Deck 4: Arrest, Interrogation, and Identification Procedures

Question 1

The use of tricks or factual misstatements by police in an effort to induce a defendant to confess automatically invalidates a confession.

Answer 1

False

Question 2

At common law, a private individual could make an arrest without a warrant if a felony was committed in the individual's presence.

Answer 2

True

Question 3

In 1983 the Supreme Court upheld a law that required persons loitering or wandering on the streets to provide a "credible and reliable" identification and to account for their presence when requested to do so by a police officer.

Answer 3

False

Question 4

An arrest must be based on probable cause and, with certain exceptions, is subject to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

Question 5

At common law, police had the right to make a warrantless arrest if they observed someone in the commission of a misdemeanor.

Question 6

In 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court held that states are not precluded from using checkpoints to obtain motorists' assistance in locating the perpetrator of a crime involving a traffic accident.

Question 7

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that police may use whatever degree of force is necessary to apprehend a fleeing felon, even if the suspect is unarmed.

Question 8

In Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment forbids a warrantless arrest for a minor traffic offense such as a seat belt violation.

Question 9

In 1897 the Supreme Court held that to force a suspect to confess violates the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment

Question 10

An arrest is considered a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Question 11

Laws typically allow police officers to use force reasonably necessary to make an arrest.

Question 12

A police officer must always first obtain a warrant before making a felony arrest.

Question 13

The Supreme Court has ruled that the motive of an officer for stopping a vehicle for a traffic violation is irrelevant as long as there is an objective basis for the stop.

Question 14

To make a warrantless arrest for a felony, police must observe the crime in progress.

Question 15

Police officers must always have probable cause to make an arrest.

Question 16

Police are permitted to temporarily detain persons for questioning when they have "reasonable suspicion" that criminal activity is afoot.

Question 17

The Supreme Court has held that when police stop an automobile based on reasonable suspicion, they may search the passenger compartment for weapons, assuming they have reason to believe that a suspect is dangerous.

Question 18

Under no circumstances may police make a warrantless entry into a home to effect an arrest.

Question 19

Police who have probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a felony or who observes someone committing a misdemeanor can make a warrantless arrest.

Question 20

In 1985 the Supreme Court upheld a state law that permitted police to use deadly force against fleeing suspects even when there was no threat to the safety of the officer or the public.

Question 21

In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court held that police must advise suspects of their right to _________ before subjecting them to custodial interrogation.

A) have counsel present during questioning
B) obtain witnesses in their defense
C) remain silent during questioning
D) Both remain silent and have counsel present during questioning.

Question 22

In Whren v. United States (1996) the Supreme Court ruled that _________________.

A) the test of whether police properly stopped a motor vehicle is whether a reasonable officer would have stopped the vehicle based on the driver having committed a traffic infraction
B) officers' motives in stopping an automobile are irrelevant if there is an objective basis for the stop
C) police may stop any vehicle to search for drugs if the vehicle is in an area where drug trafficking has recently occurred
D) investigatory stops of vehicles may be made based solely on anonymous tips received by police

Question 23

As the 1995 O. J. Simpson murder trial demonstrates, defense lawyers can attack the methodology of ______________ as well as the qualifications of those administering them.

A) lineups
B) field sobriety tests
C) DNA tests
D) lie detector tests

Question 24

The deprivation of a person's liberty by someone with legal authority is termed a (an) ______.

A) capias
B) intervention
C) arrest
D) false imprisonment

Question 25

Which of the following statements is INCORRECT?

A) The Supreme Court has upheld the use of roadblocks by police to conduct field sobriety tests.
B) A police officer's right to conduct an investigatory detention does not necessarily allow police to conduct a frisk of an individual.
C) A frisk by a police officer must be based on reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed.
D) A frisk by a police officer allows a pat-down of a person's clothes to search for contraband.

Question 26

To establish probable cause to make an arrest, a police officer can consider _____________.

A) statements by witnesses to a crime
B) official reports
C) tips from confidential informants
D) all of these

Question 27

The Supreme Court has defined "interrogation" as questioning or ___________________.

