MN POST TEST STUDY GUIDE
Weeks v. US (1914) - Answers :Exclusionary rule
- warrantless seizure of items from private residence violates 4th Amendment
Terry v. Ohio (1968) - Answers :"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 - Answers :a suspicion based on specific facts, training, and
experience; less than probable cause
Probable cause to arrest - Answers :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 - Answers :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 - Answers :an over-the-clothes pat-down or minimal search by police to discover
weapons
Chimel v. California (1969) - "Chimel Rule" - Answers :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) - Answers :Extended the Exclusionary Rule to the states
Carroll v. U.S. (1925) - "Carroll Doctrine" - Answers :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) - Answers :Right to counsel
- extended right to counsel during criminal trial to the states
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) - Answers :Right to counsel
- criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - "Miranda Warning" - Answers :law enforcement required to
give formal warning advising criminal suspects in custody of their rights, before
interrogation
,In re Gault (1967) - Answers :Due process
- 14th Amendment Due Process Clause applies to juveniles
In re Winship (1970) - Answers :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) - Answers :unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for
crimes committed while under 18
Atkins v. Virginia (2002) - Answers :unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on
people with intellectual disabilities
Tennessee v. Garner (1985) - Answers :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) - Answers :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) - Answers :Recording requirement (Minnesota only)
- custodial interrogation including Miranda warning, waiving of rights, and all questioning
shall be electronically recorded where feasible
- must be recorded when questioning occurs at place of detention
Herring v. US (2009) - Answers :Good faith exception
- exclusionary rule cannot be used to suppress illegally obtained evidence if officer was
acting on erroneous warrant in good faith
Whren v. US (1996) - Answers :any traffic offense committed by a driver is a legitimate
legal basis for a stop
Pena v Leombruni, US 7th Circuit (1999) - Answers :officer justified in using deadly
force against "crazy suspect" who posed immediate threat of death or great bodily
harm, regardless of suspect's mental state
, City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris (1989) - Answers :municipalities may be liable for
inadequate training of employees, but only when "failure to train amounts to deliberate
indifference" to the public's constitutional rights
Thompson v Hubbard, US 8th Circuit (2001) - Answers :officer entitled to qualified
immunity against excessive force claim for shooting fleeing suspect when suspect
reached toward waistband, even if suspect's waistband could not hold a gun; officer not
required to wait until seeing weapon before employing deadly force
Plakas v. Drinski (1994) - Answers :officers not required to used other, less-lethal,
alternatives when deadly force is justified
Exclusionary rule - Answers :evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's rights may
not be used in a criminal trial
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree - Answers :Additional evidence that is discovered from
evidence obtained through an illegal search, which is also not admissible in court.
good faith exception - Answers :exclusionary rule cannot be used to suppress evidence
illegally obtained due to simple mistakes (not the result of repeated patterns or flagrant
misconduct), where officers were acting in good faith that warrant was valid
felony - Answers :more than 1 year in prison (365+1), fine over $3000, or both
gross misdemeanor - Answers :up to 1 year in jail, up to $3000 fine, or both
misdemeanor - Answers :up to 90 days in jail, up to $1000 fine, or both
petty misdemeanor - Answers :not a crime, no jail time, up to $300 fine
sources of governance (use of force) - Answers :least to most restrictive:
federal law > state law > dept policy
totality of circumstances (use of force) - Answers :Officer/subject factors:
- age
- size
- sex
- skill
- number of participants
Special circumstances:
- weapons
- special knowledge (about suspect)
- injuries
- ground fighting
- disabilities
Weeks v. US (1914) - Answers :Exclusionary rule
- warrantless seizure of items from private residence violates 4th Amendment
Terry v. Ohio (1968) - Answers :"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 - Answers :a suspicion based on specific facts, training, and
experience; less than probable cause
Probable cause to arrest - Answers :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 - Answers :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 - Answers :an over-the-clothes pat-down or minimal search by police to discover
weapons
Chimel v. California (1969) - "Chimel Rule" - Answers :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) - Answers :Extended the Exclusionary Rule to the states
Carroll v. U.S. (1925) - "Carroll Doctrine" - Answers :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) - Answers :Right to counsel
- extended right to counsel during criminal trial to the states
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) - Answers :Right to counsel
- criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - "Miranda Warning" - Answers :law enforcement required to
give formal warning advising criminal suspects in custody of their rights, before
interrogation
,In re Gault (1967) - Answers :Due process
- 14th Amendment Due Process Clause applies to juveniles
In re Winship (1970) - Answers :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) - Answers :unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for
crimes committed while under 18
Atkins v. Virginia (2002) - Answers :unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on
people with intellectual disabilities
Tennessee v. Garner (1985) - Answers :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) - Answers :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) - Answers :Recording requirement (Minnesota only)
- custodial interrogation including Miranda warning, waiving of rights, and all questioning
shall be electronically recorded where feasible
- must be recorded when questioning occurs at place of detention
Herring v. US (2009) - Answers :Good faith exception
- exclusionary rule cannot be used to suppress illegally obtained evidence if officer was
acting on erroneous warrant in good faith
Whren v. US (1996) - Answers :any traffic offense committed by a driver is a legitimate
legal basis for a stop
Pena v Leombruni, US 7th Circuit (1999) - Answers :officer justified in using deadly
force against "crazy suspect" who posed immediate threat of death or great bodily
harm, regardless of suspect's mental state
, City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris (1989) - Answers :municipalities may be liable for
inadequate training of employees, but only when "failure to train amounts to deliberate
indifference" to the public's constitutional rights
Thompson v Hubbard, US 8th Circuit (2001) - Answers :officer entitled to qualified
immunity against excessive force claim for shooting fleeing suspect when suspect
reached toward waistband, even if suspect's waistband could not hold a gun; officer not
required to wait until seeing weapon before employing deadly force
Plakas v. Drinski (1994) - Answers :officers not required to used other, less-lethal,
alternatives when deadly force is justified
Exclusionary rule - Answers :evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's rights may
not be used in a criminal trial
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree - Answers :Additional evidence that is discovered from
evidence obtained through an illegal search, which is also not admissible in court.
good faith exception - Answers :exclusionary rule cannot be used to suppress evidence
illegally obtained due to simple mistakes (not the result of repeated patterns or flagrant
misconduct), where officers were acting in good faith that warrant was valid
felony - Answers :more than 1 year in prison (365+1), fine over $3000, or both
gross misdemeanor - Answers :up to 1 year in jail, up to $3000 fine, or both
misdemeanor - Answers :up to 90 days in jail, up to $1000 fine, or both
petty misdemeanor - Answers :not a crime, no jail time, up to $300 fine
sources of governance (use of force) - Answers :least to most restrictive:
federal law > state law > dept policy
totality of circumstances (use of force) - Answers :Officer/subject factors:
- age
- size
- sex
- skill
- number of participants
Special circumstances:
- weapons
- special knowledge (about suspect)
- injuries
- ground fighting
- disabilities
