Criminal Procedure Final Exam

Reviewed by Editorial Team
The ProProfs editorial team is comprised of experienced subject matter experts. They've collectively created over 10,000 quizzes and lessons, serving over 100 million users. Our team includes in-house content moderators and subject matter experts, as well as a global network of rigorously trained contributors. All adhere to our comprehensive editorial guidelines, ensuring the delivery of high-quality content.
Learn about Our Editorial Process
| By LaurenApril416
L
LaurenApril416
Community Contributor
Quizzes Created: 3 | Total Attempts: 8,138
| Attempts: 6,122
SettingsSettings
Please wait...
  • 1/28 Questions

    What is the "hot pursuit" exception to the warrant requirement?

    • When officer see's a marajana plant in a window of a house
    • When an officer is chasing after a suspect
    • When an officer is looking for weapons
Please wait...
About This Quiz

Questions relating to:
4th Amendment 5th Amendment 6th Amendment

Criminal Procedure Final Exam - Quiz

Quiz Preview

  • 2. 

    When an officers observes conduct that, in light of experience would lead a reasonable belief that a suspect is armed and may be dangerous, may conduct a frisk limited in scope. What case gives us this rule?

    • Maryland v. Buie

    • Michigan v. Jackson

    • Terry v. Ohio

    Correct Answer
    A. Terry v. Ohio
    Explanation
    Terry v. Ohio is the correct answer because it is the landmark Supreme Court case that established the rule allowing officers to conduct a frisk when they have a reasonable belief that a suspect is armed and dangerous. In this case, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment allows for a limited search for weapons when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person may be armed and poses a threat to their safety. This ruling set the precedent for the "stop and frisk" practice used by law enforcement officers today.

    Rate this question:

  • 3. 

    What is it called when the officer must prove that without the illegally obtained evidence, the officers would have found out anyways?

    • Potential Discovery

    • Inevitable Discovery

    • Police efficient Discovery

    Correct Answer
    A. Inevitable Discovery
    Explanation
    Inevitable Discovery refers to the situation where the officer must prove that even without the use of illegally obtained evidence, the officers would have eventually discovered the same evidence through legal means. This concept is often used in legal cases to determine the admissibility of evidence that was obtained unlawfully. It establishes that the evidence would have been discovered inevitably, regardless of the illegal actions taken by the officers.

    Rate this question:

  • 4. 

    Which one of the following is not a 4th Amendment Protection?

    • Protection against unreasonable searches & seizures

    • Right to counsel in your defense

    • No warrants without probable cause

    Correct Answer
    A. Right to counsel in your defense
    Explanation
    The right to counsel in your defense is not a 4th Amendment Protection. The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and ensures that warrants can only be issued with probable cause. The right to counsel, on the other hand, is protected under the 6th Amendment, which guarantees the right to legal representation in criminal cases.

    Rate this question:

  • 5. 

    What is it called when an officer by means of physical force or show of authority, has some way restrained the liberty of a person?

    • Search

    • Coercion

    • Seizure

    Correct Answer
    A. Seizure
    Explanation
    When an officer uses physical force or shows authority to restrict a person's freedom, it is referred to as a seizure. This can occur when an individual is detained, arrested, or otherwise restrained against their will. The term "seizure" is commonly used in legal contexts to describe the act of taking control over someone's liberty.

    Rate this question:

  • 6. 

    For a special needs search of kids in school, what factors are needed?

    • Reasonable suspicion that student has something against the law

    • Individualized suspicion

    • Initiated by school official

    • All of the above

    Correct Answer
    A. All of the above
    Explanation
    All of the above factors are needed for a special needs search of kids in school. Reasonable suspicion that a student has something against the law is necessary to justify a search. Individualized suspicion means that the suspicion is specific to a particular student and not based on generalizations. The search must also be initiated by a school official, ensuring that it is conducted by someone with the authority to do so. Therefore, all of these factors are required for a special needs search of kids in school.

    Rate this question:

  • 7. 

    Miranda warnings fall under which Amendment?

