1-33 Gov Test #4

Front 1

In Terry v. Ohio, 3 men were stopped by the police for acting suspiciously in front of a store. The Supreme Court ruled that it was reasonable to stop,frisk,and search.

Back 1

True

Front 2

A person cannot be arbitrarily stopped and detained by the police.

Back 2

True

Front 3

To determine if you have been arbitrarily stopped, you can ask the police this question:

Back 3

Am I free to go?

Front 4

Stop and Frisk laws permit an officer to stop and question a person on the reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is in the process of committing, or is about to commit a crime.

Back 4

True

Front 5

If a police officer frisks someone, he can go into your purse or pockets.

Back 5

False

Front 6

When an officer frisks someone, they are doing so because they believe they might be in some personal danger.

Back 6

True

Front 7

If you are arrested, you will be searched. This is called a search pursuant to a lawful arrest.

Back 7

True

Front 8

If you are going to be arrested, the officer must have:

Back 8

Probable Cause

Front 9

In Sibron v. New York, a police officer witnesses a man talking with known drug addicts, but does not hear any conversations or see any drugs being transferred. He searched the man. The Supreme Court ruled that the drugs seized from Sibron had to be suppressed.

Back 9

True

Front 10

In New Jersey v. T.L.O., a young girl was caught smoking in the bathroom. The Supreme Court ruled that the school administration must meet a standard of “ probable cause ” to search.

Back 10

False

Front 11

In Mapp v. Ohio, the police broke into her home without a warrant and searched. The Supreme Court ruled that the entry into her home was lawful.

Back 11

False

Front 12

There were three exceptions to the warrant requirement discussed in class. Which is NOT one of them?

Back 12

Reasonable suspicion

Front 13

In order for the police to use “ Hot Pursuit ” to enter a home, there must have been a “ chase of the suspect” & the police must have “ reasonable suspicion”.

Back 13

False

Front 14

Normally, a police officer canny enter a home without a warrant. If the police do obtain a warrant, it must be very exact.

Back 14

True

Front 15

If someone breaks into your home and steals your T.V., you can use deadly forces if you shoot them before the reach the exterior of your home.

Back 15

False

Front 16

If the police arrive at your home without a warrant and you allow them inside, you can ask them to leave your home at any time.

Back 16

True

Front 17

In Chimel v. CA., police obtained a warrant to arrest a man for burglary of a coin shop. They searched his house, but only had an arrest warrant. The Supreme Court ruled that a search warrant was needed & they suppressed the evidence.

Back 17

True

Front 18

In Mincey v. Arizona, where an undercover officer was killed, the Supreme Court stayed that the police should have obtained a warrant prior to the search. Evidences was suppressed.

Back 18

True

Front 19

The Jury verdict required in a civil trial is 12 of 12 jurors must agree to the verdict.

Back 19

False

Front 20

A person can claim the 5th amendment in both civil and criminal trials.

Back 20

False

Front 21

To find a person guilty in a criminal trial, you need a preponderance of evidence.

Back 21

False

Front 22

The Supreme Court has used the term reasonable expectation of privacy in explaining the reason why a warrant is required when the government wants to eavesdrop on a conversation.

Back 22

True

Front 23

In CA. v Greenwood, police took a person’s garbage and searched it without a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled that the police needed to obtain a warrant for such a search.

Back 23

False

Front 24

In Massachusetts v Sheppard, a boyfriend murders his girlfriend, but the police use the wrong warrant to search his house. The Supreme Court applied the Good Faith Exception.

Back 24

True

Front 25

In Ker. v CA., Ker & his wide were arrested in their apartment after the police let themselves in. The Supreme Court ruled that the police did have probable cause to arrest.

Back 25

True

Front 26

A furtive movement is the equivalent of reasonable suspicion for a police officer.

Back 26

False

Front 27

A warrant is always required when the police want to search a car.

Back 27

False

Front 28

The fourth amendment, like all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, is a check & restraint on federal or state action.

Back 28

True

Front 29

If you are in friend’s home and the police arrest you, but do so after an illegal search, you can claim the Constitutional rights of the home owner to protect you because you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy there.

Back 29

False

Front 30

Anything that is illegal which is in plain view to any officer can be confiscated by the officer and an arrest can be made.

Back 30

True

Front 31

If the Court makes a mistake on a warrant, and the police search a residence lacking a valid warrant, all of the evidence seized cannot be used in court because it was obtained unlawfully.

Back 31

False

Front 32

If a person’s fourth amendment rights have been violated, the evidence seized when the violation occurred cannot be admitted in a court of law. The evidence would be suppressed.

Back 32

True

Front 33

In schmerber v. CA., a drunk driving accident forced the police to search the defendants blood. No consent was given. Supreme Court ruled it was a case of exigency circumstance.

Back 33

True