Match between columns Premises: Pennsylvania v. Labron Pennsylvania v. Labron Pennsylvania v. Labron Pennsylvania v. Labron Pennsylvania v. Labron Pennsylvania v. Labron Pennsylvania v. Labron Pennsylvania v. Labron Pennsylvania v. Labron Pennsylvania v. Labron U.S. v. Drayton U.S. v. Drayton U.S. v. Drayton U.S. v. Drayton U.S. v. Drayton U.S. v. Drayton U.S. v. Drayton U.S. v. Drayton U.S. v. Drayton U.S. v. Drayton Bond v. United States Bond v. United States Bond v. United States Bond v. United States Bond v. United States Bond v. United States Bond v. United States Bond v. United States Bond v. United States Bond v. United States Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio Florida v. J. L. Florida v. J. L. Florida v. J. L. Florida v. J. L. Florida v. J. L. Florida v. J. L. Florida v. J. L. Florida v. J. L. Florida v. J. L. Florida v. J. L. Ohio v. Robinette Ohio v. Robinette Ohio v. Robinette Ohio v. Robinette Ohio v. Robinette Ohio v. Robinette Ohio v. Robinette Ohio v. Robinette Ohio v. Robinette Ohio v. Robinette Coolidge v. New Hampshire Coolidge v. New Hampshire Coolidge v. New Hampshire Coolidge v. New Hampshire Coolidge v. New Hampshire Coolidge v. New Hampshire Coolidge v. New Hampshire Coolidge v. New Hampshire Coolidge v. New Hampshire Coolidge v. New Hampshire Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Chimel v. California Chimel v. California Chimel v. California Chimel v. California Chimel v. California Chimel v. California Chimel v. California Chimel v. California Chimel v. California Chimel v. California

The Answer of The case that established the legal authority is...

Deck 5: Criminal Procedure and the Police

Question

A __________ is an exploratory inspection of a person or property based on probable cause of law violation.

A)frisk
B)search
C)seizure
D)arrest

Use Space or

to flip the card.

Question

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a "stop and frisk" was __________.The case involved a Cleveland police officer who had been a plainclothes detective for thirty-five years and had patrolled a certain section of the downtown area for shoplifters and pickpockets for nearly thirty years.

A)Coolidge v.New Hampshire
B)Terry v.Ohio
C)Bond v.United States
D)Chimel v.California

Question

A __________ is limited to a search for weapons that may pose an immediate threat to the officer's safety.

A)frisk
B)search
C)seizure
D)arrest

Question

A rule stating that evidence seized with a defective warrant,not based on probable cause,is admissible in court if the police acted in good faith in presenting the evidence and the error was made by the judge is called a(n)__________.

A)reasonable suspicion
B)exclusionary rule
C)good faith exception
D)public safety exception

Question

A __________ may be conducted without a warrant if they are incident to a lawful arrest;are conducted with voluntary consent;or involve evidence in plain view,automobiles and their contents,or open fields and abandoned property.

A)frisk
B)search
C)seizure
D)arrest

Question

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest was __________.Police officers went to the defendant's home with a warrant to arrest him for the burglary of a coin shop.The defendant was not home,but his wife allowed the police to enter and wait for his return.When the defendant arrived,the police showed him the warrant,placing him under arrest,and proceeded to search the house.They found the coins that he was suspected of stealing and used them as evidence to convict him of burglary.On appeal,the U.S.Supreme Court overturned the conviction on the ground that the search of the defendant's entire house was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

A)Coolidge v.New Hampshire
B)Terry v.Ohio
C)Bond v.United States
D)Chimel v.California

Question

A legal principle that holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from use in trials is called a(n)__________.

A)reasonable suspicion
B)exclusionary rule
C)good faith exception
D)public safety exception

Question

The landmark case that applied the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to searches was decided in __________.

A)1959
B)1961
C)1963
D)1967

Question

There are exceptions to the '__________' rule when circumstances indicate a threat of physical violence or reason to believe that evidence will be destroyed if advance notice is given.

A)see and take
B)hear and enter
C)knock and announce
D)ring and run

Question

A __________ is a patting down of the outer clothing of a suspect based on reasonable suspicion,designed to protect a police officer from attack with a weapon while an inquiry is made.

