Question 1

A __________ is an exploratory inspection of a person or property based on probable cause of law violation.

Accepted Answer

A search is an exploratory inspection of a person or property based on probable cause of law violation. A frisk is a pat-down search for weapons or contraband that is less intrusive and requires less probable cause. A seizure is the lawful taking of property or person as evidence of a crime, and an arrest is the lawful taking of a person into custody for the purpose of charging them with a crime.

Question 2

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a "stop and frisk" was __________.The case involved a Cleveland police officer who had been a plainclothes detective for thirty-five years and had patrolled a certain section of the downtown area for shoplifters and pickpockets for nearly thirty years.

Accepted Answer

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a "stop and frisk" was Terry v. Ohio. This case involved a Cleveland police officer who stopped and frisked John W. Terry after observing his suspicious behavior, and a loaded gun was found on Terry. The Supreme Court ruled that the stop and frisk was constitutional because the officer had reasonable suspicion that Terry was involved in criminal activity and the frisk was limited to a pat-down search for weapons. This case established the legal authority for police officers to stop and frisk individuals if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and to prevent harm to the officer or others.

Question 3

A __________ is limited to a search for weapons that may pose an immediate threat to the officer's safety.

Accepted Answer

A frisk, also known as a pat-down, is a limited search specifically for weapons that may pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others nearby. It is not a full search and does not require a warrant or probable cause, but must be based on a reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous.

Question 4

A rule stating that evidence seized with a defective warrant,not based on probable cause,is admissible in court if the police acted in good faith in presenting the evidence and the error was made by the judge is called a(n)__________.

Accepted Answer

The rule described here is known as the "good faith exception." It allows for evidence seized with a defective warrant or without probable cause to be admissible in court if the police acted in good faith and the mistake was made by the judge, rather than the police themselves. The exclusionary rule, on the other hand, generally requires that evidence obtained illegally or unconstitutionally be excluded from trial. Reasonable suspicion and the public safety exception are other legal concepts related to law enforcement and criminal procedure, but they do not specifically apply to evidence obtained with a defective warrant or lack of probable cause.

Question 5

A __________ may be conducted without a warrant if they are incident to a lawful arrest;are conducted with voluntary consent;or involve evidence in plain view,automobiles and their contents,or open fields and abandoned property.

Accepted Answer

A search may be conducted without a warrant if any of the mentioned scenarios are met, whereas frisk and seizure require specific circumstances and limitations. Arrest is the act of taking a person into custody, and not related to the question of warrantless searches.

Question 6

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest was __________.Police officers went to the defendant's home with a warrant to arrest him for the burglary of a coin shop.The defendant was not home,but his wife allowed the police to enter and wait for his return.When the defendant arrived,the police showed him the warrant,placing him under arrest,and proceeded to search the house.They found the coins that he was suspected of stealing and used them as evidence to convict him of burglary.On appeal,the U.S.Supreme Court overturned the conviction on the ground that the search of the defendant's entire house was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Accepted Answer

Chimel v. California established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest, but limited it to the area under immediate control of the arrestee, known as the "Chimel rule." This means that police may search the arrestee's person and the area within their immediate reach, but not the entire house or other areas outside of their immediate control.

Question 7

A legal principle that holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from use in trials is called a(n)__________.

Accepted Answer

The exclusionary rule is a legal principle that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a court of law. This means that evidence that is obtained through illegal search and seizure, for example, is excluded and cannot be used to prosecute the accused. The purpose of this rule is to deter police misconduct and protect citizens' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Question 8

The landmark case that applied the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to searches was decided in __________.

Accepted Answer

The landmark case that applied the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to searches was Mapp v. Ohio, decided in 1961. This case established the exclusionary rule, which prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being used in court.

Question 9

There are exceptions to the '__________' rule when circumstances indicate a threat of physical violence or reason to believe that evidence will be destroyed if advance notice is given.

Accepted Answer

The phrase "knock and announce" refers to the rule that law enforcement officers must identify themselves and announce their presence to occupants of a residence or property before entering. However, there are exceptions to this rule in cases where announcing themselves would pose a threat to officers or allow for the destruction of evidence. Therefore, option C is the correct answer. Options A, B, and D are not related to the topic of search and seizure procedures.

Question 10

A __________ is a patting down of the outer clothing of a suspect based on reasonable suspicion,designed to protect a police officer from attack with a weapon while an inquiry is made.

Accepted Answer

A frisk, also known as a Terry frisk, allows a police officer to pat down the outer clothing of a suspect based on reasonable suspicion of a weapon without a warrant. The purpose of the frisk is to ensure the safety of the officer while an inquiry is made.

