MN605 EXAM PREP STUDY GUIDE
QUESTIONS ANSWERS COMPLETE
SOLUTION BUNDLE
●● Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Answer: "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
Answer: a suspicion based on specific facts, training, and experience;
less than probable cause
●● Probable cause to arrest
Answer: 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
,Answer: 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
Answer: an over-the-clothes pat-down or minimal search by police to
discover weapons
●● Chimel v. California (1969) - "Chimel Rule"
Answer: 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)
Answer: Extended the Exclusionary Rule to the states
●● Carroll v. U.S. (1925) - "Carroll Doctrine"
Answer: 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)
,Answer: Right to counsel
- extended right to counsel during criminal trial to the states
●● Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Answer: Right to counsel
- criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations
●● Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - "Miranda Warning"
Answer: law enforcement required to give formal warning advising
criminal suspects in custody of their rights, before interrogation
●● In re Gault (1967)
Answer: Due process
- 14th Amendment Due Process Clause applies to juveniles
●● In re Winship (1970)
Answer: 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)
, Answer: unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes
committed while under 18
●● Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
Answer: unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on people with
intellectual disabilities
●● Tennessee v. Garner (1985)
Answer: 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)
Answer: 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)
QUESTIONS ANSWERS COMPLETE
SOLUTION BUNDLE
●● Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Answer: "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
Answer: a suspicion based on specific facts, training, and experience;
less than probable cause
●● Probable cause to arrest
Answer: 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
,Answer: 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
Answer: an over-the-clothes pat-down or minimal search by police to
discover weapons
●● Chimel v. California (1969) - "Chimel Rule"
Answer: 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)
Answer: Extended the Exclusionary Rule to the states
●● Carroll v. U.S. (1925) - "Carroll Doctrine"
Answer: 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)
,Answer: Right to counsel
- extended right to counsel during criminal trial to the states
●● Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Answer: Right to counsel
- criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations
●● Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - "Miranda Warning"
Answer: law enforcement required to give formal warning advising
criminal suspects in custody of their rights, before interrogation
●● In re Gault (1967)
Answer: Due process
- 14th Amendment Due Process Clause applies to juveniles
●● In re Winship (1970)
Answer: 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)
, Answer: unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes
committed while under 18
●● Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
Answer: unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on people with
intellectual disabilities
●● Tennessee v. Garner (1985)
Answer: 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)
Answer: 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)
