Criminal Procedure: From First Contact to Appeal | Documents and Forms | Research Papers

Criminal Procedure: From First Contact to Appeal

Criminal Procedure: From First Contact to Appeal 1238 Instant Download Price
In Stock
$ 4.99 USD
Quality Academic Papers
Buy and Download Description

1. Why focus attention on the constitutionality of arrests? a. The constitutionality of an arrest is critical in determining whether evidence seized in connection with the arrest is admissible in court. b. An innocent person may sue an officer or department if unlawfully detained. c. There is no recourse of an unlawful arrest. d. None of the above 2. The act of taking an individual into custody for the purpose of charging the person with a criminal offense (or, in the case of a juvenile, a delinquent act) is referred to as a(n): a. stop. b. arrest. c. search. d. seizure. 3. A(n) _________ is a brief nonconsensual encounter between a law enforcement officer and a citizen that does not rise to the level of an arrest; it is the detention of a person by a law enforcement officer for the purpose of investigation. a. stop b. arrest c. search d. seizure 4. In which key case did the Supreme Court define the meaning of arrest as more than restricting a person’s movement? a. Davis v. Mississippi b. Florida v. Royer c. Henry v. United States d. Terry v. Ohio 5. In which case did the Supreme Court rule that stationhouse detentions require probable cause? a. Carroll v. United States b. Michigan v. Summers c. Florida v. Royer, d. Davis v. Mississippi 6. In determining if an arrest has occurred, the courts will weigh: a. the duration of a stop. b. the degree of the intrusion. c. officers’ intentions. d. all of the above. 7. Emergency circumstances, including hot pursuit, the possibility of escape, or evanescent evidence are examples of: a. crucial exceptions. b. exception clauses. c. exclusionary rules. d. exigent circumstances. 8. Which of the following is NOT a type of exigency recognized by the courts that authorizes the police to act without a warrant? a. Hot pursuit b. Likelihood of escape or danger to others absent of hot pursuit c. Evanescent evidence d. Inconvenient to obtain a warrant 9. Evanescent evidence refers to evidence that is likely to: a. be hidden. b. spoil. c. disappear. d. be transferred to another location. 10. A warrantless search for evanescent evidence is permissible when: a. there is probable cause to believe that evidence will be destroyed, lost, or devalued. b. the procedures employed are reasonable. c. the exigency was not police-created. d. All of the above 11. The Supreme Court first permitted warrantless hot pursuit searches in: a. Chimel v. California. b. Sibron v. New York. c. Warden v. Hayden. d. Welsh v. Wisconsin. 12. In which landmark case did the Supreme Court carve out the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement? a. Carroll v. United States b. Cardwell v. Lewis c. California v. Carney d. Thoraton v. United States 13. Which of the following are considered restrictions on frisks? a. Frisks are to be nothing more than pat-downs of outer clothing. b. Frisks must be motivated by a desire to preserve officer safety. c. For an officer to legally seize an item during the course of a frisk, the item to be seized must be immediately apparent to the officer as contraband. d. All of the above 14. Which case found that officers can demand identification in certain situations? a. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada b. Chicago v. Morales c. Kolender v. Lawson d. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville 15. In which case did the Supreme Court hold that police officers can stop and detain motorists in their vehicles with “articulable and reasonable suspicion?” a. Terry v. Ohio b. Pennsylvania v. Mimms c. Delaware v. Prouse d. Maryland v. Buie 16. The decision in Pennsylvania v. Mimms: a. allows officers to frisk suspects’ outer clothing. b. authorize the police to stop suspicious-looking individuals based on less than reasonable suspicion. c. allows an officer to demand identification from citizens. d. authorizes a police officer to order a driver out of a car. 17. In which case did the Supreme Court hold that police officers, with reasonable suspicion, can order drivers out of their cars? a. Terry v. Ohio b. Pennsylvania v. Mimms c. Delaware v. Prouse d. Maryland v. Buie 18. Stops and frisks are considered which type of acts? a. Necessary b. Advisory c. Separate d. Independent 19. Person inventories are sometimes called: a. armspan searches. b. custodial inventories. c. arrest inventories. d. search incident to arrest. 20. In which case did the Supreme Court sanction fire inspections? a. Camara v. Municipal Court b. Michigan v. Tyler c. United States v. Ramsey d. Carroll v. United States 21. The Supreme Court has authorized warrantless inspections of: a. firearms dealerships. b. vehicle junkyards. c. closely regulated businesses. d. all of the above. 22. In which case did the Supreme Court sanction sobriety checkpoints? a. Carroll v. United States b. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz c. Delaware v. Prouse d. United States v. Villamonte-Marquez 23. Which of the following is an unconstitutional checkpoint? a. Border checkpoint b. Sobriety checkpoint c. License and safety checkpoint d. Suspicionless checkpoints for detecting illegal drugs 24. In which case did the Supreme Court declare that checkpoints for the purpose of detecting evidence of criminal activity are unconstitutional? a. Carroll v. United States b. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz c. Delaware v. Prouse d. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond 25. A claim of racial profiling can be raised pursuant to: a. the Fourth Amendment. b. the Fifth Amendment. c. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. D .42 U.S.C. Section 242

1. Why focus attention on the constitutionality of arrests? a. The constitutionality of an arrest is critical in determining whether evidence seized in connection with the arrest is admissible in court. b. An innocent person may sue an officer or dep
Recent Reviews Be the first to Review this product!
0 0 0 0 reviews