MN POST TEST EXAMS WITH
CORRECT ANSWERS
Weeks v. US (1914) - CORRECT ANSWER-Exclusionary rule
- warrantless seizure of items from private residence violates
4th Amendment
Terry v. Ohio (1968) - CORRECT 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 - CORRECT ANSWER-a suspicion
based on specific facts, training, and experience; less than
probable cause
Probable cause to arrest - CORRECT 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 - CORRECT 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 - CORRECT ANSWER-an over-the-clothes pat-down or
minimal search by police to discover weapons
Chimel v. California (1969) - "Chimel Rule" - CORRECT
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) - CORRECT ANSWER-Extended the
Exclusionary Rule to the states
Carroll v. U.S. (1925) - "Carroll Doctrine" - CORRECT
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) - CORRECT ANSWER-Right to
counsel
- extended right to counsel during criminal trial to the states
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) - CORRECT ANSWER-Right to
counsel
- criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police
interrogations
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - "Miranda Warning" - CORRECT
ANSWER-law enforcement required to give formal warning
advising criminal suspects in custody of their rights, before
interrogation
In re Gault (1967) - CORRECT ANSWER-Due process
- 14th Amendment Due Process Clause applies to juveniles
,In re Winship (1970) - CORRECT 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) - CORRECT ANSWER-
unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes
committed while under 18
Atkins v. Virginia (2002) - CORRECT ANSWER-
unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on people with
intellectual disabilities
Tennessee v. Garner (1985) - CORRECT 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) - CORRECT 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) - CORRECT ANSWER-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) - CORRECT ANSWER-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) - CORRECT ANSWER-any traffic offense
committed by a driver is a legitimate legal basis for a stop
Pena v Leombruni, US 7th Circuit (1999) - CORRECT
ANSWER-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) - CORRECT ANSWER-
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) - CORRECT
ANSWER-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) - CORRECT ANSWER-officers not
required to used other, less-lethal, alternatives when deadly
force is justified
CORRECT ANSWERS
Weeks v. US (1914) - CORRECT ANSWER-Exclusionary rule
- warrantless seizure of items from private residence violates
4th Amendment
Terry v. Ohio (1968) - CORRECT 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 - CORRECT ANSWER-a suspicion
based on specific facts, training, and experience; less than
probable cause
Probable cause to arrest - CORRECT 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 - CORRECT 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 - CORRECT ANSWER-an over-the-clothes pat-down or
minimal search by police to discover weapons
Chimel v. California (1969) - "Chimel Rule" - CORRECT
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) - CORRECT ANSWER-Extended the
Exclusionary Rule to the states
Carroll v. U.S. (1925) - "Carroll Doctrine" - CORRECT
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) - CORRECT ANSWER-Right to
counsel
- extended right to counsel during criminal trial to the states
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) - CORRECT ANSWER-Right to
counsel
- criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police
interrogations
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - "Miranda Warning" - CORRECT
ANSWER-law enforcement required to give formal warning
advising criminal suspects in custody of their rights, before
interrogation
In re Gault (1967) - CORRECT ANSWER-Due process
- 14th Amendment Due Process Clause applies to juveniles
,In re Winship (1970) - CORRECT 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) - CORRECT ANSWER-
unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes
committed while under 18
Atkins v. Virginia (2002) - CORRECT ANSWER-
unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on people with
intellectual disabilities
Tennessee v. Garner (1985) - CORRECT 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) - CORRECT 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) - CORRECT ANSWER-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) - CORRECT ANSWER-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) - CORRECT ANSWER-any traffic offense
committed by a driver is a legitimate legal basis for a stop
Pena v Leombruni, US 7th Circuit (1999) - CORRECT
ANSWER-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) - CORRECT ANSWER-
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) - CORRECT
ANSWER-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) - CORRECT ANSWER-officers not
required to used other, less-lethal, alternatives when deadly
force is justified
