Question 1

In County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991), the Rehnquist Court held that an individual could be detained for as long as ________ hours prior to a probable cause hearing without necessarily violating the Fourth Amendment.

Accepted Answer

In County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991), the Rehnquist Court held that an individual could be detained for as long as 48 hours prior to a probable cause hearing without necessarily violating the Fourth Amendment.

Question 2

Under federal law an officer is required to _______________ upon arrival at the place to be searched pursuant to a search warrant.

Accepted Answer

Under federal law, officers are required to knock and announce their presence when they arrive at the place to be searched pursuant to a search warrant. This is known as the "knock and announce" rule, and is meant to give occupants of the property an opportunity to let officers in voluntarily and peacefully.

Question 3

In ________________, the Supreme Court held that police officers may use deadly force only when necessary to apprehend a fleeing felon and only when "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or physical injury to the officer or others."

Accepted Answer

Tennessee v. Garner (1985) established the guidelines for the use of deadly force by police officers. The Court ruled that deadly force may only be used in the apprehension of a fleeing felon if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or physical injury to the officer or others. This decision set the standard for the use of deadly force across the United States.

Question 4

In _______________, the Court decided unanimously that the Fourth Amendment requires police, absent a threat of physical violence or other exigent circumstances, to knock and announce when serving a search warrant at a home.

Accepted Answer

Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) established the "knock and announce" rule, which requires police to knock and announce their presence before entering a home to execute a search warrant, unless there are exigent circumstances present. The Court unanimously agreed that this rule is required by the Fourth Amendment. Richards v. Wisconsin (1997) addressed the use of a "no-knock" warrant and established a two-part test for determining whether such warrants are permissible. Hudson v. Michigan (2006) addressed the remedy for a violation of the knock and announce rule and held that evidence obtained in violation of the rule is admissible at trial. Chimel v. California (1969) addressed the scope and manner of search incident to arrest.

Question 5

In ______________, the Court held that police are not required to inform motorists who are stopped for other reasons that they are "free to go" before asking them to consent to a search of their automobile.

Accepted Answer

In Ohio v. Robinette (1996), the Supreme Court ruled that police officers are not required to inform a motorist that they are "free to go" before obtaining consent to search the motorist's vehicle, as long as the initial traffic stop was lawful.

Question 6

In ___________, the Supreme Court said that the exclusionary rule is not applicable to a situation in which contraband is seized from a person who was falsely arrested due to police negligence.

Accepted Answer

The case of Herring v. United States (2009) established that the exclusionary rule does not apply in situations where contraband is seized from a person who was falsely arrested due to police negligence. In this case, the Court held that the exclusionary rule should not be applied when the police conduct does not amount to a deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for Fourth Amendment rights.

Question 7

In Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), the Supreme Court _________ a search based on consent even though the police failed to advise the individual that he was not obligated to consent to the police request.

Accepted Answer

In Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, the Supreme Court upheld the search based on consent even though the police failed to advise the individual that he was not obligated to consent to the police request. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require that the police inform a person of his right to refuse consent to a search, and that the voluntariness of consent is to be determined by the totality of the circumstances.

Question 8

The stop and frisk investigatory detention was upheld by the Supreme Court in _______________.

Accepted Answer

The stop and frisk investigatory detention, also known as a Terry stop, was upheld by the Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio (1968). This ruling allowed law enforcement officers to briefly detain and pat down individuals if they have reasonable suspicion that the person may be involved in criminal activity and could be a threat to themselves or others.

Quiz 5: The Constitution and Criminal Justice

In County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991) , the Rehnquist Court held that an individual could be detained for as long as ________ hours prior to a probable cause hearing without necessarily violating the Fourth Amendment.