Question 1

In what case was the good-faith exception first established?&#10;A) Linkletter v. Walker.&#10;B) Mapp v. Ohio.&#10;C) United States v. Leon.&#10;D) Hudson v. Michigan.

Accepted Answer

The good-faith exception was first established in the case of United States v. Leon, where the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained in good faith by law enforcement officers relying on a search warrant that is subsequently found to be deficient may still be admissible.

Question 2

What primary issue did Hudson v. Michigan address?&#10;A) Reliance on binding appellate precedent.&#10;B) Knock-and-announce violations.&#10;C) Errors made by nonjudicial personnel.&#10;D) Errors made by judicial personnel.

Accepted Answer

Hudson v. Michigan primarily addressed the issue of knock-and-announce violations in the context of police searches and the exclusionary rule.

Question 3

In Hudson v. Michigan, Justice Scalia argued that suppression &#34;has always been our __.&#34;&#10;A) First impulse.&#10;B) Last resort.&#10;C) Most effective deterrent.&#10;D) Preferred consequence of Fourth Amendment violations.

Accepted Answer

Justice Scalia argued that suppression has always been considered a "last resort" rather than a first impulse or preferred consequence.

Question 4

What primary issue did Herring v. United States address?&#10;A) Errors made by nonjudicial personnel.&#10;B) Reliance on binding appellate precedent.&#10;C) Errors by judicial personnel.&#10;D) Knock-and-announce violations.

Accepted Answer

Herring v. United States primarily addressed the issue of whether evidence obtained from a search incident to an arrest, which was based on an erroneous warrant due to a mistake by nonjudicial personnel, should be excluded.

Question 5

The exclusionary rule, according to the Herring decision, applied in cases involving&#10;A) Simple, isolated negligence.&#10;B) Deliberate, reckless, gross, or systematic negligence.&#10;C) Any violation of the Fourth Amendment.&#10;D) Violations attenuated from the discovery of evidence.

Accepted Answer

The Herring decision clarified that the exclusionary rule is intended to deter deliberate, reckless, gross, or systematic negligence by law enforcement, rather than simple, isolated negligence.

Question 6

What primary issue did Davis v. United States address?&#10;A) Knock-and-announce violations.&#10;B) Errors committed by judicial personnel.&#10;C) Reliance on binding appellate precedent.&#10;D) Warrantless searches of the homes.

Accepted Answer

The answer of What primary issue did Davis v. United...

Question 7

In Davis v. United States, Justice Alito described the suppression of evidence and release of guilty defendants as&#10;A) A consequence of the Fourth Amendment.&#10;B) A bitter pill.&#10;C) The first impulse of the Court.&#10;D) A consequence of judicial integrity.

Accepted Answer

Justice Alito referred to the suppression of evidence and the release of guilty defendants as a "bitter pill" in the context of discussing the exclusionary rule and its implications.

Question 8

In a recent dissenting opinion, Justice Breyer argued that the good-faith exception threatened to &#34;swallow the exclusionary rule.&#34; In what case was this argument made?&#10;A) Davis v. United States.&#10;B) United States v. Leon.&#10;C) Hudson v. Michigan.&#10;D) Herring v. United States.

Accepted Answer

The answer of In a recent dissenting opinion, Justice Breyer...

Question 9

According to the majority opinion in Herring v. United States, exclusion was more likely to deter what type of police misconduct?&#10;A) Recklessness.&#10;B) Negligence.&#10;C) Excessive use of force.&#10;D) Perjury.

Accepted Answer

The majority opinion in Herring v. United States suggested that exclusion is more likely to deter reckless conduct by police rather than mere negligence.

Deck 3: The Restriction and Likely Elimination of the Exclusionary Rule: Jeffery T.Walker