    • 6th

    • 4th

    • 5th

    Correct Answer
    A. 5th
    Explanation
    Miranda warnings fall under the 5th Amendment. The 5th Amendment protects individuals from self-incrimination and guarantees due process. Miranda warnings, also known as Miranda rights, are a set of rights that must be read to individuals who are in police custody before they are questioned. These rights include the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. The purpose of Miranda warnings is to ensure that individuals are aware of their rights and can make an informed decision about whether to exercise them during police interrogation.

    Rate this question:

  • 8. 

    During a sweep of a house, the poloce can look anywhere they want for weapons or people who could hurt them?

    • True

    • False

    Correct Answer
    A. False
    Explanation
    extends only to a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found, and may last only as long as necessary to dispel the RS of danger.”

    Rate this question:

  • 9. 

    When do you need a warrant?

    • When arresting someone

    • Only when arrested inside someones house

    • Anytime an officer stops someone to question them

    Correct Answer
    A. Only when arrested inside someones house
    Explanation
    A warrant is required only when arresting someone inside someone's house. This is because the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment states that a warrant must be obtained from a judge, based on probable cause, before law enforcement can enter and search someone's home. This ensures that citizens' privacy rights are protected and prevents arbitrary intrusion by law enforcement. In other situations, such as stopping someone to question them, a warrant may not be necessary as long as there is reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the stop.

    Rate this question:

  • 10. 

    What does this describe? Enough particularized facts to lead a reasonable person to believe that there is a fair probability of criminal activity.

    • Probable Cause

    • Reasonable Suspicion

    • An officers reasonable belief

    Correct Answer
    A. Probable Cause
    Explanation
    This describes probable cause, which is a legal standard that refers to having enough specific facts to lead a reasonable person to believe that there is a fair probability of criminal activity. It is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion, which only requires an officer's reasonable belief.

    Rate this question:

  • 11. 

    A target of a search automatically has "standing"

    • True

    • False

    Correct Answer
    A. False
    Explanation
    The statement "A target of a search automatically has 'standing'" is false. In legal terms, standing refers to the right of an individual or entity to bring a case to court. In the context of a search, standing would mean that the target of the search has the legal right to challenge the search or its results in court. However, simply being the target of a search does not automatically grant standing. Standing is determined by various legal factors, such as whether the individual's rights were violated or if they have a direct and personal interest in the outcome of the search.

    Rate this question:

  • 12. 

    Which of the following is not a legitimate reason for inventory searches?

    • Protection of detainees property

    • Check for drugs or weapons

    • Officer safety

    Correct Answer
    A. Check for drugs or weapons
    Explanation
    The reason "check for drugs or weapons" is not a legitimate reason for inventory searches. Inventory searches are conducted to protect the property of detainees and ensure that their belongings are properly accounted for. They are not meant to be used as a means to search for drugs or weapons. This type of search would require separate legal justification, such as probable cause or a search warrant.

    Rate this question:

  • 13. 

    Florida v. Bostick created what test for seizures?

    • Reasonable suspicion

    • Free to leave test

    • Probable cause test

    Correct Answer
    A. Free to leave test
    Explanation
    The correct answer is "Free to leave test." The Free to Leave test was established in the Florida v. Bostick case, which determined that a seizure occurs when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave or terminate the encounter with law enforcement. This test is used to determine if a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred during a police encounter. It assesses whether a person's freedom of movement has been unreasonably restricted by the actions or behavior of law enforcement officers.

    Rate this question:

  • 14. 

    A probationer can be searched for any reason what so ever.

    • True

    • False

    Correct Answer
    A. False
    Explanation
    A probationer cannot be searched for any reason whatsoever. While probationers have fewer privacy rights compared to individuals not on probation, their Fourth Amendment rights still apply. Therefore, a search of a probationer must be based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause, just like any other search.

    Rate this question:

  • 15. 

    What is the remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel?

    • Appeal

    • Nothing

    • New Trial

    Correct Answer
    A. New Trial
    Explanation
    The remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel is a new trial. When a defendant receives inadequate legal representation that significantly affects the outcome of their case, they can request a new trial to ensure they receive fair and competent representation. This allows them the opportunity to present their case with the assistance of a more competent attorney and potentially achieve a different outcome.

