Question 1

Probative evidence is evidence collected by officials according to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

Accepted Answer

Probative evidence refers to evidence that is relevant and has the ability to prove something in a court of law, not specifically evidence collected according to the Fourth Amendment.

Question 2

The government can prove disposition to commit an offense, to rebut an entrapment defense, by showing a defendant's:
I. prior convictions for similar offenses.
II. willingness to commit similar offenses.
III. prior criminal activity not resulting in conviction.
IV. active solicitation of the crime.

Accepted Answer

The government can demonstrate a defendant's predisposition to commit an offense by showing prior convictions for similar offenses, willingness to commit similar offenses, prior criminal activity not resulting in conviction, and active solicitation of the crime. All these factors can be used to rebut an entrapment defense.

Question 3

In the 1949 case Wolf v. Colorado, the Supreme Court:

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court in Wolf v. Colorado held that the exclusionary rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court, was not required by the Fourth Amendment to be applied to the states.

Question 4

The dissent in Herring v. U.S. (2009) argued that the exclusionary rule should apply to a search conducted pursuant to an arrest warrant that was later discovered to have been recalled months earlier because:

Accepted Answer

The dissenting opinion argued that negligent bookkeeping mistakes by law enforcement threaten individual liberty and can be deterred by the exclusionary rule. The fact that the warrant was recalled months earlier showed a clear case of negligent bookkeeping, as the arresting officer did not properly investigate. Therefore, the exclusionary rule should apply to this search.

Question 5

According to the Supreme Court opinion in Herring v. U.S. (2009), involving a search pursuant to an active arrest warrant that was later discovered to have been recalled several months earlier:

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court held that the evidence seized pursuant to the search is admissible if the police acted objectively, in reasonably good faith and the error in recordkeeping was negligent but not reckless. The good faith of officers is relevant in determining whether or not to exclude evidence, but it is not the only factor to consider. The Court rejected the exclusionary rule as a rigid and inflexible remedy for all violations of the Fourth Amendment and instead adopted a balancing test that takes into account the costs and benefits of excluding evidence in a particular case. Thus, evidence obtained by officers who honestly believe they are acting lawfully is not automatically admissible, but it may be admitted if the police acted in objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant or other court order, even if the warrant was later found to be defective. On the other hand, evidence obtained by officers who act recklessly or intentionally in violation of the Constitution is always inadmissible, regardless of their good faith.

Question 6

The objective test for entrapment:
I. focuses on the defendant's predisposition.
II. is constitutionally required.
III. focuses on the actions of the government to get someone to commit a criminal act.
IV. is aimed at deterring unsavory police methods.

Accepted Answer

The objective test for entrapment focuses on the actions of the government to induce someone to commit a crime and aims to deter unsavory police methods.

Question 7

According to the Supreme Court opinion in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), involving a police search for a bombing suspect:

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio held that the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials, applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. The Court overturned Wolf v. Colorado (1949), which had held that the exclusionary rule was not required by the federal Constitution and that states could choose whether or not to adopt it. Therefore, choice B is the best answer. Choices A, C, and D are incorrect, as they do not accurately reflect the holding in Mapp v. Ohio.

Question 8

Under the collateral use exception to the exclusionary rule, the United States Supreme Court has held that:
I. the government can use evidence illegally seized in grand jury proceedings.
II. the exclusionary rule does not prevent the use of some illegally seized evidence in the government's case-in-chief.
III. victims of the fruits of good faith illegal searches cannot call for its
Suppression.
IV. prosecutors can use illegally seized evidence to impeach the defendant's testimony.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Under the collateral use exception to the...

Question 9

In Jacobson v. U.S. (1992), involving a man charged with the illegal possession of child pornography, the Supreme Court ruled that:

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Jacobson was predisposed to commit the offense charged, focusing on the lack of predisposition before government agents induced him to commit the crime.

Question 10

The use of active encouragement requires law enforcement officers to do such things as:
I. develop personal relationships with targets.
II. make repeated requests to commit a crime.
III. appeal personally to targets.
IV. supply contraband to their target.