A) deception by the police
B) its functional equivalent
C) the use of force by police
D) any other interaction between police and suspect

Question 28

Even though police have provided a suspect the Miranda warnings, the suspect's confession may not be used as evidence unless it is _______________.

A) voluntary
B) reasonable
C) retracted
D) necessary to support a conviction

Question 29

For a police officer to make an arrest he or she must have ___________.

A) a reasonable idea that a wrong has been committed
B) probable cause to believe an individual has committed an offense
C) a "hunch" that an individual may have committed an offense
D) a suspicion that an individual may have violated the law

Question 30

Which of the following identification procedures have been upheld by the courts?

A) lineups
B) fingerprinting
C) taking handwriting samples
D) All of these

Question 31

In developing "drug courier profiles," police have included ____________ as being typical of drug smugglers.

A) not checking luggage
B) paying cash for tickets
C) appearing nervous
D) all of these

Question 32

In determining whether a defendant's confession was voluntary, courts typically consider such factors as ________________.

A) the defendant's physical and psychological state
B) the length of time between arrest and the defendant's appearance in court
C) the attitudes of the police toward the defendant
D) All of these

Question 33

To conduct a "stop-and-frisk," police must have _______ that criminal activity is afoot.

A) clear and convincing evidence
B) a preponderance of evidence
C) reasonable suspicion
D) probable cause

Question 34

Which of the following is least likely to lead to suppression of a suspect's confession?

A) The use of factual misstatements by police concerning what they know about a crime.
B) Promises of leniency to induce a suspect to confess.
C) Furnishing incorrect information on penalties for a crime relevant to a suspect's interrogation.
D) The use of physical force by police against a suspect being interrogated.

Question 35

The purpose of a "frisk" is to allow police to make a limited pat-down search for _________.

A) weapons
B) contraband
C) identification papers
D) none of these

Question 36

The Supreme Court has held that a suspect has a right to counsel at a lineup conducted ____.

A) before arrest
B) after arrest but before indictment
C) after formal charges have been made against a defendant
D) in none of these instances

Question 37

The process by which police take an eyewitness to the crime scene to view a suspect shortly after an offense has been committed is called a ____________.

A) showup
B) lineup
C) photo pack display
D) polygraph examination

Question 38

An arrest by a private individual is termed a _____________.

A) citizen's arrest
B) common-law arrest
C) substitute judgment
D) bystander's discretion

Question 39

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), the Supreme Court held that the ___________ govern(s) the admissibility of scientific evidence in the federal courts.

A) Federal Rules of Evidence
B) Eighth Amendment
C) decision in Frye v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1923)
D) Scientific Evidence Act of 1992

Question 40

Which one of the following statements is INCORRECT?

A) The Supreme Court has said that police may use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect, even if that person has only committed a misdemeanor.
B) A seizure, for Fourth Amendment purposes, occurs when a police officer, "by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen."
C) Because arrest and interrogation are serious intrusions into the privacy of the individual, both are subject to constitutional restraints.
D) Because an arrest constitutes a seizure, arrests are governed by the probable cause and warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment.

Question 41

Completion:
Courts will generally suppress a _______ obtained by the police where the police have used or threatened force or have promised leniency to obtain it.

Question 42

Completion:
Because an arrest is a "seizure" it is subject to the _________Amendment prohibition of "unreasonable searches and seizures."

Question 43

Completion:
In February 1999, four New York City police officers looking for a serial rapist shot and killed _______________, a recent immigrant from the African nation of Guinea.

Question 44

Completion:
To be valid, a waiver of Miranda rights by a suspect must be __________________.

Question 45

Completion:
The Supreme Court's 1963 decision in Wong Sun v. United States established the _________ doctrine whereby evidence derived from inadmissible evidence is likewise inadmissible in criminal proceedings.

Question 46

Completion:
Under the ____________________ doctrine, evidence derived from inadmissible evidence is likewise inadmissible in court.

Question 47

Completion:
The questioning of a suspect by law enforcement officers, either to elicit a confession, admissions, or information that otherwise assists them in solving a crime is known as _______.

Question 48

Completion:
In 1964 the Supreme Court made the _____________ Clause applicable to state criminal prosecutions and recognized the right of suspects to have counsel present during interrogation.

