Deck 2: The Exclusionary Rule

Question 1

A major purpose of the exclusionary rule is to:

A) Deter police misconduct
B) Allow police officers to make better searches
C) Help police officers to find better evidence
D) Allow more evidence into court

Answer 1

Deter police misconduct

Question 2

The landmark case Mapp v. Ohio is significant because:

A) The "good faith" to the exclusionary rule was established
B) It sets the standard for consent searches
C) The exclusionary rule was to be applied only in federal courts
D) The exclusionary rule was to be applied to all state criminal proceedings

Answer 2

The exclusionary rule was to be applied to all state criminal proceedings

Question 3

Tape-recordings of calls to the police may be admissible in court during trial as evidence as long as they are:

A) Testimonial
B) Nontestimonial
C) True
D) Incriminating

Answer 3

Nontestimonial

Question 4

A police officer may enter a home without a warrant when he or she has an objectively reasonable belief that:

A) An occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with injury
B) An occupant is manufacturing drugs
C) There is no one inside the home
D) Regardless of the circumstances, a police officer may never enter a home without a warrant

Question 5

Which of the following cases best illustrates the "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule?

A) United States v. Leon
B) Arizona v. Evans
C) Nix v. Williams
D) Weeks v. United States

Question 6

A warrantless nonconsensual entry of a residence by police to arrest an overnight guest violates the ________ Amendment.

A) Fourteenth
B) Fourth
C) Sixth
D) Eighth

Question 7

To arrest a suspect in another person's home, does the police need to obtain a search warrant to enter the house legally?

A) Regardless of the circumstances, without a search warrant the police could not enter the home
B) The police may enter the home without a search warrant only if exigent circumstances are present
C) The police may enter the home without a search warrant only if consent is given by the owner
D) The police may enter the home without a warrant if exigent circumstances are present or if consent is given by the owner

Question 8

As decided in Davis v. Washington, which of the following would be considered "nontestimonial" statements?

A) Statements made in the course of police interrogation with the primary purpose of establishing or proving past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.
B) Statements made in the course of police interrogation with the primary purpose of enabling police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.
C) Statements made in the course of police interrogation that occurs after an emergency has been resolved and where there is no immediate need to identify or apprehend a perpetrator.
D) Statements made in court with the primary purpose of cross-examining witnesses.

Question 9

Which of the following cases addresses the "tainted fruit of the poisonous tree" aspect of the exclusionary rule?

A) Minnesota v. Olson
B) United States v. Leon
C) Mapp v. Ohio
D) Wong Sun v. United States

Question 10

The ________ exception to the exclusionary rule allows the use of evidence obtained by officers who act in reasonable reliance on a search warrant that is based on information that was not obtained illegally.

A) "Good faith"
B) "Fruit of the poisonous tree"
C) "Independent source"
D) "Nontestimonial"

Question 11

Any additional evidence obtained as a result of illegal acts is also known as:

A) "Fruit of the poisonous tree"
B) "Independent evidence"
C) "Dependent evidence"
D) "Independent source"

Question 12

Which of the following exceptions to the exclusionary rule dictates that illegally seized evidence may be admissible in court when voluntary acts by the suspect remove the contamination of the illegality?

A) "Good faith"
B) "Fruit of the poisonous tree"
C) "Independent source"
D) "Purged taint"

Question 13

Some searches are so "shocking to the conscience" as to require exclusion of the evidence seized based on the due process clause of the Constitution. These cases are limited to:

A) Acts of coercion, violence, and brutality
B) Acts of questionable behavior
C) Instances where the police failed to clearly communicate with the suspect(s)
D) Instances where the police was provided with the wrong information due to a clerical mistake

Question 14

The police enter an individual's home without consent or a warrant and seize evidence to be used against the individual. Which case law may be used to rule this evidence inadmissible in court?

A) Draper v. United States
B) Miranda v. Arizona
C) Chimel v. California
D) Mapp v. Ohio

Question 15

The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is contained within the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.

Question 16

Before the exclusionary rule was extended to all state criminal proceedings, some searches were considered to be so "shocking to the conscience" that they required exclusion of the evidence based on the right to due process.

Question 17

Evidence obtained as a result of legal acts by the police must be excluded.

Question 18

The decision in Arizona v. Evans extends an exception to the exclusionary rule when an error is committed by court employees rather than the police.

Question 19

Evidence obtained illegally may be admissible if the police can prove that they would have discovered the evidence anyway through lawful means.

Question 20

Nontestimonial statements are not admissible in court.

Question 21

The good-faith exception for police applies to errors made by nonjudicial personnel.

Question 22

The "fruit of the poisoned tree" rule allows the use of all illegally seized evidence in court.