Question 11

The Fifth Amendment provides for __________.

Accepted Answer

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides for the rights of individuals accused of crimes, including the use of grand juries, protection against double jeopardy (being tried for the same crime twice), and protection from self-incrimination. Therefore, all of the above options (A, B, and C) are correct.

Question 12

A five-point warning derived from a case in Arizona.Its purpose is to provide fair notice to crime suspects of their basic constitutional rights.

Accepted Answer

The Miranda warning is a five-point warning that is derived from the case Miranda v. Arizona, and is meant to provide fair notice to crime suspects of their basic constitutional rights. The other options, Melissa warning, Melendez warning, and Maria warning are not commonly used or recognized forms of warnings in the legal system.

Question 13

A situation in which a police officer has good reason to believe that criminal activity may be occurring is called a(n)__________.This permits a brief investigative inquiry of the suspect.

Accepted Answer

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that allows a police officer to briefly detain and question an individual if they have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be occurring. This is a lower standard than probable cause, which is required for an arrest or search warrant. The officer must be able to articulate specific facts that led to their suspicion, but it does not require certainty or direct evidence of criminal activity.

Question 14

The term ____________ refers to the confiscation of property occurring when there is some meaningful interference with the individual's possession of property.

Accepted Answer

Seizure refers to the confiscation of property occurring when there is some meaningful interference with the individual's possession of property. Frisk refers to a pat-down search for weapons or contraband, search refers to the examination of a person's property and surroundings for evidence of a crime, and arrest refers to the taking of a person into custody for the purpose of charging them with a crime.

Question 15

The __________ states that police may omit the Miranda warning prior to questioning a suspect when public safety is jeopardized.

Accepted Answer

The public safety exception allows police to omit the Miranda warning when they believe that public safety may be at risk. This exception was established in New York v. Quarles, where the Supreme Court ruled that police could question a suspect without informing him of his Miranda rights after he had been arrested for carrying a hidden weapon. The Court reasoned that public safety was at stake and that the officers acted reasonably in order to protect the public.

Question 16

The right of police to search without a warrant items that are in "plain view" is another well-established exception to the warrant requirement.This exception was explained in the Supreme Court's 1971 decision in __________.The Court specified two conditions for a plain view search: (1)The police officer's presence where the plain view search is made must be lawful,and (2)the discovery must be inadvertent.That is,if police have probable cause before the search,they must obtain a warrant.

Accepted Answer

The plain view exception was explained in the Supreme Court's 1971 decision in Coolidge v. New Hampshire. The Court specified two conditions for a plain view search: (1) The police officer's presence where the plain view search is made must be lawful, and (2) the discovery must be inadvertent.

Question 17

The right of police to search without a warrant items that are in "plain view" is another well established exception to the warrant requirement.This exception was explained in the Supreme Court's 1971 decision in Coolidge v.New Hampshire.The Court specified the following condition(s)for a plain view search:

Accepted Answer

In order for a plain view search to be a lawful exception to the warrant requirement, both conditions listed in choices A and B must be met. The police officer's presence where the search is made must be lawful, meaning they must have a right to be where they are and to observe what they see. Additionally, the discovery of the item must be inadvertent, meaning the officer did not have prior knowledge or intent to search for the item. Therefore, both choices A and B are necessary conditions for the plain view exception to apply.

Question 18

The __________ to the Constitution includes protection against self-incrimination.

Accepted Answer

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution includes protection against self-incrimination, along with other rights such as the right to a fair trial, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to due process. This amendment is an important part of the Bill of Rights and helps to ensure that individuals are not forced to incriminate themselves in legal proceedings.

Question 19

__________ play a central role in criminal procedure because they are the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system.

Accepted Answer

Police play a central role in criminal procedure as they are responsible for the enforcement of laws, investigation of crimes, and the apprehension of offenders, acting as the initial gatekeepers to the criminal justice system.

Question 20

The Court concluded that cases must be decided on the basis of their own facts;generally,however,police officers who observe unusual conduct that leads them to conclude that criminal activity may be involved and that the persons may be armed and dangerous are entitled to conduct "a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons" that might be used to assault them.Such a frisk was held to be reasonable under the __________,and any weapons seized may be introduced in evidence.

Accepted Answer

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but it allows for limited searches, such as a frisk, of individuals who police officers have reason to believe may be armed and dangerous. This is known as the "Stop and Frisk" rule established in the landmark case Terry v. Ohio. Any weapons seized during the frisk can be used as evidence in court.

Quiz 5: Criminal Procedure and the Police