A)frisk
B)search
C)seizure
D)arrest

Question

The Fifth Amendment provides for __________.

A)grand juries
B)protection against double jeopardy
C)protection from self-incrimination
D)All of the above

Question

A five-point warning derived from a case in Arizona.Its purpose is to provide fair notice to crime suspects of their basic constitutional rights.

A)Miranda warning
B)Melissa warning
C)Melendez warning
D)Maria warning

Question

A situation in which a police officer has good reason to believe that criminal activity may be occurring is called a(n)__________.This permits a brief investigative inquiry of the suspect.

A)reasonable suspicion
B)exclusionary rule
C)good faith exception
D)public safety exception

Question

The term ____________ refers to the confiscation of property occurring when there is some meaningful interference with the individual's possession of property.

A)frisk
B)search
C)seizure
D)arrest

Question

The __________ states that police may omit the Miranda warning prior to questioning a suspect when public safety is jeopardized.

A)reasonable suspicion
B)exclusionary rule
C)good faith exception
D)public safety exception

Question

The right of police to search without a warrant items that are in "plain view" is another well-established exception to the warrant requirement.This exception was explained in the Supreme Court's 1971 decision in __________.The Court specified two conditions for a plain view search: (1)The police officer's presence where the plain view search is made must be lawful,and (2)the discovery must be inadvertent.That is,if police have probable cause before the search,they must obtain a warrant.

A)Coolidge v.New Hampshire
B)Terry v.Ohio
C)Bond v.United States
D)Chimel v.California

Question

The right of police to search without a warrant items that are in "plain view" is another well established exception to the warrant requirement.This exception was explained in the Supreme Court's 1971 decision in Coolidge v.New Hampshire.The Court specified the following condition(s)for a plain view search:

A)The police officer's presence where the plain view search is made must be lawful
B)the discovery must be inadvertent
C)All of the above
D)None of the above

Question

The __________ to the Constitution includes protection against self-incrimination.

A)First Amendment
B)Third Amendment
C)Fourth Amendment
D)Fifth Amendment

Question

__________ play a central role in criminal procedure because they are the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system.

A)Police
B)Courts
C)Corrections
D)Social services

Question

The Court concluded that cases must be decided on the basis of their own facts;generally,however,police officers who observe unusual conduct that leads them to conclude that criminal activity may be involved and that the persons may be armed and dangerous are entitled to conduct "a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons" that might be used to assault them.Such a frisk was held to be reasonable under the __________,and any weapons seized may be introduced in evidence.

A)First Amendment
B)Third Amendment
C)Fourth Amendment
D)Fifth Amendment

Question

The 'public safety exception' is a rule stating that evidence seized with a defective warrant,not based on probable cause,is admissible in court if the police acted in good faith in presenting the evidence and the error was made by the judge.

Question

A __________ is a patting down of the outer clothing of a suspect based on reasonable suspicion,designed to protect a police officer from attack with a weapon while an inquiry is made.

Question

A 'search' is a patting down of the outer clothing of a suspect based on reasonable suspicion,designed to protect a police officer from attack with a weapon while an inquiry is made.

Question

Frisks are limited to a search for weapons that may pose an immediate threat to the officer's safety.

Question

After an arrest and search have been carried out,the police have the authority to interrogate the arrested person.Interrogations are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution,but the limits of official interrogations are implied in the Fifth Amendment.

Question

The Supreme Court has held that when __________ is the result of a conscious or deliberate choice,police may be held liable for civil damages.

A)poor training
B)an officer-involved shooting
C)attending the police academy
D)None of the above

Question

A ___________ refers to the confiscation of property occurring when there is some meaningful interference with the individual's possession of property.

Question

A majority of Americans do not believe racial or ethnic profiling is __________,but opinions vary depending on the specific situation.

A)unfair
B)justified
C)unfounded
D)groundless

Question

Law enforcement officials initially criticized Miranda v.Arizona for limiting their ability to obtain evidence through interrogation.Many believed that officers would no longer be able to conduct interrogations of suspects without lawyers present,and that suspects who understood that they had the right to remain silent would always invoke this right and refuse to talk to the police.

