit an
incriminating response.
Grant the motion to suppress because the police should have
never continued to question Bentham after he remained
silent.
Deny the motion to suppress because Bentham made a
voluntary statement.
Deny the motion to suppress because Bentham did not invoke his
right to remain silent.
Question 11 pts
After arresting a defendant for charges of possession of child
pornography, Officers Cannon and Ball forgot to read the
defendant his Miranda warnings. Before realizing that they had
failed to read him his warnings, they started asking him
questions about his collection of child pornography. The
defendant told officers that he had a secret stash of child
pornography hidden on a computer that was locked inside of a
closet in his basement. He told the officers that he kept the key
to this closet inside of a desk drawer at his office. The officers
obtained a search warrant for his office desk drawer and for the
basement closet, and they locate the additional child
pornography. At trial the defense attorney moves to suppress
his client’s statements and the child pornography. Which of the
following answers best describes the result of the suppression
motion?
The judge will grant the motion to suppress defendant’s statements
but will deny the motion to suppress the child pornography.
The judge will grant both motions to suppress.
The judge will deny both motions to suppress.
The judge will grant the motion to suppress the pornogra phy but
deny the motion to suppress defendant’s statements.
pts
Question 12
Officer Brandywine suspected that Tru Steele, a 15-year-old high
school student, was involved in a series of bank robberies.
Officer Brandywine decided to visit Tru after his high school
basketball practice. He walked up to Tru’s coach and asked the
coach if he could ask Tru to speak to him. The coach asked Tru
to come speak to the officer and the three of them went back to
the coach’s office. The officer then began asking Tru about the
bank robberies. Tru said that he didn’t know anything about the
bank robberies, and that he wanted to call his parents. The officer
told Tru that he could call his parents in a little bit, and he
continued to ask him questions about the bank robberies. After
about 40 minutes of questioning, Tru confessed. After Tru
confessed, the officer placed Tru under arrest and read him his
Miranda warnings. The defense attorney files a motion to
suppress Tru’s confession alleging that the officer violated
Miranda by not reading Tru his Miranda warnings prior to
questioning him. Which of the following facts is likely to be
considered by the court in determining whether Tru was in
custody and therefore should have been read his Miranda
warnings prior to questioning:
The fact that the officer questioned Tru for 40 minutes.
The fact that Tru was a minor.
The fact that the interrogation took place at a school as opposed to
the police station.
All of the above.
Question 13 pts
In which of the following scenarios does an officer violate the
principles established in Miranda?
When an officer questioning a suspect in the defendant’s home fails
to read the defendant his Miranda warnin gs.
When an officer questioning a suspect at a traffic stop fails to read the
defendant his Miranda warnin gs.
When an officer continues to question a suspect immediately after the
suspect has invoked his right to remain silent.
When an officer continues to question a suspect after the suspect
remains quiet in response to being read his Miranda warnings.
pts
Question 14
Johnny Rocket was arrested on murder charges and held in
custody for those charges at Ferris Wheel Prison in New York. In
June of 2019, officers went to Ferris Wheel to ask Johnny if he
would be willing to talk to them about a separate complaint that
he had molested his child.
Johnny invoked his right to counsel and the police officers left. A
few days later, the officers came back to the prison, and
requested to speak to Johnny about the molestation complaint
again. They read Johnny his Miranda warnings and he signed a
waiver. He then confessed to molesting his child. Under these
facts, Johnny’s confession:
Is admissible because he signed a waiver of his right to counsel.
Is admissible because he voluntarily decided to speak to officers.
Is inadmissible because he had already invoked his right to counsel,
and he did not initiate the subsequent encounters.
Is inadmissible because a suspect can never be approached to reinitiate
questioning after he requests to have counsel present.
Question 15 pts
In 100-200 words, describe the factors the court considers when
determining whether a person is considered “in custody” for
purposes of Miranda.
Your Answer:
When determining whether a person is considered "in custody" for
purposes of Miranda rights, the court considers what factors restrained
the individual's freedoms. Such as the physical place of questioning,
whether it occurs in a police station or other confined space.
Psychological, like the tone and demeanor of law enforcement, if the
interaction feels coercive or authoritative. How long the questioning went
on, whether the person is informed they can leave, and whether they are
handcuffed or physically restrained in any way. Ultimately, the court
assesses whether a reasonable person in the individual's situation would
feel free to leave, which determines if the Miranda warnin gs should be
given.
Question 16 pts
Define what the term “interrogation” means for purposes of
Miranda. Your Answer:
"Interrogation" under Miranda refers to questioning or actions by authorities
that aim to get self-incriminating responses from a detained individual. It
triggers the need for Miranda rights to be read, protecting an individual's
right to remain silent and have an attorney present.
Question 17 pts
In 100-200 words, explain what the Edwards rule is and how it impacts
custodial interrogations.
Your Answer:
The Edwards rule came from the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v.
Arizona (1981), and it holds that once a suspect in police custody invokes
their right to remain silent and requests an attorney, all police-initiated
attempts at further interrogation must cease. This rule protects an
individual’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and ensures
that those who asserted their desire for legal counsel are not subjected to
coercive tactics or pressure to incriminate themselves. It also creates a
boundary that police must respect and follow during investigations and
questioning, which reinforces the principle that a suspect's decision to
invoke their rights should be respected.
Quiz Score: 85 out of 100