Accepted Answer

The answer of The use of active encouragement requires law...

Question 11

The need for the government to encourage criminal conduct arises because:

Accepted Answer

The government may encourage criminal conduct in cases where crimes have non-complaining victims, making it difficult for police to detect and investigate these crimes without proactive measures.

Question 12

An amicus curiae brief is:

Accepted Answer

An amicus curiae brief is filed by someone who is not a party to the lawsuit but has a strong interest in the matter, with the court's permission, to provide additional information or arguments for the court to consider.

Question 13

The Supreme Court has specifically rejected the rationale that the exclusionary rule is a constitutional right.

Accepted Answer

In the case of United States v. Leon (1984), the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule was not a constitutional right but rather a judicially created remedy to deter police misconduct.

Question 14

According to the dissent in Mapp v. Ohio (1961):

Accepted Answer

The dissenting opinion in Mapp v. Ohio argued that the exclusionary rule should not be imposed on the states because it was a federal remedy and the states should be allowed to develop their own remedies for Fourth Amendment violations. The dissent did not argue that the exclusionary rule was ineffective, but rather that it was not appropriate for the federal courts to mandate its use by the states.

Question 15

According to the Supreme Court, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule:

Accepted Answer

The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule requires examining whether a reasonable officer would have known that the search was illegal, regardless of the officer's subjective belief. This exception is meant to balance the need for law enforcement to act in good faith with the protection of citizens' Fourth Amendment rights.

Question 16

Today, the United States Supreme Court relies exclusively on deterrence as the only justification for excluding valid evidence.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Today, the United States Supreme Court relies...

Question 17

Until the twentieth century, the exclusive remedy for constitutional violations was private lawsuits against governmental officials.

Accepted Answer

Before the twentieth century, individuals could only seek redress for constitutional violations by filing lawsuits against the government officials responsible for the violation.

Question 18

In the 1925 case, Agnello v. United States, the Supreme Court:

Accepted Answer

In Agnello v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule applied to contraband, meaning that evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures could not be used in court.

Question 19

In Arizona v. Evans, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule does not require suppression of evidence incident to an arrest stemming from inaccurate computer records because of who was involved in keeping the records.

Accepted Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. Evans ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the error in the computer records was made by court employees, not the police, as the rule is intended to deter police misconduct.

Question 20

Under the objective test of entrapment, the decision whether a defendant has been entrapped is made by:

Accepted Answer

Under the objective test of entrapment, the decision is typically made by judges, as it focuses on the conduct of law enforcement rather than the defendant's predisposition.

Quiz 10: Lineups and Other Means of Pretrial Identification

Probative evidence is evidence collected by officials according to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

The government can prove disposition to commit an offense, to rebut an entrapment defense, by showing a defendant's: I. prior convictions for similar offenses. II. willingness to commit similar offenses. III. prior criminal activity not resulting in conviction. IV. active solicitation of the crime.

In the 1949 case Wolf v. Colorado, the Supreme Court:

The dissent in Herring v. U.S. (2009) argued that the exclusionary rule should apply to a search conducted pursuant to an arrest warrant that was later discovered to have been recalled months earlier because:

According to the Supreme Court opinion in Herring v. U.S. (2009) , involving a search pursuant to an active arrest warrant that was later discovered to have been recalled several months earlier:

The objective test for entrapment: I. focuses on the defendant's predisposition. II. is constitutionally required. III. focuses on the actions of the government to get someone to commit a criminal act. IV. is aimed at deterring unsavory police methods.

According to the Supreme Court opinion in Mapp v. Ohio (1961) , involving a police search for a bombing suspect:

In Jacobson v. U.S. (1992) , involving a man charged with the illegal possession of child pornography, the Supreme Court ruled that:

The use of active encouragement requires law enforcement officers to do such things as: I. develop personal relationships with targets. II. make repeated requests to commit a crime. III. appeal personally to targets. IV. supply contraband to their target.