Question

The term 'reasonable suspicion' refers to a situation in which a police officer has good reason to believe that criminal activity may be occurring;this permits a brief investigative inquiry of the suspect.

Question

The 'Miranda warning' is a five-point warning derived from the case of Miranda v.Arizona.Its purpose is to provide fair notice to crime suspects of their basic constitutional rights.

Question

The 'exclusionary rule' holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.Searches conducted without probable cause (or without a warrant where one is required)are illegal.

Question

A __________is an exploratory inspection of a person or property based on probable cause of law violation.

Question

Debate continues about the benefits of the exclusionary rule and Miranda for citizens and for law enforcement,reflecting continuing conflict in the balance to be struck among the interests of government.

Question

The importance of confessions to police work may be overstated due to the fact that police rarely take a suspect into custody without some kind of evidence,and a confession rarely forms the basis for a conviction without other corroborating evidence.

Question

To ensure protection against self-incrimination,suspects taken into custody must be read the Miranda warning,which states that the suspect has the right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning.

Question

A 'seizure' refers to the confiscation of property occurring when there is some meaningful interference with the individual's possession of property.

Question

A 'frisk' is an exploratory inspection of a person or property based on probable cause of law violation.

Question

The 'good faith exception' means that police may omit the Miranda warning prior to questioning a suspect when public safety is jeopardized.

Question

Automobiles may be searched without probable cause if officers possess a reasonable belief that the occupant is armed.

Question

The term ___________ refers to a situation in which a police officer has good reason to believe that criminal activity may be occurring;this permits a brief investigative inquiry of the suspect.

Question

What protections are provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution?

Question

The __________ is a rule stating that evidence seized with a defective warrant,not based on probable cause,is admissible in court if the police acted in good faith in presenting the evidence and the error was made by the judge.

Question

Stop and frisk is now a common police practice.A survey that asked citizens if they had been stopped by the police during the past year found that an estimated 45 million residents age sixteen or older-about 21 percent of all persons this age-had at least one face-to-face contact with police during the year.Do you think this number/rate is higher or lower than average? Please explain why.

Question

The __________ means that police may omit the Miranda warning prior to questioning a suspect when public safety is jeopardized.

Question

__________ are limited to a search for weapons that may pose an immediate threat to the officer's safety.

Question

What is the difference between a 'search' and a 'seizure'? How are they connected?

Question

Studies by Paul Cassell in the 1990s concluded that thousands of cases had not been prosecuted because suspects did not make statements after being given the Miranda warning.Do you think that this is still the issue today? Why or why not?

Question

What is the 'public safety exception' and when is it used?

Question

Match between columns

Pennsylvania v. Labron

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Pennsylvania v. Labron

The Court had to determine whether the anonymous tip that a person was carrying a gun was sufficient to justify a stop and frisk of that person. In this case the officers’ suspicion that the suspect was carrying a weapon was not supported by their own observations. The anonymous tip also provided no additional information to test the informant’s credibility (such as having provided good information to the police in the past or more details that predicted the suspect’s movements). As a result, the Court held that there was insufficient evidence from an anonymous tip to establish reasonable suspicion of law violation, so the stop and frisk was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Pennsylvania v. Labron

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Pennsylvania v. Labron

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Pennsylvania v. Labron

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Pennsylvania v. Labron

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Pennsylvania v. Labron

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

Pennsylvania v. Labron

Police officers are not required by the Fourth Amendment “to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches.” This finding is consistent with earlier decisions that do not require police notification of suspects of their right to refuse consent.

Pennsylvania v. Labron

The Court specified two conditions for a plain view search: (1) The police officer’s presence where the plain view search is made must be lawful, and (2) the discovery must be inadvertent. That is, if police have probable cause before the search, they must obtain a warrant.

Pennsylvania v. Labron

The Court placed limits on random “squeezing” of carry-on luggage. In this case a border patrol agent boarded a bus in Texas to check the immigration status of passengers. On his way off the bus he squeezed the soft luggage passengers had placed in the overhead bins. In one bag, he felt the form of a “brick-like” object, which was ultimately discovered to be a brick of methamphetamine. Although the officer’s presence on the bus was lawful, the Court noted that squeezing the bags was “physically invasive,” and more intrusive than mere visual inspection. The Court held that bus passengers have a reasonable expectation that their carry-on bags willnot be inspected in an “exploratory manner” absent other evidence of unlawful conduct.

