MN POST Test
Weeks v. US (1914) - ANS -Exclusionary rule
- warrantless seizure of items from private residence violates 4th Amendment
Terry v. Ohio (1968) - ANS -"Stop and Frisk"
police may:
- stop a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person committed, or is about
to commit, a crime
- frisk the suspect for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is
armed and dangerous
Reasonable Suspicion - ANS -a suspicion based on specific facts, training, and
experience; less than probable cause
Probable cause to arrest - ANS -facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable
person to believe that a crime has been committed and a particular person has
committed it
Probable cause to search - ANS -facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable
person to believe that a evidence/property is located in a particular place to be searched
frisk - ANS -an over-the-clothes pat-down or minimal search by police to discover
weapons
Chimel v. California (1969) - "Chimel Rule" - ANS -arresting officers are limited to
searches within the immediate vicinity/control of the suspect being arrested; any other
search requires warrant
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - ANS -Extended the Exclusionary Rule to the states
Carroll v. U.S. (1925) - "Carroll Doctrine" - ANS -Automobile exception
- warrantless search of a car does not violate 4th Amendment, if there is PC to believe
evidence a crime is present in vehicle, and exigent circumstances exist to believe vehicle
could be moved before warrant is obtained
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) - ANS -Right to counsel
- extended right to counsel during criminal trial to the states
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) - ANS -Right to counsel
- criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations
,Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - "Miranda Warning" - ANS -law enforcement required to give
formal warning advising criminal suspects in custody of their rights, before interrogation
In re Gault (1967) - ANS -Due process
- 14th Amendment Due Process Clause applies to juveniles
In re Winship (1970) - ANS -Due process
- established burden of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" as standard in all federal and
state cases
- removed "preponderance of evidence" standard previously used in juvenile
delinquency proceedings
Roper v. Simmons (2005) - ANS -unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for
crimes committed while under 18
Atkins v. Virginia (2002) - ANS -unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on people
with intellectual disabilities
Tennessee v. Garner (1985) - ANS -Deadly force may not be used against an unarmed
and fleeing suspect unless necessary to prevent the escape and unless the officer has
probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious
injury to the officers or others
Graham v. Connor (1989) - ANS -Use of Force "Objective Reasonableness" standard
- judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene
- factors:
1. severity of crime at issue
2. suspect poses immediate threat to safety of officers or others
3. actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by fleeing
(other factors may be considered)
Scales v Minnesota (1994) - ANS -Recording requirement (Minnesota only)
- custodial interrogation including Miranda warning, waiving of rights, and all questioning
shall be electronically recorded where feasible
- must be recorded when questioning occurs at place of detention
Herring v. US (2009) - ANS -Good faith exception
- exclusionary rule cannot be used to suppress illegally obtained evidence if officer was
acting on erroneous warrant in good faith
Whren v. US (1996) - ANS -any traffic offense committed by a driver is a legitimate legal
basis for a stop
, Pena v Leombruni, US 7th Circuit (1999) - ANS -officer justified in using deadly force
against "crazy suspect" who posed immediate threat of death or great bodily harm,
regardless of suspect's mental state
City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris (1989) - ANS -municipalities may be liable for inadequate
training of employees, but only when "failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference"
to the public's constitutional rights
Thompson v Hubbard, US 8th Circuit (2001) - ANS -officer entitled to qualified immunity
against excessive force claim for shooting fleeing suspect when suspect reached toward
waistband, even if suspect's waistband could not hold a gun; officer not required to wait
until seeing weapon before employing deadly force
Plakas v. Drinski (1994) - ANS -officers not required to used other, less-lethal,
alternatives when deadly force is justified
Exclusionary rule - ANS -evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's rights may not
be used in a criminal trial
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree - ANS -Additional evidence that is discovered from evidence
obtained through an illegal search, which is also not admissible in court.
