Question 1

No Miranda warnings are required if there is no seizure of the person, as long as the police do not:

Accepted Answer

Miranda warnings are required when a person is in custody and subjected to interrogation. If the police do not convey the message that compliance with their requests is required, the situation is less likely to be considered a "custody" for Miranda purposes. The key factor is whether the individual's freedom of action is curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest, not the officer's undisclosed intentions, whether incriminating questions are asked, or if the person voluntarily comes to the police station.

Question 2

Which of the following is not a part of the Miranda warnings?

Accepted Answer

All the other options are part of the standard Miranda warnings that must be given to a suspect being taken into custody. The right to stop answering questions at any time is not explicitly mentioned, but it is implied by the right to remain silent.

Question 3

The due process voluntariness test is "whether the totality of the circumstances that preceded the confession deprived the defendant of his":

Accepted Answer

The due process voluntariness test is concerned with whether the defendant's confession was voluntary or coerced, meaning that it was not a product of his own free will. The test focuses on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession, which may include factors such as the defendant's age, intelligence, education, mental and physical condition, and the nature of the interrogation. The purpose of the test is to ensure that the defendant's confession was not the result of coercive police tactics or other external pressures that would undermine its reliability and truthfulness. The test focuses on the defendant's power of resistance, or his ability to withstand the pressure to confess, rather than on his privacy or self-incrimination rights. Therefore, choice B, "power of resistance," is the best answer.

Question 4

The U.S. Supreme Court established the right to counsel during police interrogation for all criminal suspects in:

Accepted Answer

The case of Miranda v. Arizona established the right to counsel during police interrogation. The court ruled that before being questioned, suspects must be informed of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney. This became known as the Miranda warning and has been a standard protocol in the U.S. criminal justice system ever since.

Question 5

Although the Fifth Amendment specifically mentions the "due process" of law, which of the following Amendments also deals with due process?

Accepted Answer

The Fourteenth Amendment deals with due process, stating that no state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Question 6

The conception and planning of an offense by an officer, and the officer's procurement of its commission by a person who would not have perpetrated the offense except for the trickery, persuasion, or fraud of the officer, is:

Accepted Answer

This describes entrapment, where an officer creates a situation where a person commits a crime they would not have otherwise.

Question 7

For a confession to be admissible, it must be:

Accepted Answer

Voluntariness is a key requirement for a confession to be admissible. If a confession was given under duress or coercion, it is not considered voluntary and cannot be used as evidence in court. The truthfulness of the confession and whether it is independently corroborated can also impact its admissibility, but voluntariness is the most important factor. The requirement for the confession to be in writing depends on the jurisdiction and the circumstances of the case.

Question 8

Which of the following statements by a suspect would probably constitute an invocation of Miranda rights?

Accepted Answer

Statement D, "I'm done talking to you," most directly indicates a desire to stop the interrogation, which aligns with invoking the right to remain silent under Miranda rights. The other options do not clearly indicate an invocation of the right to silence or the right to an attorney.

Question 9

You are the on-duty desk sergeant at the local police station. A man walks in and says, "I killed someone and want to confess." You grab your digital voice recorder and direct the man to a chair. He sits down and tells the tale of what turns out to be a first-degree murder. You record every word, including the numerous instances in which you said, "Uh- huh" and "I see." Satisfied that the subject did, indeed, commit a murder, you place him under arrest. The confession is:

Accepted Answer

The confession is admissible as a voluntary statement because the man willingly walked into the police station to confess without being in custody or subjected to interrogation tactics that would invoke Miranda rights.

Question 10

The exclusionary rule prohibits the use of confessions obtained in violation of a person's constitutional rights and confessions that are otherwise coerced for all of the following reasons, except:

Accepted Answer

The concern for public safety is actually a Fifth Amendment issue, as it relates to the government's obligation to uphold an individual's right against self-incrimination. Therefore, confessions obtained in violation of a person's constitutional rights and confessions that are otherwise coerced are excluded from use for three main reasons: they are inherently unreliable, to do otherwise would be a violation of due process, and there is a need to hold the government accountable by holding such confessions inadmissible.

Question 11

Police actions that would "shock the conscience" were found to violate due process in:

Accepted Answer

In Rochin v. California, the police actions of forcibly pumping a suspect's stomach to obtain evidence were deemed to "shock the conscience" and violated due process.

Question 12

The first confession case decided by the Supreme Court was:

Accepted Answer

The first confession case decided by the Supreme Court was Brown v. Mississippi in 1936. This case established that the use of physical torture and coercion to extract a confession is a violation of due process under the 14th Amendment. A and B are both important cases regarding confessions, but they were decided after Brown v. Mississippi. C is a case that dealt with a public safety exception to Miranda warnings, and is not related to the issue of coerced confessions.

Question 13

The Supreme Court effectively set an expiration date on the right to counsel invocation by announcing a new 14-day break in custody rule in:

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court announced the new 14-day break in custody rule in Maryland v. Shatzer, which effectively set an expiration date on the right to counsel invocation. The Court ruled that if a suspect has been released from custody for at least 14 days and then re-interrogated, a prior invocation of the right to counsel is no longer valid and the suspect must be given a new opportunity to invoke the right.

Question 14

The Miranda warnings must be given to a suspect who is interrogated in police custody, which is defined as the suspect:

Accepted Answer

The Miranda warnings must be given to a suspect who is in police custody, which means they are not free to leave. The other options, being under investigation or facing criminal charges, are not sufficient to trigger the requirement for Miranda warnings. Being reasonably free to leave would also not trigger the requirement.

Question 15

The USA PATRIOT Act improves counter-terrorism efforts through all of the following, except:

Accepted Answer

The USA PATRIOT Act does not specifically address penalties for organized crime, as this is already covered under existing laws. The focus of the act is on improving counter-terrorism efforts.

Question 16

The precedent case for analyzing confession issues is:

Accepted Answer

Miranda v. Arizona established the requirement for law enforcement to inform criminal suspects of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, before any custodial interrogation. This case set the precedent for analyzing confession issues based on the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

Question 17

It is not unconstitutional to obtain a confession by:

Accepted Answer

Obtaining a confession through trickery and deceit is generally permissible under U.S. law, as long as it does not involve coercion or violate the suspect's rights.

Question 18

At issue in Dickerson v. United States was Section 3501 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which stated that the admissibility of statements should turn only on whether they were voluntarily made, not only on whether:

Accepted Answer

Section 3501 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 attempted to overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, which requires law enforcement to advise suspects of their rights before a custodial interrogation. The law stated that the admissibility of statements should turn only on whether they were voluntarily made, not on whether Miranda warnings had been given. The Supreme Court in Dickerson v. United States held that Miranda was a constitutional decision and could not be overturned by a statute. Therefore, the admissibility of statements must still be based on whether the Miranda warnings were given alongside whether the statement was voluntarily made.

Question 19

The Miranda warnings must be given:

Accepted Answer

The Miranda warnings are required to be given only to suspects who are in police custody and are being interrogated. This ensures that the suspects are aware of their rights, such as the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, before they make any statements that could be used against them in court.

Question 20

The U.S. Supreme Court held that confessions obtained through brutality and torture by law enforcement officials are violations of constitutionally protected due process rights in:

Accepted Answer

In Brown v. Mississippi, the U.S. Supreme Court held that confessions obtained through brutality and torture by law enforcement officials are violations of constitutionally protected due process rights. This decision established the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained through coercion or torture.

Quiz 10: The Fifth Amendment: Obtaining Information Legally