    Rate this question:

  • 16. 

    Specific & articulable facts that give rise to a particularized and objective basis for suspecting an individual of criminal activity is used for what?

    • Probable Cause

    • Totality of the circumstances

    • Reasonable Suspicion

    Correct Answer
    A. Reasonable Suspicion
    Explanation
    Reasonable suspicion is used when there are specific and articulable facts that give rise to a particularized and objective basis for suspecting an individual of criminal activity. It is a lower standard than probable cause and allows law enforcement officers to briefly detain and question individuals if they have reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or will occur. This standard is used to balance the need for effective law enforcement with protecting individual rights and privacy.

    Rate this question:

  • 17. 

    When_____________________ happens, the state may not deliberately elicit information from the defendant.

    • Critical stage

    • Adversarial judicial proceedings

    • Indictment

    Correct Answer
    A. Adversarial judicial proceedings
    Explanation
    In adversarial judicial proceedings, the state is not required to actively seek or elicit information from the defendant. This is because the nature of adversarial proceedings is based on the idea of two opposing parties presenting their arguments and evidence to the court. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and they are responsible for gathering and presenting evidence to support their case. The defendant has the right to remain silent and is not obligated to provide any information that may incriminate them. Therefore, during adversarial judicial proceedings, the state may not deliberately elicit information from the defendant.

    Rate this question:

  • 18. 

    Which case said " where the confession is obtained by force or coercion, the statement is involuntary"

    • Miller v. Fenton

    • Mincey v. Arizona

    • Arizona v. Fulminante

    Correct Answer
    A. Arizona v. Fulminante
    Explanation
    In Arizona v. Fulminante, the case established that if a confession is obtained through force or coercion, the statement is considered involuntary. This means that the confession was not given freely and willingly by the individual, but rather was a result of external pressure or intimidation. The court recognized that such confessions are unreliable and unjust, and therefore should not be admissible as evidence in court.

    Rate this question:

  • 19. 

    The fruit of the poisonous tree is applicable to which of the following right to counsel options?

    • Massiah

    • Miranda

    • Both Massiah and Miranda

    Correct Answer
    A. Massiah
    Explanation
    The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies to the Massiah right to counsel option. This doctrine states that evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure, or in violation of the defendant's right to counsel, is also considered tainted and inadmissible. In the Massiah case, the Supreme Court held that any incriminating statements made by a defendant during a secret government wiretap after the right to counsel had attached were in violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. Therefore, any evidence derived from those statements would be considered fruit of the poisonous tree and inadmissible in court.

    Rate this question:

  • 20. 

    Michigan v. Long discusses what?

    • Search of vehicle incident to arrrest

    • Inventory Search of Vehicle

    • Search of vehicle for protective sweep

    Correct Answer
    A. Search of vehicle for protective sweep
    Explanation
    Michigan v. Long discusses the legality of conducting a protective sweep of a vehicle during a lawful arrest. A protective sweep is a limited search that is conducted to ensure the safety of law enforcement officers by checking for hidden weapons or potential threats. In this case, the Supreme Court held that a protective sweep of a vehicle is permissible if there is a reasonable belief that the suspect may be armed and dangerous, and if the search is limited to areas where a person could hide. This decision clarified the circumstances under which law enforcement officers can search a vehicle for their own safety.

    Rate this question:

  • 21. 

    Which of the following can not give third-party consent to a search an entire house?

    • Husband-wife

    • Parent-child

    • Roomate-roomate

    • Landlord-tenant

    Correct Answer
    A. Roomate-roomate
    Explanation
    Roommates cannot give third-party consent to a search of an entire house because they share equal rights and responsibilities for the property. Third-party consent typically applies when one person has legal authority or control over the property, allowing them to give consent on behalf of others. In the case of roommates, they have equal rights and control over the house, so one roommate cannot grant consent for a search without the consent of the other roommate.

    Rate this question:

  • 22. 

    When does double jeopardy attach?

