Question 1

The use of tricks or factual misstatements by police in an effort to induce a defendant to confess automatically invalidates a confession.

Accepted Answer

The use of deception by police during interrogations does not automatically invalidate a confession. Courts often consider whether a confession was given voluntarily and without coercion, rather than strictly prohibiting deceptive tactics.

Question 2

At common law, a private individual could make an arrest without a warrant if a felony was committed in the individual's presence.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the "felony in progress" rule, which allows citizens to make arrests if they witness a felony being committed. However, specific state laws may vary and have different requirements for citizen's arrests.

Question 3

In 1983 the Supreme Court upheld a law that required persons loitering or wandering on the streets to provide a "credible and reliable" identification and to account for their presence when requested to do so by a police officer.

Accepted Answer

In 1983, the Supreme Court struck down such a law in the case of Kolender v. Lawson, ruling that the law was unconstitutionally vague and violated the right to privacy and the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Question 4

An arrest must be based on probable cause and, with certain exceptions, is subject to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

Accepted Answer

The Fourth Amendment requires that arrests be based on probable cause and, with certain exceptions, be subject to the warrant requirement.

Question 5

At common law, police had the right to make a warrantless arrest if they observed someone in the commission of a misdemeanor.

Accepted Answer

This was known as the "breach of peace" rule and allowed police to make warrantless arrests for any misdemeanor that they observed being committed in their presence. However, some jurisdictions may have altered this rule with their own statutes or case law.

Question 6

In 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court held that states are not precluded from using checkpoints to obtain motorists' assistance in locating the perpetrator of a crime involving a traffic accident.

Accepted Answer

In the case of Illinois v. Lidster, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states are not precluded from using checkpoints to obtain motorists' assistance in locating the perpetrator of a crime involving a traffic accident.

Question 7

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that police may use whatever degree of force is necessary to apprehend a fleeing felon, even if the suspect is unarmed.

Accepted Answer

In Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police may not use deadly force against an unarmed fleeing suspect unless they have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Therefore, police cannot use whatever degree of force is necessary to apprehend a fleeing felon, even if the suspect is unarmed.

Question 8

In Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment forbids a warrantless arrest for a minor traffic offense such as a seat belt violation.

Accepted Answer

In Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor traffic offense, including a seat belt violation, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the violation occurred.

Question 9

In 1897 the Supreme Court held that to force a suspect to confess violates the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment

Accepted Answer

This is a true statement. The case was called Bram v. United States.

Question 10

An arrest is considered a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Accepted Answer

This is because an arrest involves the government's exercise of control over an individual's person or property. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires that arrests be conducted with probable cause.

Question 11

Laws typically allow police officers to use force reasonably necessary to make an arrest.

Accepted Answer

Most laws allow police officers to use force to make an arrest as long as it is considered reasonable and necessary based on the circumstances. However, the amount of force and the level of justification required can vary by jurisdiction and the specific situation.

Question 12

A police officer must always first obtain a warrant before making a felony arrest.

Accepted Answer

A police officer can make a felony arrest without a warrant if they witness the crime being committed, if there is probable cause to believe the person committed the crime, or if there are exigent circumstances that make it necessary to make an immediate arrest without a warrant. However, in non-emergency situations, obtaining a warrant is typically the preferred and legally required method for making an arrest.

Question 13

The Supreme Court has ruled that the motive of an officer for stopping a vehicle for a traffic violation is irrelevant as long as there is an objective basis for the stop.

Accepted Answer

This ruling was made in the case of Whren v. United States in 1996. The Court held that as long as a traffic violation was observed, the stop is considered valid regardless of the officer's motive for making the stop.

Question 14

To make a warrantless arrest for a felony, police must observe the crime in progress.

Accepted Answer

While observing the crime in progress is one circumstance that allows for a warrantless arrest for a felony, there are other circumstances such as the officer having probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a felony and poses a threat to public safety.

Question 15

Police officers must always have probable cause to make an arrest.

Accepted Answer

Probable cause is a legal standard that refers to the requirement that a police officer must have sufficient reason to make an arrest, conduct a search, or seize property. Without probable cause, the officer does not have the legal authority to make an arrest.

Question 16

Police are permitted to temporarily detain persons for questioning when they have "reasonable suspicion" that criminal activity is afoot.

Accepted Answer

This is known as a "Terry stop" after the landmark Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, in which the court ruled that temporary detention and limited searches are permissible based on reasonable suspicion.

Question 17

The Supreme Court has held that when police stop an automobile based on reasonable suspicion, they may search the passenger compartment for weapons, assuming they have reason to believe that a suspect is dangerous.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, established in the 1981 Supreme Court case of Michigan v. Long. In this case, the Court held that if police officers have a reasonable belief that the suspect is dangerous, they may conduct a search of the passenger compartment of a stopped car, including any containers that could contain a weapon.

Question 18

Under no circumstances may police make a warrantless entry into a home to effect an arrest.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has ruled that police can make a warrantless entry into a home under exigent circumstances, such as when they are in hot pursuit of a suspect believed to have committed a crime, to prevent imminent harm to individuals, or to prevent the destruction of evidence.

Question 19

Police who have probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a felony or who observes someone committing a misdemeanor can make a warrantless arrest.

Accepted Answer

This is generally referred to as a "probable cause" arrest and is considered legal under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, there are some exceptions and nuances to this rule, and it is always recommended to consult with legal counsel in any specific situation.

Question 20

In 1985 the Supreme Court upheld a state law that permitted police to use deadly force against fleeing suspects even when there was no threat to the safety of the officer or the public.

Accepted Answer

In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled in Tennessee v. Garner that the use of deadly force against fleeing suspects is not justified unless the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Quiz 4: Arrest, Interrogation, and Identification Procedures