good faith exception - ANS -exclusionary rule cannot be used to suppress evidence
illegally obtained due to simple mistakes (not the result of repeated patterns or flagrant
misconduct), where officers were acting in good faith that warrant was valid
felony - ANS -more than 1 year in prison (365+1), fine over $3000, or both
gross misdemeanor - ANS -up to 1 year in jail, up to $3000 fine, or both
misdemeanor - ANS -up to 90 days in jail, up to $1000 fine, or both
petty misdemeanor - ANS -not a crime, no jail time, up to $300 fine
sources of governance (use of force) - ANS -least to most restrictive:
federal law > state law > dept policy
totality of circumstances (use of force) - ANS -Officer/subject factors:
- age
- size
- sex
- skill
- number of participants
Weeks v. US (1914) - ANS -Exclusionary rule
- warrantless seizure of items from private residence violates 4th Amendment
Terry v. Ohio (1968) - ANS -"Stop and Frisk"
police may:
- stop a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person committed, or is about
to commit, a crime
- frisk the suspect for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is
armed and dangerous
Reasonable Suspicion - ANS -a suspicion based on specific facts, training, and
experience; less than probable cause
Probable cause to arrest - ANS -facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable
person to believe that a crime has been committed and a particular person has
committed it
Probable cause to search - ANS -facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable
person to believe that a evidence/property is located in a particular place to be searched
frisk - ANS -an over-the-clothes pat-down or minimal search by police to discover
weapons
Chimel v. California (1969) - "Chimel Rule" - ANS -arresting officers are limited to
searches within the immediate vicinity/control of the suspect being arrested; any other
search requires warrant
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - ANS -Extended the Exclusionary Rule to the states
Carroll v. U.S. (1925) - "Carroll Doctrine" - ANS -Automobile exception
- warrantless search of a car does not violate 4th Amendment, if there is PC to believe
evidence a crime is present in vehicle, and exigent circumstances exist to believe vehicle
could be moved before warrant is obtained
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) - ANS -Right to counsel
- extended right to counsel during criminal trial to the states
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) - ANS -Right to counsel
- criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations
,Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - "Miranda Warning" - ANS -law enforcement required to give
formal warning advising criminal suspects in custody of their rights, before interrogation
In re Gault (1967) - ANS -Due process
- 14th Amendment Due Process Clause applies to juveniles
In re Winship (1970) - ANS -Due process
- established burden of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" as standard in all federal and
state cases
- removed "preponderance of evidence" standard previously used in juvenile
delinquency proceedings
Roper v. Simmons (2005) - ANS -unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for
crimes committed while under 18
Atkins v. Virginia (2002) - ANS -unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on people
with intellectual disabilities
Tennessee v. Garner (1985) - ANS -Deadly force may not be used against an unarmed
and fleeing suspect unless necessary to prevent the escape and unless the officer has
probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious
injury to the officers or others
Graham v. Connor (1989) - ANS -Use of Force "Objective Reasonableness" standard
- judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene
- factors:
1. severity of crime at issue
2. suspect poses immediate threat to safety of officers or others
3. actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by fleeing
(other factors may be considered)
Scales v Minnesota (1994) - ANS -Recording requirement (Minnesota only)
- custodial interrogation including Miranda warning, waiving of rights, and all questioning
shall be electronically recorded where feasible
- must be recorded when questioning occurs at place of detention
Herring v. US (2009) - ANS -Good faith exception
- exclusionary rule cannot be used to suppress illegally obtained evidence if officer was
acting on erroneous warrant in good faith
Whren v. US (1996) - ANS -any traffic offense committed by a driver is a legitimate legal
basis for a stop
, Pena v Leombruni, US 7th Circuit (1999) - ANS -officer justified in using deadly force
against "crazy suspect" who posed immediate threat of death or great bodily harm,
regardless of suspect's mental state
City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris (1989) - ANS -municipalities may be liable for inadequate
training of employees, but only when "failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference"
to the public's constitutional rights
Thompson v Hubbard, US 8th Circuit (2001) - ANS -officer entitled to qualified immunity
against excessive force claim for shooting fleeing suspect when suspect reached toward
waistband, even if suspect's waistband could not hold a gun; officer not required to wait
until seeing weapon before employing deadly force
Plakas v. Drinski (1994) - ANS -officers not required to used other, less-lethal,
alternatives when deadly force is justified
Exclusionary rule - ANS -evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's rights may not
be used in a criminal trial
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree - ANS -Additional evidence that is discovered from evidence
obtained through an illegal search, which is also not admissible in court.
good faith exception - ANS -exclusionary rule cannot be used to suppress evidence
illegally obtained due to simple mistakes (not the result of repeated patterns or flagrant
misconduct), where officers were acting in good faith that warrant was valid
felony - ANS -more than 1 year in prison (365+1), fine over $3000, or both
gross misdemeanor - ANS -up to 1 year in jail, up to $3000 fine, or both
misdemeanor - ANS -up to 90 days in jail, up to $1000 fine, or both
petty misdemeanor - ANS -not a crime, no jail time, up to $300 fine
sources of governance (use of force) - ANS -least to most restrictive:
federal law > state law > dept policy
totality of circumstances (use of force) - ANS -Officer/subject factors:
- age
- size
- sex
- skill
- number of participants
