CJUS 410 Quiz Stops and Frisks

CJUS 410 Quiz Stops and Frisks

CJUS 410 Quiz Stops and Frisks & Arrests and Searches

Module 3: Week 3 — Module 4: Week 4.

1. The case of Michigan v. Sitz (1990) challenged the constitutionality of:
2. In Maryland v. Wilson (1997), the case in which police removed and detained a passenger from a lawfully stopped vehicle, SCOTUS held that:
3. Categorical suspicion:
4. In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000), the Court held that drug interdiction checkpoints:
5. What case established the nature of a reasonable stop regarding suspected “balloon swallowers”?
6. Frisks are:
7. According to SCOTUS’s opinion in S. v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985), involving the detention of a traveler at the border, the standard of evidence necessary to detain a traveler at the border, beyond the scope of a routine custom search and inspection, is:
8. The reasonableness of roadblocks and checkpoints is determined by the following three-prong balancing test: the gravity of the public interest being served by the seizure; the effectiveness of the seizure in advancing the public interest; and:
9. In the 1960s, SCOTUS shifted away from the conventional approach to what new approach?
10. The balancing approach to reasonableness:
11. What case provides an excellent example of the violent crime–automatic frisk exception?
12. Which of the following circumstances provides the most support for an automatic frisk?
13. According to the SCOTUS opinion in Terry v. Ohio (1968), involving the stop and frisk of a citizen on the street to investigate a robbery:
14. Which of the following activities cannot be conducted as a matter of routine at an international border stop?
15. In Graham v. Conner (1989), Graham was a diabetic who was essentially stopped and arrested after police thought something was wrong when Graham left a convenience store abruptly. As it turned out, he was trying to find some sugar for his diabetic condition, but the line was too long, so he left. Appearing drunk (due to the hypoglycemic condition), he was arrested and denied sugar or orange juice, and was basically “roughed up” by the police. The court said:
16. Probable cause deals with:
17. The objective standard of reasonable force was adopted by SCOTUS in which case?
18. Who determines the ultimate legitimacy of a request for an arrest warrant?
19. In Tennessee v. Garner (1985), SCOTUS decided that:
20. Whether Fourth Amendment seizures are stops or arrests depends on:
21. In what case did SCOTUS hold that hearsay evidence could be used to establish probable cause?
22. The right to come and go as you please is known as the:
23. Which of the following cases involved the use of a taser?
24. When an official takes a person into custody and holds the person for anywhere between a few hours to a few days to answer for a criminal charge, the official has conducted:
25. Most cases demand that arrest warrants identify the person to be arrested:
26. Federal law enforcement officers can phone or radio their affidavits seeking warrants to federal magistrates under the:
27. The probable cause requirement balances the societal interest in crime control and:
28. The following are all examples of emergency search situations, except:
29. According to SCOTUS’s decision in Whren v. U.S, concerning the use of a pretext stop in a drug search:
30. Consent that takes place when one person in fact has the legal authority to consent to a search of the home and possessions of another person is called:
31. Which of the following is true of most people who consent to searches by law enforcement?
32. The Fourth Amendment particularity requirement for search warrants:
33. In Wyoming v. Houghton, concerning the search of a passenger’s purse for drugs based on probable cause that drugs are in the vehicle, SCOTUS declared that:
34. According to SCOTUS in Chimel v. California, involving the search of a house incident to an arrest for burglary of a coin shop:
35. Which of the following would not justify an emergency search?
36. In Wilson v. Arkansas, SCOTUS unanimously decided that:
37. The countervailing law enforcement interests against “no-knock” entry requirements identified by Justice Thomas in Wilson v. Arkansas include:
38. When police arrest a suspect based on probable cause, but then conduct a search without probable cause or a warrant, the search is called a:
39. According to the waiver test of consent:
40. Concerning third-party consent to search, in which of the following situations can one person consent to a search for the other person?
41. Discuss what you would do as Samuels’ defense attorney, in light of the of the levels of proof of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Make sure to define the levels of proof and when they are applicable.
42. State whether there was a lawful basis for the warrantless entry and subsequent search, making sure to list the possible exigencies even if you think they are not present. If there was a lawful basis, state what elements were required and what facts, if any, support your conclusion.

