MPOETC Final Exam Key Points
Review
/. What did Graham v. Connor establish? - Answer-✅Established the legal framework
for evaluating claims of excessive force by law enforcement. The 1989 ruling
determined that such claims are judged by a standard of "objective reasonableness"
under the Fourth Amendment, not by an officer's personal intentions.
(Objective reasonableness standard)
/.What are the 3 Graham Factors? What do these factors establish? - Answer-✅1:
Severity of the crime
2: Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others
3: Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight
These factors establish the totality of the circumstances
/.What did SCOTUS decide in J.D.B v. North Carolina?
(Case was to question whether the Miranda custody analysis includes consideration of
a juvenile suspect's age. More specifically, whether a child's age would have affected
how a reasonable person in the suspect's position would perceive his or her freedom to
leave) - Answer-✅SCOTUS held that yes, a juvenile suspect's age would affect how a
reasonable person in that position would perceive his or her freedom to leave. This
meant that officers must take the age of the suspect into consideration when deciding
whether or not to give Miranda.
/.What did Mapp v. Ohio establish? - Answer-✅Established that evidence obtained from
a search violating the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state court proceedings,
**Established the Exclusionary Rule**
/.What did Miranda v. Arizona establish? - Answer-✅The need for "Miranda rights" if the
atmosphere of custodial interrogation was inherently intimidating and worked to
undermine an individual's will to resist.
/.What did South Dakota v. Opperman establish? - Answer-✅Established that inventory
searches were not unconstitutional
, /.South Dakota v. Opperman established 3 reasons that inventory searches were not
unconstitutional. What are they? - Answer-✅1: Protecting the owner's property
2: Protecting police against false claims of lost or stolen property
3: Protecting police from potential dangers hidden in the vehicle
/.What did Tennessee v. Garner establish? - Answer-✅Standard for the use of deadly
force. Ended fleeing felon rule. Established that being a felon is not enough in itself to
warrant deadly force.
/.What is the requirement for deadly force after Tennessee v Garner? - Answer-
✅Fleeing felon that officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a
significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others
/.What did Terry v. Ohio establish? - Answer-✅The reasonable suspicion standard. Also
established the ability to do a "Terry frisk". Established that an officer must have a
separate and reasonable suspicion that the person is "armed and presently dangerous."
/.Terry v. Ohio established the reasonable suspicion standard. What is required for that
standard? - Answer-✅An officer must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts"
that, when viewed in light of their experience, would lead a reasonably prudent person
to believe that criminal activity is afoot
/.What did Commonwealth v. Adams hold? (PA Supreme Court) - Answer-✅Held that a
detention effectuated by police in the interest of officer safety is impermissible in the
absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
(Officer observed a car parked behind businesses and found a driver inside with glossy
eyes. Then subjected driver to SFSTs and arrested for being intoxicated. Court said that
the initial detention was unreasonable due to there being no suspicion of criminal
activity with the parked car.)
/.What did Commonwealth v. Alexander decide? (PA Supreme Court) - Answer-
✅Decided that a single punch to the face is not enough to constitute aggravated assault
without further circumstances.
(In this case a man walked up and punched another once in the face. Victim sustained a
broken nose as an injury. Commonwealth tried to argue that this was an attempt to
cause serious bodily injury. Court decided there was not enough evidence to show the
defendant was attempting to cause serious bodily injury.)
/.What did Commonwealth v. Bradley decide? (PA Superior Court) - Answer-✅Decided
that an individual does not have a first amendment right to film in a police lobby and that
the right to record police is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable time, place, and
manner restrictions.
Review
/. What did Graham v. Connor establish? - Answer-✅Established the legal framework
for evaluating claims of excessive force by law enforcement. The 1989 ruling
determined that such claims are judged by a standard of "objective reasonableness"
under the Fourth Amendment, not by an officer's personal intentions.
(Objective reasonableness standard)
/.What are the 3 Graham Factors? What do these factors establish? - Answer-✅1:
Severity of the crime
2: Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others
3: Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight
These factors establish the totality of the circumstances
/.What did SCOTUS decide in J.D.B v. North Carolina?
(Case was to question whether the Miranda custody analysis includes consideration of
a juvenile suspect's age. More specifically, whether a child's age would have affected
how a reasonable person in the suspect's position would perceive his or her freedom to
leave) - Answer-✅SCOTUS held that yes, a juvenile suspect's age would affect how a
reasonable person in that position would perceive his or her freedom to leave. This
meant that officers must take the age of the suspect into consideration when deciding
whether or not to give Miranda.
/.What did Mapp v. Ohio establish? - Answer-✅Established that evidence obtained from
a search violating the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state court proceedings,
**Established the Exclusionary Rule**
/.What did Miranda v. Arizona establish? - Answer-✅The need for "Miranda rights" if the
atmosphere of custodial interrogation was inherently intimidating and worked to
undermine an individual's will to resist.
/.What did South Dakota v. Opperman establish? - Answer-✅Established that inventory
searches were not unconstitutional
, /.South Dakota v. Opperman established 3 reasons that inventory searches were not
unconstitutional. What are they? - Answer-✅1: Protecting the owner's property
2: Protecting police against false claims of lost or stolen property
3: Protecting police from potential dangers hidden in the vehicle
/.What did Tennessee v. Garner establish? - Answer-✅Standard for the use of deadly
force. Ended fleeing felon rule. Established that being a felon is not enough in itself to
warrant deadly force.
/.What is the requirement for deadly force after Tennessee v Garner? - Answer-
✅Fleeing felon that officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a
significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others
/.What did Terry v. Ohio establish? - Answer-✅The reasonable suspicion standard. Also
established the ability to do a "Terry frisk". Established that an officer must have a
separate and reasonable suspicion that the person is "armed and presently dangerous."
/.Terry v. Ohio established the reasonable suspicion standard. What is required for that
standard? - Answer-✅An officer must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts"
that, when viewed in light of their experience, would lead a reasonably prudent person
to believe that criminal activity is afoot
/.What did Commonwealth v. Adams hold? (PA Supreme Court) - Answer-✅Held that a
detention effectuated by police in the interest of officer safety is impermissible in the
absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
(Officer observed a car parked behind businesses and found a driver inside with glossy
eyes. Then subjected driver to SFSTs and arrested for being intoxicated. Court said that
the initial detention was unreasonable due to there being no suspicion of criminal
activity with the parked car.)
/.What did Commonwealth v. Alexander decide? (PA Supreme Court) - Answer-
✅Decided that a single punch to the face is not enough to constitute aggravated assault
without further circumstances.
(In this case a man walked up and punched another once in the face. Victim sustained a
broken nose as an injury. Commonwealth tried to argue that this was an attempt to
cause serious bodily injury. Court decided there was not enough evidence to show the
defendant was attempting to cause serious bodily injury.)
/.What did Commonwealth v. Bradley decide? (PA Superior Court) - Answer-✅Decided
that an individual does not have a first amendment right to film in a police lobby and that
the right to record police is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable time, place, and
manner restrictions.
