CBP Officer Entrance Exam Questions With Correct Answers

Often, crimes are characterized as either malum in se—inherently evil—or malum prohibitum—criminal because they are declared as offenses by a legislature. Murder is an example of the former. Failing to file a tax return illustrates the latter. Some jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum, although many still do. - Answer From the information given above, it can be validly concluded that some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum prohibitum A trucking company can act as a common carrier—for hire to the general public at published rates. As a common carrier, it is liable for any cargo damage, unless the company can show that it was not negligent. If the company can demonstrate that it was not negligent, then it is not liable for cargo damage. In contrast, a contract carrier (a trucking company hired by a shipper under a specific contract) is only responsible for cargo damage as spelled out in the contract. A Claus Inc. tractor-trailer, acting under common carrier authority, was in a 5- vehicle accident that damaged its cargo. A Nichols Inc. tractor-trailer, acting under contract carrier authority, was involved in the same accident, and its cargo was also damaged. - Answer From the information given above, it can be validly concluded that, in reference to the accident, if Claus Inc. can show that it was not negligent, then it is not liable A rapidly changing technical environment in government is promoting greater reliance on electronic mail (email) systems. As this usage grows, there are increasing chances of conflict between the users' expectations of privacy and public access rights. In some investigations, access to all e-mail, including those messages stored in archival files and messages outside the scope of the investigation, has been sought and granted. In spite of this, some people send messages through e-mail that would never be said face-to-face or written formally. - Answer From the information given above, it CANNOT be validly concluded that some e-mail messages that have been requested as part of investigations have contained messages that would never be said face-to-face