Criminal Law And Procedure Cases

Front 1

"Significant punishment in the sentencing phase of a criminal trial shows the victim that the punishment equals the crime." This thought processes discussed in which court case?

Back 1

Chaney v. State (1970)

Front 2

The U.S. Supreme Court today hands off approach to sentencing procedures until which case?

Back 2

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000)

Front 3

According to Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which of the following describes a constitutional right to privacy?

Back 3

A fundamental right

Front 4

In Robinson v. California (1962), the supreme court ruled that a 90 day sentence for drug addiction was

Back 4

Unreasonable

Front 5

In which case to the supreme court ruled that a violates the constitution to executing mentally retarded criminal defendant?

Back 5

Atkins v. Virginia (2002)

Front 6

Which of the following cases involves the mental state "purposely?"

Back 6

State v. Stark (1992)

Front 7

Which of the following cases involves the "New York Subway Vigilante?"

Back 7

People v. Goetz (1986)

Front 8

The case of the Queen V. Dudley and Stevens (1884) involves which defense?

Back 8

imminent necessity

Front 9

Which of the following cases involved the mere presence rule?

Back 9

Bailey v. U.S.

Front 10

Which of the following cases involves being an accessory after the fact?

Back 10

State v. Chism (1983)

Front 11

Which of the following cases involves Enron in an accounting firm that was convicted of obstructing the Securities and Exchange Commission?

Back 11

U.S. v. Arthur Andersen, LLP (2004)

Front 12

In which of the following cases to the supreme court approve Oregon's Death With Dignity Act?

Back 12

Gonzalez v. Oregon (2005)

Front 13

In Regina v. Morgan (1975), Britain's highest court held that the defendants were not guilty of rape because they

Back 13

reasonably believed the victim had consented

Front 14

In one case to the U.S. Supreme Court tightened the constitutional restrictions on loitering statutes?

Back 14

Kolender v. Lawson

Front 15

In City of Chicago v. Morales, the U.S. supreme court held that the city's anti gang ordinance was unconstitutional because

Back 15

it was void for vagueness

Front 16

In 1941, the U.S. supreme court struck down a vagrancy statute that prohibited the importation of what?

Back 16

Paupers into California

Front 17

The U.S. Supreme Court that establish the principle of judicial review was

Back 17

Marbury v. Madison

Front 18

The standard definition of probable cause can be found in the U.S. supreme court's decision, ______ v. U.S.

Back 18

Brinegar

Front 19

Which case establish that there is no requirement under the fourth amendment that the offense establishing probable cause for an arrest be closely related or based on the same conduct as the offense for which the defendant was initially suspected was:

Back 19

Devenpeck v. Alford

Front 20

The first exclusionary rule case involving searches and seizures was:

Back 20

Boyd v. U.S.

Front 21

The U.S. Supreme Court made the fourth amendment exclusionary rule binding in all Federal Court cases in the 1914 case of:

Back 21

Elkins v. U.S.

Front 22

In Mapp v.Ohio (1961), the U.S. supreme court:

Back 22

made the exclusionary rule applicable against the states

Front 23

The good faith exception for errors made by the magistrate in search warrants was created by the U.S. supreme court's decision in the ______ cases.

Back 23

Sheppard and Leon

Front 24

The case which did away with a silver platter doctrine was:

Back 24

Elkins v. United States

Front 25

The case where the U.S. Supreme Court first authorized stop and frisk was:

Back 25

Terry v. Ohio

Front 26

The case of Minnesota v. Dickerson involved

Back 26

probably cause to arrest

Front 27

The location of concern in Pennsylvania v. Mimms was a:

Back 27

vehicle

Front 28

In Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) the U.S. supreme court held that a stop was justified, at least in part by:

Back 28

unprovoked flight upon seeing the police

Front 29

In Florida v. J.L. (1999), the U.S. supreme court refused to create a/an _____ exception to the reasonable suspicion requirement for a stop and frisk.

Back 29

Anonymous tip

Front 30

In Payton v. N.Y. (1980) the U.S. supreme court held that police, in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances, may not enter a suspect's home to make a:

Back 30

routine, warrantless felony arrest

Front 31

In 2000, Atwater v. City of Lago Vitsta, the U.S. supreme court held that the fourth amendment does not prohibit a warrant list arrest for

Back 31

a misdemeanor not committed in the officer's presence

Front 32

According to Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984) what most police consider when determining whether or not there are exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry into a home?

Back 32

Seriousness of the offense

Front 33

Which of the following situations have the court held violated the fourth amendment in Wilson v. Layne (1999)?

Back 33

Media ride alongs

Front 34

In Illinois v. McArthur (2001) the U.S. supreme court held that it was not a violation of the fourth amendment to detain a suspect:

Back 34

outside his home on exigent circumstances will police obtained a search warrant

Front 35

In Kennedy v. Los Angeles police department (1989), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of intrusiveness with regard to:

Back 35

anal and cavity searches

Front 36

The leading case on searching the area within the person's immediate control is:

Back 36

Chimel v. California (1969)

Front 37

According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Florida v. White (1999), if the police have probable cause to believe a vehicle itself is forfeitable contraband, the police may seize that vehicle without a warrant if:

Back 37

it is parked in a public place

Front 38

In Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a law enforcement checkpoint program aimed at:

Back 38

drugs

Front 39

In Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed:

Back 39

the arrest of persons for fine only traffic offenses

Front 40

Robbins v. California held that there are five considerations which justify the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Witches the following is not included in those considerations?

Back 40

The tinting of windows on the vehicle

Front 41

New York v. Belton is significant because it defines the extent of an allowable search of a/an _____ after a lawful arrest.

Back 41

Automobile

Front 42

In the United States v. Arvizu, the court held that a reasonable suspicion determination in an automobile stop cases is based on:

Back 42

the totality of the circumstances

Front 43

The U.S. supreme court ruled in United States v. Dunn that determining whether an eerie is considered a part of the curtilage and therefore covered by fourth amendment prosecutions rests on four factors. Which of the following is not one of those factors?

Back 43

Illegal activity in the area

Front 44

In Kyllo v. United States (2001), the court held that using a technological device to explore the details of a home that would previously of been unknowable without physical intrusion

Back 44

is a search and presumptively unreasonable without a warrant

Front 45

In the United States v. Wade, the supreme court held that a suspect is entitled to an Atty. at the lineup if the lineup is held that after

Back 45

the crime but before charges are filed

Front 46

In U.S. v. Dickerson (1999), the U.S. Court of appeals held that the requirement of Brando warnings was overruled by Federal statute because Miranda was

Back 46

a constitutional command that can be overridden by Congress

Front 47

In Miranda v. Arizona, the U.S. supreme court decided the evidence obtained by the police during custodial interrogation of a suspect cannot be used in court during the trial unless a suspect was first informed

Back 47

of the rights to withdrawal from an interview

Front 48

The leading case of the right to a court appointed lawyer it is:

Back 48

Gideon v. Wainright

Front 49

According to Groh v. Ramirez

Back 49

an officer's not entitled to qualify for immunity if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted

Front 50

In which case to the supreme court holding a police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the fourth amendment even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury are death?

Back 50

Scott v. Harris