Question 1

___________ is evidence that is obtained as a result of an unreasonable search.

Accepted Answer

A

Question 2

The exclusionary rule was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in in 1914 in ______________.

Accepted Answer

The exclusionary rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court, was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Weeks v. United States in 1914.

Question 3

In ________________ the U.S. Supreme Court, held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment were incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore unreasonable searches and seizures by state officials were prohibited.

Accepted Answer

Wolf v. Colorado (1949) was the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures were incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus applied to state officials.

Question 4

In Wolf v. Colorado, the U.S. Supreme was called on to address whether evidence seized in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments could be used in state court and held that:

Accepted Answer

In Wolf v. Colorado, the U.S. Supreme Court held that while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, the exclusionary rule did not apply to state courts. This meant that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment could be used in state courts, a decision that was later overturned by Mapp v. Ohio in 1961.

Question 5

In Rochin v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court:

Accepted Answer

In Rochin v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court held that state courts could not admit evidence obtained in a manner that shocks the conscience or constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles of justice, which is considered an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Question 6

Which of the following statements is true about the silver platter doctrine?

Accepted Answer

The silver platter doctrine allowed state law enforcement officers to collect evidence and then hand it over to federal prosecutors, even if the evidence was obtained in a manner that violated the suspect's constitutional rights, effectively circumventing the exclusionary rule. This practice was deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1960 case Elkins v. United States, making all the statements true.

Question 7

In the 1961 case Mapp v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court took the following stance regarding the Exclusionary Rule and state courts:

Accepted Answer

In Mapp v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be applied to state governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision made the exclusionary rule (which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in court) applicable to state courts, emphasizing its role as a deterrent and an essential part of the Fourth Amendment rights.

Question 8

Arguments in support of the exclusionary rule include:

Accepted Answer

The answer of Arguments in support of the exclusionary rule...

Question 9

The impact of excluding evidence seized during an unreasonable search is:

Accepted Answer

The exclusion of evidence obtained through unreasonable searches, as mandated by the exclusionary rule, has indeed led to an increased emphasis on police professionalism. This rule serves as a deterrent against illegal searches by law enforcement, encouraging adherence to constitutional standards.

Question 10

Federal Agent Smith needs additional evidence to arrest Jack, who is suspected of murdering his wife. Time is of the essence as Agent Smith just learned that Jack is scheduled to fly out of the country tomorrow morning to return to his home in South America. Uncertain that he has sufficient time to secure and execute a search warrant before Jack leaves the United States, Agent Smith contacts Sgt. Cane in the city where Jack currently resides and asks Sgt. Cane to go and search Jack's house to find evidence to support the murder charge. Assume Sgt. Cane proceeded to search Jack's home without a warrant. Applying the Court's holding in Wolf v. Colorado, which of the following statements is true about any evidence obtained by Sgt. Cane?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Federal Agent Smith needs additional evidence to...

Question 11

Federal Agent Smith needs additional evidence to arrest Jack, who is suspected of murdering his wife. Time is of the essence as Agent Smith just learned that Jack is scheduled to fly out of the country tomorrow morning to return to his home in South Americ a Uncertain that he has sufficient time to secure and execute a search warrant before Jack leaves the United States, Agent Smith contacts Sgt. Cane in the city where Jack currently resides and asks Sgt. Cane to go and search Jack's house to find evidence to support the murder charge. Assume Sgt. Cane proceeded to search Jack's home without a warrant. Applying the Court's holding in Elkins v. United States, which of the following statements is true about any evidence obtained by Sgt. Cane?

Accepted Answer

The evidence would be inadmissible in a federal trial against Jack for the murder of his wife because, according to the Court's holding in Elkins v. United States, evidence obtained by state officers during an unreasonable search cannot be admitted in federal court, especially if federal agents were involved in the search, even indirectly, by soliciting local law enforcement's help.

Question 12

Which of the following statements represents an argument against the exclusionary rule?

Accepted Answer

The exclusionary rule is criticized for its impact on the prosecution and the criminal trial process, not on the judiciary's respect or siding with the victim. Statements A and C outline arguments against the rule by highlighting its unintended consequences on the prosecution and the trial's focus on evidence, respectively.

Question 13

Suggested alternate remedies to the exclusionary rule include:

Accepted Answer

All of the options listed (A, B, and C) are suggested alternatives to the exclusionary rule. These alternatives focus on directly addressing the actions of police officers through civil, administrative, or criminal penalties, rather than excluding evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Question 14

The ______________ is a practice where federal agents rely on evidence seized by state officers in violation of the Fourth Amendment for use in federal court.

Accepted Answer

The Silver Platter Doctrine allowed federal officers to use evidence in federal court that was obtained by state officers in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as if it were handed to them on a "silver platter." This practice was eventually limited by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of constitutional rights across all levels of law enforcement.

Question 15

The first step taken when challenging the reasonableness of a search is:

Accepted Answer

The first step in challenging the reasonableness of a search is to file a pretrial motion challenging the search. This legal action requests the court to review the circumstances of the search and determine if it was conducted legally according to constitutional standards.

Question 16

If a pretrial motion to suppress evidence is filed in federal court, who bears the burden of proving the reasonableness of the search?

Accepted Answer

The answer of If a pretrial motion to suppress evidence...

Question 17

In a pretrial challenge to a search conducted based on a warrant, which of the following statements is true?

Accepted Answer

A warrant is presumed valid and issued on probable cause. The defendant challenging the warrant must prove it lacked probable cause, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant. However, the standard for proving a warrant lacked probable cause is not specified as "clear and convincing evidence" in this context, making option C incorrect.

Question 18

If evidence was seized from a warrantless search, which of the following statements is true?

Accepted Answer

Law enforcement officers must prove that a warrantless search falls within an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for the evidence to be admissible in court.

Question 19

Defendant Dan timely filed a motion to suppress evidence at his trial for kidnapping. The trial judge ruled against Dan and allowed the evidence to be admitted into Dan's trial. Dan was ultimately convicted of kidnapping. Dan appeals his conviction based on the admission of the evidence that was the subject of his motion to suppress. What is a possible outcome of Dan's case at the appellate level?

Accepted Answer

Both options B and C are correct because if the appellate court agrees with Dan that the evidence should have been suppressed, it could still affirm the conviction if it finds the error to be harmless (B). Similarly, if the prosecution can argue successfully that the evidence did not influence the trial's outcome, the conviction can be affirmed (C).

Question 20

The legal test applied for standing in claims of an alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure requires all of the following, except:

Accepted Answer

The legal test for standing in Fourth Amendment claims involves both an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy and a subjectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched. Therefore, both A and B are required, making C (which suggests both are needed) incorrect in the context of being an exception.

Quiz 11: The Exclusionary Rule