CJUS 410 Quiz Stops and Frisks

CJUS 410 Quiz: Stops and Frisks & Arrests and Searches

Module 3: Week 3 — Module 4: Week 4.

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.