Chapter 4 Quiz

The Supreme Court has long upheld traffic checkpoints at the country's borders to serve the national interest. However, in Brown v. Texas, a balancing test was established to determine the constitutionality of roadblocks. This balancing test evaluated the lawfulness of roadblocks and considers three factors. These include the gravity of the public concerns served by establishing the roadblock, the degree to which the roadblock is likely to succeed in serving the public interest, and -the race of the persons in the vehicle -the necessity of the roadblock and consideration of alternative methods that are less intrusive to the motoring public -the severity with which the roadblock interferes with individual liberty -the possibility of the persons being armed

the severity with which the roadblock interferes with individual liberty

All searches must be conducted under the authority of a warrant unless -there are exigent circumstances -a supervisor authorizes the officer to search without a warrant -none of these -the court is distant

there are exigent circumstances

In United States v. Ramirez the Court said that if officers attempting to serve a search warrant are not admitted by occupants following a knock-notice announcement, forcible entry may be made, but it also said that -any damage would be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment -officers would be personally liable and subject to punitive civil damages -unnecessary damage to the structure may make the entry unreasonable and negate the search -officers must give residents a voucher for any damage done.

unnecessary damage to the structure may make the entry unreasonable and negate the search

The U.S. Supreme Court has established requirements for using informants in the establishment of probable cause. Although a two-pronged test was initially adopted, it was later abandoned in favor of a totality of the circumstances test. Which court case was responsible for this more practical concept? -Terry v. Ohio -Illinois v. Gates -Mapp v. Ohio -Miranda v. Arizona

Illinois v. Gates

The exclusionary rule established that the police cannot introduce evidence into court obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure, regardless of how relevant it is to a case. What was the result of Mapp v. Ohio? -That it (exclusionary rule) only applied to federal cases -That it (exclusionary rule) applied also to courts at the state level. -Only evidence obtained by warrant was admissible -Only evidence obtained by consent was admissible

That it (exclusionary rule) applied also to courts at the state level.

The most important factor in determining the legality of a warrantless trash inspection is the physical location of the retrieved trash. Police cannot trespass to gain access to the trash location, and, generally, the trash must not be located within the curtilage, which the Supreme Court has described as "the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." In other words, curtilage is that portion of a residence that is not open to the public. Which court case further defined the curtilage question? -Chambers v. Maroney -Kyllo v. United States -United States v. Dunn -Michigan v. Sitz

United States v. Dunn

Organizing a search includes -dividing duties -assigning a search pattern -giving instructions -all of these

all of these

The goal of any search during an investigation, at the crime scene or elsewhere, is to discover evidence that helps to -all of these -establish when the crime was committed -explain how and why the crime was committed -establish that a crime was committed -identify who committed the crime.

all of these

To conduct an effective search -all of these -the officer must know the legal requirements for searching -the officer must know the elements of the crime being investigated and be organized, systematic, and thorough -the officer must know the items being searched for

all of these

In United States v. Leon it was determined that evidence that is illegally obtained by the police may be admissible in court if the police were truly not aware they were violating a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights due to a faulty warrant. This is referred to as what exception to the exclusionary rule? -exclusionary rule exception -good-faith doctrine -inevitable-discovery doctrine -fruit of the "poisonous tree" doctrine

good-faith doctrine

In Chimel v. California, courts ruled that a search incidental to a lawful arrest must be made simultaneously with the arrest and -must be confined to the building he is in -must be confined to the residence he is occupying -must be based on the mobility of the person in question -must be confined to the area within the suspect's immediate control

must be confined to the area within the suspect's immediate control

A police officer is walking down a public sidewalk and happens to observe several guns inside of a parked vehicle. Without entering the vehicle, he is easily able to obtain the serial numbers and ascertains that they are stolen. This unconcealed evidence seen by the officer engaged in a lawful activity is admissible in court under which of the following rules? -plain-view evidence -exculpatory evidence doctrine -public-domain evidence -"fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree" doctrine

plain-view evidence

To obtain either arrest warrants or search warrants, the key issue officers must present to a judge, while under oath or affirmation, is that there is sufficient -reasonable suspicion -reasonable doubt -unequivocal proof -probable cause

probable cause

Which Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids unreasonable searches and seizures? -the Fourth Amendment -the First Amendment -the Third Amendment -the Fourteenth Amendment

the Fourth Amendment

The Supreme Court has ruled that searches of vehicles incident to and contemporaneous with a lawful arrest are legal and valid. This search is limited to -the entire passenger compartment of the vehicle -only to the front seat(s) -only to the driver's seat -the entire car, including the trunk

the entire passenger compartment of the vehicle

A centuries-old rule that the courts have consistently upheld is that officers must announce their presence and intent prior to entering a premise with a search warrant. This protects a citizen's right to privacy as well reducing the possibility of violence to both the occupants and the police. An exception may be allowed if there is advance knowledge that the suspect may be heavily armed or if explosives may be present. This exception is best known as what? -the covert entry exception -the explosive entry warrant -the no-knock warrant -the knock and announce rule

the no-knock warrant

Warrantless searches of vehicles are often justified because of a vehicle's inherent mobility. Which of the following two conditions were established by Carroll v. United States regarding whether an automobile may searched without a warrant? -Probable cause for the search exists and a judge is unavailable to sign a warrant -Probable cause exists for the search and the occupants consent to the search -Probable cause exists for the search and the vehicle would be gone before a search warrant could be obtained -Reasonable suspicion exists on the part of the officer involved and the opportunity to search may be lost if the vehicle is driven away

Probable cause exists for the search and the vehicle would be gone before a search warrant could be obtained