Question 1

Factors considered by the court in determining whether a reasonable person in the suspect's position would conclude that they are not free to leave include the:

Accepted Answer

The court considers all these factors - actions of the police, location of the encounter, and time of the encounter - in determining whether a reasonable person would feel they are not free to leave. These elements collectively influence the perceived freedom of the individual in the situation.

Question 2

In which case did the U.S. Supreme Court rule that the police create the functional equivalent of an interrogation when they engage in activity they "should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect"?

Accepted Answer

Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) is the case where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the police create the functional equivalent of an interrogation when they engage in activity they "should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect." This concept broadened the understanding of what constitutes an interrogation beyond direct questioning.

Question 3

In which case did the U.S. Supreme Court hold that routine traffic stops do not constitute custody?

Accepted Answer

Berkemer v. McCarty held that routine traffic stops do not constitute custody for the purposes of Miranda warnings, distinguishing them from the situation where a suspect is formally arrested or otherwise detained in a manner that resembles formal arrest.

Question 4

In which case did the U.S. Supreme Court hold that once suspects have invoked their right to counsel, they may not be questioned about any other offense unrelated to the one for which they were arrested and about which they have asserted their right to remain silent?

Accepted Answer

Arizona v. Roberson is the case where the U.S. Supreme Court held that once suspects have invoked their right to counsel, they cannot be questioned about any other offense unrelated to the one for which they were arrested and about which they have asserted their right to remain silent. This decision extended the protections of the Fifth Amendment and the Edwards v. Arizona ruling, emphasizing the importance of the right to counsel during custodial interrogation.

Question 5

In which case did the U.S. Supreme Court rule that requesting a lawyer at a bail hearing is not considered an invocation of the right to counsel for crimes with which the suspect had not yet been charged because the request is construed as limited to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at trial, not as an invocation of the Fifth Amendment right to counsel prior to questioning?

Accepted Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court in McNeil v. Wisconsin ruled that a defendant's request for counsel at a bail hearing does not constitute an invocation of the Fifth Amendment right to counsel for other offenses not yet charged. This decision distinguishes between the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which applies to specific charges and proceedings, and the broader Fifth Amendment right to counsel during custodial interrogation for any offense.

Question 6

Miranda warnings may be waived by the suspect so long as the written waiver is:

Accepted Answer

Miranda warnings can be waived by the suspect if the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, meaning the suspect fully understands their rights and the consequences of waiving them, and does so of their own free will.

Question 7

Which clause in the Sixth Amendment states that the accused has the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him"?

Accepted Answer

The clause in the Sixth Amendment that states the accused has the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him" is known as the Confrontation Clause.

Question 8

In which case did the U.S. Supreme Court declare that statements of absent witnesses may be admitted only when the witness is unavailable or if the defense had prior opportunity to cross-examine?

Accepted Answer

Crawford v. Washington is the case where the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause gives defendants the right to confront witnesses against them and that testimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial are admissible only where the witness is unavailable, and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.

Question 9

The exclusionary rule provides that:

Accepted Answer

The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States that bars the use of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, specifically the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, from being used in a court of law to prove guilt in a criminal trial.

Question 10

In which case did the U.S. Supreme Court state that the fact the materials were seized illegally "is no legal objection to the admission of the evidence"?

Accepted Answer

In Adams v. New York, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the fact materials were seized illegally did not constitute a legal objection to the admission of the evidence. This case reflects an earlier view on the admissibility of evidence obtained through illegal searches, which has since evolved through subsequent rulings.

Question 11

In which case did the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously hold that the evidence seized in an illegal manner should have been excluded by the trial court and remanded the case?

Accepted Answer

Weeks v. United States (1914) established the exclusionary rule at the federal level, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, is inadmissible in federal courts. This case laid the groundwork for the exclusionary rule to be applied to state courts later on.

Question 12

Which case established the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?

Accepted Answer

Nardone v. United States established the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, which extends the exclusionary rule to evidence indirectly obtained as a result of illegal government action.

Question 13

In which case did the U.S. Supreme Court apply the exclusionary rule to the states?

Accepted Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court applied the exclusionary rule to the states in the case of Mapp v. Ohio (1961), ruling that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," is inadmissible in state courts.

Question 14

Which of the following is one of the two purposes that the exclusionary rule is designed to serve?

Accepted Answer

The exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct by preventing evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights from being used in court.

Question 15

In which case did the U.S. Supreme Court hold that to claim Fourth Amendment protection, a defendant must have standing?

Accepted Answer

Rakas v. Illinois is the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that to claim Fourth Amendment protection, a defendant must demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that this expectation is reasonable.

Question 16

In which case did the U.S. Supreme Court create the attenuation exception?

Accepted Answer

The attenuation exception was established in Wong Sun v. United States, where the Supreme Court held that evidence obtained as a result of a violation of the Fourth Amendment could be admissible if the connection between the illegal police conduct and the evidence becomes sufficiently attenuated.

Question 17

In the case of United States v. Leon, the U.S. Supreme Court held that evidence obtained by the police acting _____________ is admissible.

Accepted Answer

In United States v. Leon, the U.S. Supreme Court held that evidence obtained by the police acting in good faith on a defective search warrant can be admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

Question 18

The inevitable discovery exception:

Accepted Answer

The inevitable discovery exception allows evidence that was obtained illegally to be admitted in court if the prosecution can show that the evidence would have been discovered eventually through lawful means.

Question 19

Criminal procedure law attempts to balance the differing goals of the due process and crime control models.

Accepted Answer

Criminal procedure law is designed to balance the need for effective law enforcement (crime control model) with the protection of individual rights and fair treatment (due process model).

Question 20

The U.S. Supreme Court has the final word on the administration of any state action.

Accepted Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court has the final say on matters of federal law and the constitutionality of state actions, but it does not administer state actions. State actions are primarily governed by state laws and administered by state and local authorities.

Quiz 6: Criminal Procedure