Question 49

Completion:
Although the courts have said that a police officer's detention of a person based on the officer's reasonable suspicion must be brief, courts have not set precise limits, rather, they have said that the time span of the detention must be evaluated based on the _____________.

Question 50

Completion:
The application of scientific principles to legal issues is referred to as ___________ methods.

Question 51

Completion:
The right of the police to ask questions designed to locate weapons that might be used to harm the police or other person before providing Miranda warnings has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a _____________ exception to Miranda v. Arizona.

Question 52

Completion:
Police who have ______________ that criminal activity is afoot may temporarily detain a person for questioning.

Question 53

In __________________ (1964) the Supreme Court recognized the right of suspects to have counsel present during interrogation.

A) Murphy v. Waterfront Commission
B) Escobedo v. Illinois
C) Starkey v. United States
D) Gideon v. Wainwright

Question 54

Completion:
In _________________________ (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court effectively narrowed the discretion of police officers to use deadly force in making arrests.

Question 55

Completion:
A ___________ is a court order directing that a particular individual be taken into custody.

Question 56

Completion:
At common law, a private individual could make a ____________ arrest without a warrant for a felony or breach of the peace committed in that person's presence.

Question 57

Completion:
In _______________ (1966), the Supreme Court required police to advise suspects in custody of their rights to remain silent and to have counsel present during questioning.

Question 58

Completion:
Federal and state courts have routinely applied the stop-and-frisk doctrine to stops of _______ as well as to detentions of individuals.

Question 59

Completion:
Before interrogating a suspect who is in custody, police must advise the suspect of the right to remain silent and the right to have __________ present during the questioning.

Question 60

In 1964, in Malloy v. Hogan, the U.S. Supreme Court made the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment applicable to __________________ .

A) federal courts
B) state criminal prosecutions
C) international tribunals
D) Congressional investigations

Question 61

Billy is in an interrogation room at a police station. He was brought there after being arrested on suspicion of DUI. He was not read his Miranda rights on the side of the road when he was taken into custody and was not read his Miranda rights upon arriving at the station either. The detective who enters the interrogation room is unaware of this information and begins questioning Billy about his whereabouts that evening. Billy mentions that he was at a bar called "The Floating Walrus." This piques the detectives interest, because a woman last seen at that bar has been reported missing. When the detective mentions her name, Billy breaks down crying and asks for forgiveness. Billy then says her body is in a wooded area about 250 feet behind the bar. The detective leaves the station, heads to that area, and finds the woman's body; she is dead from a gunshot wound. A gun registered to Billy is lying next to her.
Let's now assume that Billy was in fact read Miranda warning before he was brought into the interrogation room. Let's also assume that, before he broke down and gave his confession, he had been through three grueling hours of interrogation, during which time he remained mostly silent. Which of the following is true?

A) The interrogation went on too long, and his statement about the body should be excluded.
B) Based on the Supreme Court's decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins, this statement will be admissible because Billy did not explicitly invoke his right to remain silent at any point.
C) Based on the Supreme Court's decision in Nix v. Williams, any evidence derived from this confession should be excluded.
D) The Miranda Rights were read for his DUI arrest and he should have been read a new set before being interrogated for murder.

Question 62

Billy is in an interrogation room at a police station. He was brought there after being arrested on suspicion of DUI. He was not read his Miranda rights on the side of the road when he was taken into custody and was not read his Miranda rights upon arriving at the station either. The detective who enters the interrogation room is unaware of this information and begins questioning Billy about his whereabouts that evening. Billy mentions that he was at a bar called "The Floating Walrus." This piques the detectives interest, because a woman last seen at that bar has been reported missing. When the detective mentions her name, Billy breaks down crying and asks for forgiveness. Billy then says her body is in a wooded area about 250 feet behind the bar. The detective leaves the station, heads to that area, and finds the woman's body; she is dead from a gunshot wound. A gun registered to Billy is lying next to her.
The lack of Miranda warnings in this situation will:

A) likely lead to lead to the confession being thrown out, because this was a custodial interrogation.
B) likely lead to the confession being thrown out even though this was patently not a custodial interrogation-since he was arrested for DUI, not murder.
C) not affect the admissibility of his statements in a trial for murder.
D) not affect the admissibility of his statements in a trial for DUI.

