Case Law Flashcards
Which case is known as the stop and frisk case?
A) Carroll vs US
B) Miranda vs Arizona
C) Terry vs Ohio
C) Terry vs Ohio
An officer can briefly detain a person, based upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, long enough to dispel the suspicion or to allow it to rise to the level of probable cause for an arrest.
A) Chimel vs California
B) Terry vs Ohio
C) Tennessee vs Gardner
B) Terry vs Ohio
In which case the Court reasoned that searches “incident to arrest” are limited to the area within the immediate control of the suspect.
A) Miranda vs Arizona
B) Chimel vs California
C) Gonzalez vs Oregon
B) Chimel vs California
In which case the court ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of deadly force unless it is necessary to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of violence to the officer or the community.
A) Whren vs US
B) Chimel vs California
C) Tennessee vs Gardner
C) Tennessee vs Gardner
During a chase, police officer Elton Hymon shot 15-year-old with a hollow tip bullet to prevent him from escaping over a fence. The suspect was suspected of burglarizing a nearby house. Hymon admitted that before he shot he saw no evidence that the suspect was armed and “figured” he was unarmed.
A) Tennessee vs Garden
B) Tennessee vs Gardner
C) Graham vs Connor
B) Tennessee vs Gardner
Which case ruled that a defendant was required to be warned before questioning that he had the right to remain silent, and that anything he said can be used against him in a court of law. A defendant was required to be told that he had the right to an attorney, and if he could not afford an attorney, one was to be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desired.
A) Carroll vs US
B) Miranda vs Arizona
C) Guideon vs Wainwright
B) Miranda vs Arizona
The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody.
A) Terry vs Ohio
B) Chimel vs Ohio
C) Miranda vs Arizona
C) Miranda vs Arizona
In which case the court held that as long as officers have a reasonable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred, they may stop any vehicle.
A) Miranda vs Arizona
B) Whren vs US
C) Tennessee vs US
B) Whren vs US
The Court reasoned that searches “incident to arrest” are limited to the area within the immediate control of the suspect
A) beck vs Ohio
B) U.S. vs Santana
C) Chimel vs California
C) Chimel vs California
In a unanimous opinion the Court concluded that the anonymous tip did not meet the minimum requirements to perform a warrantless search
A) Florida v. J.L
B) Beck v. Ohio
C) Miranda v. Arizona
A) Florida v. J.L
The Court also reasoned that the tactile detection of contraband during a lawful pat-down search does not constitute any further invasion of privacy, therefore warrantless seizure was permissible.
A) Beck v Ohio
B) Minnesota v. Dickerson
C) Chimel v. California
B) Minnesota v. Dickerson
The court ruled that The “reasonableness of a particular use of force” must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”
A) Beck v. Ohio
B) Graham v. Connor
C) Brown v. I.S.
B) Graham v. Connor
declared that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.
A) Graham v Ohio
B) Mapp v. Ohio
C) Tennessee v. Garner
B) Mapp v. Ohio
The Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception does not permit a police officer without a warrant to enter private property to search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house. In an 8–1 opinion authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court held that its own Fourth Amendment jurisprudence regarding the home and the “curtilage” of one’s home (the area immediately surrounding it) clearly prevents officers from entering and searching without a warrant, even if the object searched is an automobile. The Court found that the area searched (the back of the driveway) was indeed the curtilage of the defendant’s home, and thus the Fourth Amendment’s highest degree of protection applies there. Although warrantless searches of automobiles are permissible in limited circumstances, the warrantless search of an automobile parked within the curtilage of one’s home is not permissible.
A) dickerson v Minnesota
B) collins v Virginia
C) garner v Tennessee
B) Collins v Virginia
United stated v. Santana
“Hot pursuit doctrine”
Entering third party to apprehend
The Court upheld the search. Relying on the the Court’s decision in United States v. Watson (1976), Justice Rehnquist argued that by standing on her porch when the officers arrived, Santana was “not in an area where she had any expectation of privacy.” Since the police had probable cause to arrest and search her at that point, their behavior was consistent with the Court’s Watson precedent.
