CRL EXAM 2 (CASES) WITH COMPLETE
SOLUTIONS
Olmsted v US - ANSWER--Prohibition agents wiretap telephone lines for bootlegging
evidence
-courts said it was fine as long as agents don't trespass
Katz v. United States - ANSWER-Electronic surveillance; the court held that they must
have a warrant to tap your phone or video record you
US v. Jones - ANSWER-Installing a GPS tracking device on a vehicle and using the
decide to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth
Amendment (required a valid warrant)
Carpenter v. United States - ANSWER-Cell-site location may not be used in court
without a warrant.
Weeks v. US - ANSWER-Established exclusionary rule, evidence gotten without a
warrant isn't admissable in a federal court
Wolf v. Colorado - ANSWER-Fourteenth Amendment did not impose specific limitations
on criminal justice in the states, and that illegally obtained evidence did not necessarily
have to be excluded from trials in all cases.
Mapp v. Ohio - ANSWER-Established the exclusionary rule was applicable to the states
(evidence seized illegally cannot be used in court)
Terry v. Ohio - ANSWER-stop and frisk, Police can search and seize if they have
probable cause
Escobedo v. Illinois - ANSWER-defendent must be allowed access to a lawyer before
questioning by police
Miranda v. Arizona - ANSWER-Supreme Court held that criminal suspects must be
informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self-
incrimination prior to questioning by police.
Lochner v. New York - ANSWER-overturns new york law setting 8 hr maximum working
hours for bakery workers- 1905
SOLUTIONS
Olmsted v US - ANSWER--Prohibition agents wiretap telephone lines for bootlegging
evidence
-courts said it was fine as long as agents don't trespass
Katz v. United States - ANSWER-Electronic surveillance; the court held that they must
have a warrant to tap your phone or video record you
US v. Jones - ANSWER-Installing a GPS tracking device on a vehicle and using the
decide to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth
Amendment (required a valid warrant)
Carpenter v. United States - ANSWER-Cell-site location may not be used in court
without a warrant.
Weeks v. US - ANSWER-Established exclusionary rule, evidence gotten without a
warrant isn't admissable in a federal court
Wolf v. Colorado - ANSWER-Fourteenth Amendment did not impose specific limitations
on criminal justice in the states, and that illegally obtained evidence did not necessarily
have to be excluded from trials in all cases.
Mapp v. Ohio - ANSWER-Established the exclusionary rule was applicable to the states
(evidence seized illegally cannot be used in court)
Terry v. Ohio - ANSWER-stop and frisk, Police can search and seize if they have
probable cause
Escobedo v. Illinois - ANSWER-defendent must be allowed access to a lawyer before
questioning by police
Miranda v. Arizona - ANSWER-Supreme Court held that criminal suspects must be
informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self-
incrimination prior to questioning by police.
Lochner v. New York - ANSWER-overturns new york law setting 8 hr maximum working
hours for bakery workers- 1905