Question 63

Completion:
_____________ involves police-initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity or national origin rather than the behavior of an individual.

Question 64

Billy is in an interrogation room at a police station. He was brought there after being arrested on suspicion of DUI. He was not read his Miranda rights on the side of the road when he was taken into custody and was not read his Miranda rights upon arriving at the station either. The detective who enters the interrogation room is unaware of this information and begins questioning Billy about his whereabouts that evening. Billy mentions that he was at a bar called "The Floating Walrus." This piques the detectives interest, because a woman last seen at that bar has been reported missing. When the detective mentions her name, Billy breaks down crying and asks for forgiveness. Billy then says her body is in a wooded area about 250 feet behind the bar. The detective leaves the station, heads to that area, and finds the woman's body; she is dead from a gunshot wound. A gun registered to Billy is lying next to her.
Let's assume that an appellate court throws out the confession because Billy was not read his Miranda rights. The gun and any DNA evidence found next to the dead body could be considered:

A) Valid evidence derived from a custodial interrogation
B) Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
C) Valid evidence derived from a reasonable suspicion search
D) Admissible in a DUI trial only

Question 65

Critical Thinking:
Billy is driving home from a bar on a Friday night when he comes upon a DUI checkpoint. At the checkpoint, an officer smells alcohol on Billy's breath and asks him to step out of the car. Billy stumbles out of the car and slurs his words when asked a few basic questions about who he is and where he is going. Billy refuses to consent to a breathalyzer, but the officer does have a video camera record Billy as he is stumbling and slurring his words. Billy is arrested on suspicion of DUI and taken to the police station. At the station, a sample of Billy's blood is taken. Although Billy does not consent to this, he is too drunk to put up much resistance. At his trial, officers play a video of Billy slurring his words and also introduce the blood evidence. He is convicted of DUI.
Billy was not read his Miranda Rights prior to being asked some basic questions on the side of the road. Yet, a video tape of him slurring his words in response to the officer's questions was played at trial. If the Supreme Court were to hear an appeal based on this information, it would:

A) rule the videotape evidence inadmissible because Miranda Rights were not given.
B) allow the videotape into evidence because this was not a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda.
C) rule the videotape inadmissible because a warrant was not obtained.
D) rule the videotape inadmissible unless the checkpoint were in fact a "drug checkpoint."

Question 66

Billy is in an interrogation room at a police station. He was brought there after being arrested on suspicion of DUI. He was not read his Miranda rights on the side of the road when he was taken into custody and was not read his Miranda rights upon arriving at the station either. The detective who enters the interrogation room is unaware of this information and begins questioning Billy about his whereabouts that evening. Billy mentions that he was at a bar called "The Floating Walrus." This piques the detectives interest, because a woman last seen at that bar has been reported missing. When the detective mentions her name, Billy breaks down crying and asks for forgiveness. Billy then says her body is in a wooded area about 250 feet behind the bar. The detective leaves the station, heads to that area, and finds the woman's body; she is dead from a gunshot wound. A gun registered to Billy is lying next to her.
Based on the Supreme Court's decision in _____________, if other officers had already made plans to send a search party into the woods first thing in the morning, then police might be able to invoke the inevitable discovery doctrine in order to use the evidence found on and around the body at trial.

A) Wong Sun v. United States
B) Minnesota v. Dickerson
C) Nix v. Williams
D) New York v. Quarles

Question 67

Critical Thinking:
Billy is driving home from a bar on a Friday night when he comes upon a DUI checkpoint. At the checkpoint, an officer smells alcohol on Billy's breath and asks him to step out of the car. Billy stumbles out of the car and slurs his words when asked a few basic questions about who he is and where he is going. Billy refuses to consent to a breathalyzer, but the officer does have a video camera record Billy as he is stumbling and slurring his words. Billy is arrested on suspicion of DUI and taken to the police station. At the station, a sample of Billy's blood is taken. Although Billy does not consent to this, he is too drunk to put up much resistance. At his trial, officers play a video of Billy slurring his words and also introduce the blood evidence. He is convicted of DUI.
The blood evidence used at trial:

A) should have been excluded because Billy did not consent to giving a sample of his blood.
B) is likely to be considered admissible physical evidence.
C) should have been excluded because it violated Billy's 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.
D) is admissible only if police obtained a warrant.