Set 2

1. In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000), the Court held that drug interdiction checkpoints:
2. The U.S. Constitution requires police ocers to have an objective basis to back up unwanted interferences with individuals’ rights to liberty and privacy. What objective basis is required for an arrest?
3. According to the SCOTUS opinion in Terry v. Ohio (1968), a stop justied at its beginning can:
4. According to SCOTUS in Michigan v. Sitz (1990), involving sobriety checkpoints, detaining a car briey at a sobriety checkpoint requires:
5. Frisks are:
6. Arizona v. Johnson (2009) ruled that:
7. If an ocer was specically patting down a suspect for weapons, but came across an item in the person’s pocket that was in a shape consistent with contraband, such as narcotics, would the ocer be able to seize the item and arrest the person?
8. The totality-of-facts-and-circumstances test is also known as the:
9. The reasonableness of roadblocks and checkpoints is determined by the following three-prong balancing test: the gravity of the public interest being served by the seizure; the effectiveness of the seizure in advancing the public interest; and:
10. Which of the following will not support stopping vehicles at a roadblock?
11. There are two parts to the Fourth Amendment: the reasonableness clause and the:
12. In Florida v. J.L. (2000), what did the court decide with regards to an anonymous tip about a man with a gun?
13. In the 1960s, SCOTUS shifted away from the conventional approach to what new approach?
14. Which of the following activities cannot be conducted as a matter of routine at an international border stop?
15. Which of the following is an exception allowing entrance to a home without a warrant?
16. Which of the following usually occurs after a misdemeanor arrest?
17. The objective standard of reasonable force was adopted by SCOTUS in which case?
18. The probable cause requirement balances the societal interest in crime control and:
19. Which of the following cases involve exigent circumstances that may make entering a home to arrest a suspect without an arrest warrant reasonable?
20. In what case did SCOTUS hold that hearsay evidence could be used to establish probable cause?
21. Most cases demand that arrest warrants identify the person to be arrested:
22. The Fourth Amendment requires that a magistrate base a probable cause determination on written information sworn to under oath, also known as:
23. In building probable cause, police ocers may rely on what they:
24. In Tennessee v. Garner, involving the death of a citizen due to the use of deadly force by the police, SCOTUS ruled that:
25. In Graham v. Conner (1989), Graham was a diabetic who was essentially stopped and arrested after police thought something was wrong when Graham left a convenience store abruptly. As it turned out, he was trying to nd some sugar for his diabetic condition, but the line was too long, so he left. Appearing drunk (due to the hypoglycemic condition), he was arrested and denied sugar or orange juice, and was basically “roughed up” by the police. The court said:
26. Which of the following is not a requirement for obtaining a warrant to arrest a suspect at home?
27. Who determines the ultimate legitimacy of a request for an arrest warrant?
28. Under the holding in Chimel v. California (1969), a leading SCOTUS case on searches incident to arrest, the police must limit a thorough search incident to arrest to:
29. Which of the following is true of most people who consent to searches by law enforcement?
30. Police ordinarily seek consent to search:
31. Which is true about containers?
32. In Wilson v. Arkansas, SCOTUS unanimously decided that:
33. According to the empirical research about consent searches:
34. The reasonableness of searches pursuant to search warrants depends on:
35. In California v. Acevedo (1991), SCOTUS ruled that ocers with probable cause but without warrants can search containers inside vehicles:
36. In Wyoming v. Houghton, concerning the search of a passenger’s purse for drugs based on probable cause that drugs are in the vehicle, SCOTUS declared that:
37. Concerning third-party consent to search, in which of the following situations can one person consent to a search for the other person?
38. In order to conduct a consent search of a person, an ocer must have:
39. According to the waiver test of consent:
40. The Fourth Amendment particularity requirement for search warrants:
41. Billy Samuels broke into a house, and shot the homeowner. Homeowner stumbled out to his lawn. Homeowner told his neighbor, the suspect was a man. Homeowner died at the hospital. Samuels was arrested by police two blocks from the house. At trial, the ocer who stopped Samuels testied that he was given a description over the radio that the murder suspect was male; the ocer never was at the scene or talked to the victim. Based on that description, the ocer stopped Samuels (after stopping 5 other males). The ocer said, he frisked Samuels (like all the other people he stopped) as a matter of protocol. He then found a gun in Samuels’ pant pocket and arrested him for murder. The bullet that hit the Homeowner was never found. It went clean through his midsection. No other evidence was found on Samuels. Primarily based on the arresting ocer’s testimony, Samuels was convicted of aggravated burglary and murder.
42. Lee Harvey red a sniper shot into several parked cars, injuring one person. Based on the trajectory of the shots, the proximity of the building and the statements of eyewitnesses, police ocers began searching rooms in a nearby apartment complex looking for the shooter. A few hours after the shooting, the defendant’s apartment was secured and a rie scope and ammunition was discovered. No warrant was obtained to enter defendant’s apartment. State whether there was a lawful basis for the warrantless entry and subsequent search, making sure to list the possible exigencies even if you think they are not present. If there was a lawful basis, state what elements were required and what facts, if any, support your conclusion.