U.S. v. Drayton

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

U.S. v. Drayton

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

U.S. v. Drayton

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

U.S. v. Drayton

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

U.S. v. Drayton

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

U.S. v. Drayton

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

U.S. v. Drayton

Bond v. United States

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Bond v. United States

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Bond v. United States

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Bond v. United States

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Bond v. United States

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Bond v. United States

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

Bond v. United States

Terry v. Ohio

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Terry v. Ohio

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Terry v. Ohio

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Terry v. Ohio

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Terry v. Ohio

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Terry v. Ohio

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

Terry v. Ohio

Mapp v. Ohio

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Mapp v. Ohio

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Mapp v. Ohio

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Mapp v. Ohio

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Mapp v. Ohio

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Mapp v. Ohio

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

Mapp v. Ohio

Florida v. J. L.

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Florida v. J. L.

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Florida v. J. L.

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Florida v. J. L.

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Florida v. J. L.

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Florida v. J. L.

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

Florida v. J. L.

Ohio v. Robinette

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Ohio v. Robinette

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Ohio v. Robinette

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Ohio v. Robinette

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Ohio v. Robinette

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Ohio v. Robinette

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

Ohio v. Robinette

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Chimel v. California

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Chimel v. California

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Chimel v. California

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Chimel v. California

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Chimel v. California

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Chimel v. California

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

Chimel v. California

Unlock Deck

1/51

Deck 5: Criminal Procedure and the Police

A __________ is an exploratory inspection of a person or property based on probable cause of law violation.

A)frisk
B)search
C)seizure
D)arrest

A)Coolidge v.New Hampshire
B)Terry v.Ohio
C)Bond v.United States
D)Chimel v.California

A __________ is limited to a search for weapons that may pose an immediate threat to the officer's safety.

A)frisk
B)search
C)seizure
D)arrest

A)reasonable suspicion
B)exclusionary rule
C)good faith exception
D)public safety exception

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

A)frisk
B)search
C)seizure
D)arrest

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

A)Coolidge v.New Hampshire
B)Terry v.Ohio
C)Bond v.United States
D)Chimel v.California

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

A legal principle that holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from use in trials is called a(n)__________.

A)reasonable suspicion
B)exclusionary rule
C)good faith exception
D)public safety exception

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

The landmark case that applied the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to searches was decided in __________.

A)1959
B)1961
C)1963
D)1967

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

There are exceptions to the '__________' rule when circumstances indicate a threat of physical violence or reason to believe that evidence will be destroyed if advance notice is given.

A)see and take
B)hear and enter
C)knock and announce
D)ring and run

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

A __________ is a patting down of the outer clothing of a suspect based on reasonable suspicion,designed to protect a police officer from attack with a weapon while an inquiry is made.

A)frisk
B)search
C)seizure
D)arrest

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

The Fifth Amendment provides for __________.

A)grand juries
B)protection against double jeopardy
C)protection from self-incrimination
D)All of the above

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

A five-point warning derived from a case in Arizona.Its purpose is to provide fair notice to crime suspects of their basic constitutional rights.

A)Miranda warning
B)Melissa warning
C)Melendez warning
D)Maria warning

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

A situation in which a police officer has good reason to believe that criminal activity may be occurring is called a(n)__________.This permits a brief investigative inquiry of the suspect.

A)reasonable suspicion
B)exclusionary rule
C)good faith exception
D)public safety exception

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

The term ____________ refers to the confiscation of property occurring when there is some meaningful interference with the individual's possession of property.

A)frisk
B)search
C)seizure
D)arrest

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

The __________ states that police may omit the Miranda warning prior to questioning a suspect when public safety is jeopardized.

A)reasonable suspicion
B)exclusionary rule
C)good faith exception
D)public safety exception

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

A)Coolidge v.New Hampshire
B)Terry v.Ohio
C)Bond v.United States
D)Chimel v.California

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

A)The police officer's presence where the plain view search is made must be lawful
B)the discovery must be inadvertent
C)All of the above
D)None of the above

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

The __________ to the Constitution includes protection against self-incrimination.