Question 68

On a hot summer day, an off-duty detective is having lunch in an Italian bistro in Las Vegas. He looks out the window of the restaurant and sees a man in long sleeved clothing walking back and forth in front of a bank across the street. The man appears to be constantly peering inside the bank's window and is checking his watch regularly. The officer decides to investigate. He walks across the street and confronts the man, asking him to explain what he is doing and to show ID. Unsatisfied with the man's evasive answers, the officer asks the suspect to raise his arms to the side and pats the man down. After feeling what he thinks is a gun, the officer reaches in the man's coat pocket. There, the officer finds a 9mm handgun and a small bag of cocaine.
Based on the Supreme Court's decision in Hiibel v. Nevada, the request for an ID is:

A) Permissible but only if there was probable cause.
B) improper under all circumstances.
C) permissible if there was reasonable suspicion.
D) permissible under any circumstances.

Question 69

On a hot summer day, an off-duty detective is having lunch in an Italian bistro in Las Vegas. He looks out the window of the restaurant and sees a man in long sleeved clothing walking back and forth in front of a bank across the street. The man appears to be constantly peering inside the bank's window and is checking his watch regularly. The officer decides to investigate. He walks across the street and confronts the man, asking him to explain what he is doing and to show ID. Unsatisfied with the man's evasive answers, the officer asks the suspect to raise his arms to the side and pats the man down. After feeling what he thinks is a gun, the officer reaches in the man's coat pocket. There, the officer finds a 9mm handgun and a small bag of cocaine.
The officer's initial pat down needs to be supported by:

A) probable cause
B) a warrant
C) reasonable suspicion
D) a capias

Question 70

On a hot summer day, an off-duty detective is having lunch in an Italian bistro in Las Vegas. He looks out the window of the restaurant and sees a man in long sleeved clothing walking back and forth in front of a bank across the street. The man appears to be constantly peering inside the bank's window and is checking his watch regularly. The officer decides to investigate. He walks across the street and confronts the man, asking him to explain what he is doing and to show ID. Unsatisfied with the man's evasive answers, the officer asks the suspect to raise his arms to the side and pats the man down. After feeling what he thinks is a gun, the officer reaches in the man's coat pocket. There, the officer finds a 9mm handgun and a small bag of cocaine.
Based on the Supreme Court's decisions in Terry v. Ohio and Minnesota v. Dickerson, which piece or pieces of evidence do you think will be admissible at trial?

A) The gun only
B) The bag of cocaine only
C) Both the gun and the bag of cocaine
D) Neither the gun nor the bag of cocaine

Question 71

Critical Thinking:
Billy is driving home from a bar on a Friday night when he comes upon a DUI checkpoint. At the checkpoint, an officer smells alcohol on Billy's breath and asks him to step out of the car. Billy stumbles out of the car and slurs his words when asked a few basic questions about who he is and where he is going. Billy refuses to consent to a breathalyzer, but the officer does have a video camera record Billy as he is stumbling and slurring his words. Billy is arrested on suspicion of DUI and taken to the police station. At the station, a sample of Billy's blood is taken. Although Billy does not consent to this, he is too drunk to put up much resistance. At his trial, officers play a video of Billy slurring his words and also introduce the blood evidence. He is convicted of DUI.
Had this checkpoint a "drug checkpoint" instead of a DUI checkpoint, then which statement would be true?

A) Case law indicates that appellate courts would have upheld the use of this checkpoint as well as Billy's arrest for DUI.
B) Case law indicates that appellate courts would have upheld the general use of a "drug checkpoint," but Billy's conviction would be overturned because he did not have any drugs.
C) Case law indicates that appellate courts would disapprove of a "drug checkpoint" and would also overturn a DUI conviction stemming from a stop at a "drug checkpoint".
D) None of these statements are true.