Question 1

The admission into evidence of a suspect's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test does not violate the suspect's ________.

Accepted Answer

The privilege against self-incrimination, protected by the Fifth Amendment, does not extend to the refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test. This is because such tests are considered non-testimonial evidence and do not require a suspect to verbally incriminate themselves.

Question 2

Which of the following cases carves out a "public safety" exception to the Miranda rule?

Accepted Answer

New York v. Quarles established a "public safety" exception to the Miranda rule, allowing law enforcement to question a suspect without providing Miranda warnings if there is an immediate threat to public safety.

Question 3

In which of the following cases the Supreme Court held that confessions and admissions are involuntary and invalid under the Constitution only if coercive police activity is involved.

Accepted Answer

Colorado v. Connelly established that confessions are deemed involuntary and thus inadmissible under the Constitution only if they result from coercive police activity. This decision clarified that the mere presence of a mental condition does not automatically render a confession involuntary unless it is directly linked to coercive police conduct.

Question 4

In Pennsylvania v. Muniz, the Court ruled that the police may validly ask ________ questions of persons suspected of driving while intoxicated and videotape their responses without giving them the Miranda warnings.

Accepted Answer

In Pennsylvania v. Muniz, the Supreme Court ruled that police may ask routine questions of persons suspected of driving while intoxicated and videotape their responses without giving them the Miranda warnings. These questions are considered part of the booking process and not an interrogation that would require Miranda warnings.

Question 5

The Miranda rule protection against self-incrimination prohibits only ________ self-incrimination and does not prohibit ________ self-incrimination.

Accepted Answer

The Miranda rule specifically protects against testimonial self-incrimination, meaning individuals cannot be compelled to speak or testify against themselves. It does not protect against physical self-incrimination, such as providing fingerprints or DNA samples.

Question 6

In ________, the Court held that the request for counsel at a bail hearing is different from a request for counsel when being interrogated by the police for a crime.

Accepted Answer

In McNeil v. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court distinguished between a defendant's request for counsel at a bail hearing and a request for counsel during police interrogation, indicating that these are different contexts with different implications for the right to counsel.

Question 7

What did the Court established in Davis v. United States regarding the continuation of questioning in cases where a suspect has knowingly and voluntarily waived his or her Miranda rights?

Accepted Answer

The Court in Davis v. United States held that questioning can continue unless the suspect makes an unambiguous invocation of the right to counsel.

Question 8

Failure to give a suspect the Miranda warnings does not require suppression of the ________ fruits of the suspect's unwarned but voluntary statements.

Accepted Answer

The correct answer is D) Physical. The Supreme Court has held that the failure to give a suspect Miranda warnings does not require suppression of the physical fruits of the suspect's unwarned but voluntary statements. This is because the primary purpose of Miranda warnings is to protect against the inherently compelling pressures of custodial interrogation and to preserve the privilege against self-incrimination. Physical evidence obtained as a result of voluntary statements, even if made without Miranda warnings, does not violate this principle.

Question 9

In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the Court held that a suspect must make an unambiguous invocation of the right to remain silent; otherwise, statements made will be considered ________ and a waiver of the right.

Accepted Answer

In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the Supreme Court ruled that a suspect must clearly invoke their right to remain silent for it to be recognized. If they fail to do so unambiguously, any statements they make can be considered voluntary and thus a waiver of their right to silence.

Question 10

In which decision did the Supreme Court further reiterate the fact a suspect must expressly invoke his or her Fifth Amendment right?

Accepted Answer

In Salinas v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that a suspect must expressly invoke his or her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in order for such protection to apply, emphasizing that simply remaining silent is not enough to invoke the Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.

Question 11

How can a defendant's refusal to answer questions by law enforcement before any arrest or placement in custody be used during trial?

Accepted Answer

A defendant's refusal to answer questions by law enforcement before any arrest or placement in custody can be used as evidence of guilt during a trial. This is because the prosecution may argue that the refusal indicates the defendant's awareness of their guilt.

Question 12

A defendant's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test can be used as evidence of guilt later in court.

Accepted Answer

In many jurisdictions, a defendant's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test can be introduced as evidence in court, often under the theory that the refusal indicates consciousness of guilt. This is based on implied consent laws, where drivers are deemed to have consented to such tests as a condition of their driving privileges.

Question 13

Concern for public safety does not represent an exception to the Miranda rule.

Accepted Answer

Concern for public safety can represent an exception to the Miranda rule, allowing law enforcement to question a suspect without providing Miranda warnings if the information sought is necessary to avert an immediate and serious threat to public safety.

Question 14

A confession made after proper Miranda warnings and waiver of rights is admissible even if the police obtained an earlier voluntary but unwarned admission from the suspect.

Accepted Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court in Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985), held that a voluntary confession made after receiving Miranda warnings is admissible, even if it follows an earlier voluntary but unwarned admission, as long as the initial non-coercive environment is not exploited to coerce the subsequent confession.

Question 15

As long as police behavior is legal, a waiver is considered voluntary under the Constitution and its admissibility is governed by state law.

Accepted Answer

A waiver is considered voluntary under the Constitution as long as the police behavior is legal. The admissibility of the waiver is then governed by state law.

Question 16

The warning of the right to remain silent does not have to be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court.

Accepted Answer

The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court, as part of the Miranda rights established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

Question 17

A valid waiver of the Miranda rights allows the police to ask questions of the suspect about any crime as long as the interrogation does not involve misrepresentation or deception.

Accepted Answer

A valid waiver of Miranda rights means the suspect has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given up their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. This allows the police to question the suspect about any crime, provided the interrogation tactics are lawful and do not involve coercion, threats, misrepresentation, or deception.

Question 18

The waiver of rights has to be complete and unconditional to be valid.

Accepted Answer

A waiver of rights does not necessarily have to be complete and unconditional to be valid; it can be partial or subject to conditions, depending on the context and agreement between the parties involved.

Question 19

There is a requirement that the police produce a lawyer on call.

Accepted Answer

Police are not required to provide a lawyer on call. They must inform the arrested individual of their right to an attorney, and if the individual cannot afford one, the court will appoint a public defender.

Question 20

The Miranda warnings need not to be given in a particular wording format as long as they reasonably convey to the suspect his or her rights.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has held that the Miranda warnings do not need to follow a specific script, but must adequately inform the suspect of their rights to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in court, the right to consult with an attorney and to have the attorney present during questioning, and that if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them if they so desire.

Quiz 19: Confessions and Admissions: Cases Weakening Miranda