CCJS Exam #2 questions with verified
answers passed
Tennessee v. Garner (1985) - correct answer ✔✔deadly force, officers cannot use force on a
fleeing felon, unless they are about to really escape or pose a threat.
Terry v. Ohio (1968) - correct answer ✔✔an officer may frisk for their safety, search incident to a
lawful arrest.
Chimel v. California (1969) - correct answer ✔✔officers may search for weapons when you are
in custody, exigent circumstances.
United States v. Drayton (2002) - correct answer ✔✔police do not have to tell you that you can
say no to searches
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - correct answer ✔✔miranda rights are required to be read to an
individual in custody prior to interrogation
Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) - correct answer ✔✔You need to assert the miranda rights, not
just remain silent. He was not answering anything, he was just silent. So the police utilized a
different tactic (changed the subject and asked if he believed in god). He said yes, and then they
asked "do you think god would forgive you?" and he said yes. They could use this in evidence.
Weeks v. United States (1914) - correct answer ✔✔applied the exclusionary rule, that illegally
obtained evidence must be excluded from trial, on the federal level.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - correct answer ✔✔applied the exclusionary rule, that illegally obtained
evidence must be excluded from trial, on state cases.
, Strickland v. Washington (1984) - correct answer ✔✔effective counsel on capital cases
United States v. Salerno and Cafero (1987) - correct answer ✔✔if the courts feel the person is a
danger or is going to commit crimes on bail, it is not against their rights to hold them.
Boykin v. Alabama (1969) - correct answer ✔✔a defendant must enter into a plea voluntarily for
the deal to be accepted
North Carolina v. Alford (1970) - correct answer ✔✔a plea of guilty by a defendant who
maintains their innocence may be accepted for the purpose of a lesser sentence.
Missouri v. Frye (2012) - correct answer ✔✔right to counsel, extended this right to the plea
bargaining process
Williams v. Florida (1970) - correct answer ✔✔size of the jury, you can have as few as 6 but at
most 12
Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) - correct answer ✔✔you may not automatically remove jurors
who oppose the death penalty, but during voir dire those who feel so strongly about capital
punishment that they could not give an impartial verdict may be excluded.
Furman v. Georgia (1972) - correct answer ✔✔the death penalty was unconstitutional
Gregg v. Georgia (1976) - correct answer ✔✔reinstated the death penalty
McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) - correct answer ✔✔rejected racial discrimination challenge
answers passed
Tennessee v. Garner (1985) - correct answer ✔✔deadly force, officers cannot use force on a
fleeing felon, unless they are about to really escape or pose a threat.
Terry v. Ohio (1968) - correct answer ✔✔an officer may frisk for their safety, search incident to a
lawful arrest.
Chimel v. California (1969) - correct answer ✔✔officers may search for weapons when you are
in custody, exigent circumstances.
United States v. Drayton (2002) - correct answer ✔✔police do not have to tell you that you can
say no to searches
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - correct answer ✔✔miranda rights are required to be read to an
individual in custody prior to interrogation
Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) - correct answer ✔✔You need to assert the miranda rights, not
just remain silent. He was not answering anything, he was just silent. So the police utilized a
different tactic (changed the subject and asked if he believed in god). He said yes, and then they
asked "do you think god would forgive you?" and he said yes. They could use this in evidence.
Weeks v. United States (1914) - correct answer ✔✔applied the exclusionary rule, that illegally
obtained evidence must be excluded from trial, on the federal level.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - correct answer ✔✔applied the exclusionary rule, that illegally obtained
evidence must be excluded from trial, on state cases.
, Strickland v. Washington (1984) - correct answer ✔✔effective counsel on capital cases
United States v. Salerno and Cafero (1987) - correct answer ✔✔if the courts feel the person is a
danger or is going to commit crimes on bail, it is not against their rights to hold them.
Boykin v. Alabama (1969) - correct answer ✔✔a defendant must enter into a plea voluntarily for
the deal to be accepted
North Carolina v. Alford (1970) - correct answer ✔✔a plea of guilty by a defendant who
maintains their innocence may be accepted for the purpose of a lesser sentence.
Missouri v. Frye (2012) - correct answer ✔✔right to counsel, extended this right to the plea
bargaining process
Williams v. Florida (1970) - correct answer ✔✔size of the jury, you can have as few as 6 but at
most 12
Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) - correct answer ✔✔you may not automatically remove jurors
who oppose the death penalty, but during voir dire those who feel so strongly about capital
punishment that they could not give an impartial verdict may be excluded.
Furman v. Georgia (1972) - correct answer ✔✔the death penalty was unconstitutional
Gregg v. Georgia (1976) - correct answer ✔✔reinstated the death penalty
McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) - correct answer ✔✔rejected racial discrimination challenge