A)First Amendment
B)Third Amendment
C)Fourth Amendment
D)Fifth Amendment

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

__________ play a central role in criminal procedure because they are the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system.

A)Police
B)Courts
C)Corrections
D)Social services

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

A)First Amendment
B)Third Amendment
C)Fourth Amendment
D)Fifth Amendment

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

A __________ is a patting down of the outer clothing of a suspect based on reasonable suspicion,designed to protect a police officer from attack with a weapon while an inquiry is made.

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

A 'search' is a patting down of the outer clothing of a suspect based on reasonable suspicion,designed to protect a police officer from attack with a weapon while an inquiry is made.

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

Frisks are limited to a search for weapons that may pose an immediate threat to the officer's safety.

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

The Supreme Court has held that when __________ is the result of a conscious or deliberate choice,police may be held liable for civil damages.

A)poor training
B)an officer-involved shooting
C)attending the police academy
D)None of the above

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

A ___________ refers to the confiscation of property occurring when there is some meaningful interference with the individual's possession of property.

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

A majority of Americans do not believe racial or ethnic profiling is __________,but opinions vary depending on the specific situation.

A)unfair
B)justified
C)unfounded
D)groundless

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

The 'Miranda warning' is a five-point warning derived from the case of Miranda v.Arizona.Its purpose is to provide fair notice to crime suspects of their basic constitutional rights.

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

The 'exclusionary rule' holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.Searches conducted without probable cause (or without a warrant where one is required)are illegal.

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

A __________is an exploratory inspection of a person or property based on probable cause of law violation.

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

A 'seizure' refers to the confiscation of property occurring when there is some meaningful interference with the individual's possession of property.

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

A 'frisk' is an exploratory inspection of a person or property based on probable cause of law violation.

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

The 'good faith exception' means that police may omit the Miranda warning prior to questioning a suspect when public safety is jeopardized.

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

Automobiles may be searched without probable cause if officers possess a reasonable belief that the occupant is armed.

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

The term ___________ refers to a situation in which a police officer has good reason to believe that criminal activity may be occurring;this permits a brief investigative inquiry of the suspect.

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

What protections are provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution?

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

The __________ means that police may omit the Miranda warning prior to questioning a suspect when public safety is jeopardized.

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

__________ are limited to a search for weapons that may pose an immediate threat to the officer's safety.

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

What is the difference between a 'search' and a 'seizure'? How are they connected?

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

What is the 'public safety exception' and when is it used?

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

Match between columns

Pennsylvania v. Labron

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Pennsylvania v. Labron

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Pennsylvania v. Labron

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Pennsylvania v. Labron

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Pennsylvania v. Labron

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Pennsylvania v. Labron

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

Pennsylvania v. Labron

U.S. v. Drayton

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

U.S. v. Drayton

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

U.S. v. Drayton

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

U.S. v. Drayton

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

U.S. v. Drayton

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

U.S. v. Drayton

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

U.S. v. Drayton

Bond v. United States

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Bond v. United States

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Bond v. United States

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Bond v. United States

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Bond v. United States

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Bond v. United States

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

Bond v. United States

Terry v. Ohio

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Terry v. Ohio

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Terry v. Ohio

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Terry v. Ohio

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Terry v. Ohio

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Terry v. Ohio

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

Terry v. Ohio

Mapp v. Ohio

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Mapp v. Ohio

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Mapp v. Ohio

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Mapp v. Ohio

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Mapp v. Ohio

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Mapp v. Ohio

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

Mapp v. Ohio

Florida v. J. L.

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Florida v. J. L.

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Florida v. J. L.

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Florida v. J. L.

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Florida v. J. L.

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Florida v. J. L.

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

Florida v. J. L.

Ohio v. Robinette

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Ohio v. Robinette

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Ohio v. Robinette

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Ohio v. Robinette

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Ohio v. Robinette

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Ohio v. Robinette

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

Ohio v. Robinette

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Chimel v. California

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Chimel v. California

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Chimel v. California

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Chimel v. California

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Chimel v. California

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Chimel v. California

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

Chimel v. California

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 51 flashcards in this deck.