    • When the defendant is charged

    • When the 1st witness is sworn in

    • When the judge shows up to court

    Correct Answer
    A. When the 1st witness is sworn in
    Explanation
    Double jeopardy attaches when the first witness is sworn in because it refers to the constitutional protection that prevents an individual from being tried again for the same offense after they have been acquitted or convicted. Once the first witness is sworn in and the trial has officially begun, the jeopardy attaches and the defendant is protected from being tried again for the same offense in the future.

    Rate this question:

  • 23. 

    The Exclusionary rule is a Constitutional right to deter police misconduct & promote judicial integrity.

    • True

    • False

    Correct Answer
    A. False
    Explanation
    A judge-made rule to deter unlawful police conduct.

    Rate this question:

  • 24. 

    ____________________ (case name) said the defendant must formally request counsel before any appointment is made.

    Correct Answer
    Montejo v. Louisiana
    Explanation
    In the case of Montejo v. Louisiana, it was determined that the defendant must explicitly request legal counsel before any appointment is made. This means that the defendant cannot simply assume or expect to be provided with a lawyer, but must actively and formally ask for one.

    Rate this question:

  • 25. 

    What are the burdens of proof in criminal proceedings?

    Correct Answer
    Reasonable Suspicion Specific & articulable facts (evidence) Preponderance of the Evidence Clear & Convincing Evidence Beyond a reasonable doubt
    Explanation
    The burdens of proof in criminal proceedings include reasonable suspicion, specific and articulable facts (evidence), preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt. These different burdens represent the varying levels of proof required at different stages of a criminal case. Reasonable suspicion is the lowest burden, requiring only a minimal level of evidence to justify a brief detention. Specific and articulable facts refer to the evidence needed to establish probable cause for an arrest. Preponderance of the evidence is the burden in civil cases, requiring the evidence to be more likely true than not. Clear and convincing evidence is a higher burden, requiring a high degree of certainty. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden in criminal cases, requiring the evidence to be so strong that there is no reasonable doubt of guilt.

    Rate this question:

  • 26. 

    What are the requirements to get a warrant?

    Correct Answer
    Signed by a neutral and detached magistrate. Limited in scope & time PC must be RIPE at the time.
    Explanation
    To obtain a warrant, it must be signed by a neutral and detached magistrate. This ensures that the decision to issue the warrant is made by an impartial authority. Additionally, the warrant should be limited in scope and time, meaning it should specify the specific area to be searched or the items to be seized, and it should have a defined time period during which it is valid. Finally, there must be probable cause (PC) at the time the warrant is issued, meaning there must be sufficient evidence or information to believe that a crime has been committed and that the search or seizure will uncover evidence of that crime.

    Rate this question:

  • 27. 

    What are the elements of the Plain View Doctrine?

    Correct Answer
    Officer must be standing in a place he has a right to be; AND It must be immediately apparent to the officer that it is evidence of a crime or contraband
    Explanation
    The Plain View Doctrine consists of two elements. First, the officer must be standing in a location where they have a legal right to be present. This means that they cannot be trespassing or unlawfully entering a private property. Second, it must be immediately obvious to the officer that the object they see is evidence of a crime or contraband. This means that they cannot conduct a search or seizure based on mere suspicion or speculation. Both of these elements must be satisfied for the Plain View Doctrine to apply.

    Rate this question:

  • 28. 

    How do you waive Miranda?

    Correct Answer
    Knowing Intelligent voluntary
    Explanation
    The term "Miranda" refers to the Miranda rights, which are the constitutional rights that individuals must be informed of when they are taken into custody and before they are questioned by law enforcement. To waive Miranda means to voluntarily give up or surrender these rights. The answer "Knowing, Intelligent, voluntary" suggests that in order to waive Miranda, the individual must do so with full understanding of their rights, with the ability to comprehend the consequences of waiving those rights, and without any coercion or force.

    Rate this question:

Quiz Review Timeline (Updated): Mar 21, 2023 +

Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.

  • Current Version
  • Mar 21, 2023
    Quiz Edited by
    ProProfs Editorial Team
  • Aug 05, 2011
    Quiz Created by
    LaurenApril416
Back to Top Back to top
Advertisement
×

Wait!
Here's an interesting quiz for you.

We have other quizzes matching your interest.