Review Questions

Review Questions

Print

  1.  What is the rationale for not admitting evidence that is obtained in violation of the Constitution? (SS16.1)
  2. What are the provisions of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments that limit the use of evidence in criminal cases? (SS16.1 and Bill of Rights)
  3. Define the exclusionary rule. What is its purpose? How has the rule been modified in recent years? What is the "derivative evidence" rule? What is the good faith exception? (SS16.2)
  4. How does the rule relating to the use of illegally seized evidence in England differ from that in the United States? Which rule do you feel has the most merit? Discuss. (SS16.2)
  5. State at least five ways of making legal searches without warrants and give the rationale for each exception. (SS16.3)
  6. What is the justification for seizing evidence from a person incident to a lawful arrest? State and explain the Chimel rule. (SS16.3)
  7. In the case of United States v. Thornton, what conduct did the officer perform that made the arrest and search incident to arrest illegal? (SS16.3)
  8. In 1984, the United States Supreme Court carved out a limited exception to the exclusionary rule known as the public safety exception. Define the exception stated in that case and the rationale of the Court in authorizing the exception. What are the requirements for a valid search warrant? (SS16.3)
  9. May the protection of the Fourth Amendment be waived? If so, what are the requirements? Who has the burden of proving waiver? (SS16.3)
  10. Define the moving vehicle exception. Does the moving vehicle exception apply to a motor home? Explain. (SS16.3)
  11. What is the open fields exception? What factors are to be considered in determining whether property is a part of the curtilage? Does the Fourth Amendment apply to searches by private individuals? (SS16.3)
  12. What is the rationale for authorizing the seizure of objects from an impounded car? Define plain view as an exception to the warrant requirement. (SS16.3)
  13. Do the provisions of the Fourth Amendment apply when evidence is obtained by wiretapping and eavesdropping? Is the seizure of evidence by the use of an illegal wiretap or eavesdropping permitted? Are there any exceptions to the rule that an order must be obtained before wiretap evidence is admissible? (SS16.4)
  14. Why is a confession inadmissible if it is not freely and voluntarily given? Define free and voluntary and give case examples. (SS16.5)
  15. What degree of proof is required of the prosecution to show that a confession is voluntary? Discuss. What factors are considered? (SS16.5)
  16. What is the delay in arraignment rule as it relates to confessions? In relation to this, give the facts and holding of the Mallory case. (SS16.5)
  17. What are the four warnings required by the United States Supreme Court as stated in Miranda v. Arizona? At what stage are the warnings required? (SS16.5)
  18. If the Miranda warnings are not given, is evidence from the confession excluded for all purposes? Discuss. (SS16.5)
  19. What are the provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control Act relating to the admissibility of confessions? (SS16.5)
  20.  What is the provision of the Constitution that relates to self-incrimination? Are nontestimonial communications protected by this constitutional provision? Discuss. (SS16.6)
  21. There are two provisions of the Constitution that include the phrase "due process of law." What are they? Give an example of a situation in which the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated. (SS16.7)
  22. What provisions of the Bill of Rights protect a person's right to counsel in criminal cases? At what point in the judicial process does the right to counsel attach? If a confession is obtained after counsel is requested by the accused, is it admissible evidence? (SS16.8)
  23. State the rule relating to the right to have counsel present at a lineup or other confrontation for identification. (SS16.8)
  24. In the case of United States v. Leon, a judge, after evaluating all of the evidence, issued a facially valid search warrant. Police officers, acting in good faith, executed the warrant and found large quantities of drugs. The warrant was later determined to be invalid due to insufficient probable cause. What was the opinion of the United States Supreme Court concerning the admissibility of the evidence obtained by the officers? What was the rationale of the court in reaching its conclusion? What was the rule established in that case? (United States v. Leon, Part II)
  25. In the case of United States v. Thornton, a police officer observed the defendant driving a vehicle that would not pull all the way up to where the unmarked police vehicle was located and would not pass the police vehicle. The officer checked the license plate and determined that it was not registered to the car he was observing. When the driver was pulled over, he became very nervous and distracted. As the officer patted down the man for weapons, he asked him if he had any illegal drugs and the man pulled out some marijuana. At this point the officer arrested Thornton and searched his car incident to arrest, discovering more incriminating evidence. After his conviction Thornton appealed the alleged illegal stop and search of his person and of the vehicle. Should the court overturn his conviction because the arrest was illegal under the Fourth Amendment? Was the search of the vehicle illegal? Was the pat down of his person consistent with Miranda v. Arizona? (United States v. Thornton, Part II)
  26. The defendant in the case of United States v. Edmo was convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm while using a controlled substance. He appealed the denial of his motions to suppress the results of a urine test and an incriminating statement made after police officers requested a urine sample. The defendant contends that, in requiring him to submit to a urine test, the police violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches, his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Did the police requiring the defendant to submit to a urine test violate the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizures, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or the Sixth Amendment right to counsel? Give reasons for your answers. (United States v. Edmo, Part II)
  27. In the case of Horton v. California, a police officer prepared an affidavit for a search warrant, which referred to the proceeds of a robbery and weapons. The warrant issued by the magistrate only authorized a search for the proceeds. While executing the search warrant the officer seized weapons in plain view. Was the seizure of the weapons justified under the warrant? What was the U.S. Supreme Court's decision concerning the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view be "inadvertent?" What are the two conditions that must be satisfied in order for a plain view seizure to be valid? (Horton v. California, SS16.3)
  28. The defendant in the case of United States v. Reno was convicted of various drug offenses. The arresting officer noticed that the defendant threw some trash in a dumpster and later took a look at the trash, which revealed drug manufacturing material. The trash contained seven used syringes, 91 empty pseudoephedrine "blister packs," and three empty pseudoephedrine pill bottles. The officer immediately recognized the pseudoephedrine-related items as those commonly used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, and the syringes as drug paraphernalia. The officer followed the defendant to his home, where the defendant was arrested while standing next to his truck. Subsequent to the arrest, the police, without a warrant, searched Reno's truck, discovering more incriminating material. Should the police have arrested the defendant after observing him throw drug manufacturing materials in the dumpster? Was probable cause shown? Was the search of his truck incident to arrest proper? What did the Reno Court say? (United States v. Reno, Part II)