Term
| Under what circumstances may an officer perform a Terry stop? |
|
Definition
| When the officer has reasonable suspicion (based on articulable facts) that a crime is or will be committed |
|
|
Term
| What is the test used to determine is a Terry stop is appropriate? |
|
Definition
| One must weigh the governmental interests of crime detection versus a person's civil liberties |
|
|
Term
| Is running away enough to establish reasonable suspicion? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Can a Terry stop be made based an a tip or must the officer observe the behavior himself? |
|
Definition
| It can be made based on a tip, but the tip should be detailed enough that it can be partially corroborated to ensure its reliability |
|
|
Term
| How does the Court determine if a Terry stop was short enough to be considered limited? Is there a bright line duration, such as no more than 20 minutes? Why or why not? |
|
Definition
| They look at if police diligently pursued a means that would confirm or deny their suspicions quickly; No, because different circumstances produce different standards of limited |
|
|
Term
| If an officer is performing a Terry stop and feels what he believes to be contraband, can the officer reach into the suspect's clothing in order to better feel or take out the object to determine if it is indeed contraband? |
|
Definition
| No. If the officer can determine that the object is contraband WITHOUT taking it out or manipulating it, then it may be seized. However, since a Terry stop is to protect an officer's safety (and the contraband in of itself presents no danger), the officer cannot go beyond what is needed to feel for weapons. |
|
|
Term
| Does a passenger in a car have standing to oppose a search of the car and why or why not? |
|
Definition
| Passengers in a vehicle have no property or possessory interest in a vehicle, so any evidence found against them in a vehicle is allowed at trial |
|
|
Term
| Does a person who is an overnight guest at a house have standing to object to a search of the house? Why or why not? |
|
Definition
| Yes; they have a certain amount of privacy that society is prepared to accept as reasonable |
|
|
Term
| Briefly describe the exclusionary rule |
|
Definition
| Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment result in the exclusion of that evidence at trial |
|
|
Term
| What is the purpose of the exclusionary rule? |
|
Definition
| To deter overzealous law enforcement and put teeth in constitutional rights |
|
|
Term
| What is the high price society might pay if the exclusionary rule is used in a case? |
|
Definition
| A dangerous criminal might go free |
|
|
Term
| What are the exceptions to the exclusionary rule? |
|
Definition
| Good faith, inevitable discovery, and independent sources |
|
|
Term
| Suppose you were subpenaed by a grand jury and ordered to give a voice exemplar so they could compare it to a recording they took of a crime. Would you have to comply? Why or why not? |
|
Definition
| Yes; the voice sample is a physical characteristic that is constantly exposed to the public so it is not a search. Further, giving an exemplar does not incriminate you as you do not admit to any crime. The subpoena is not a seizure since it is flexible and does not carry a social stigma |
|
|
Term
| A man was suspected of murder. Police went to his house and Mirandized him. The man waived his right to an attorney and made incriminating remarks. He was then arrested, taken to the station, Mirandized again, and signed a confession that he killed the woman found. Then he was Mirandized AGAIN and taped a video confession. Are there any constitutional issues with any of the statements given? |
|
Definition
| No. The second confession was questioned but it was determined that a confession given after police arrested the man on the street would be admissible |
|
|
Term
| Is wire tapping a house considered trespassing or an unreasonable search? |
|
Definition
| Yes, doing so would require a warrant |
|
|
Term
| Suppose a government agent lied about his identity to a drug dealer and expressed a desire to purchase drugs. The dealer invites the agent into his home and is later arrested for selling drugs. Was the agent in the house illegally? |
|
Definition
| No. The agent was not required to reveal his true identity and was invited in the home. |
|
|
Term
| If a person refuses to identify him or herself during a Terry stop, can he or she be arrested for it? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Do sobriety checkpoints violate the 4th amendment? Why or why not? |
|
Definition
| No. When balancing the opposing interests, it was determined that the intrusion on privacy is slight (short stop, minimally invasive) while the government interest of highway safety is high and the overall effectiveness of such stops is high enough to make them acceptable |
|
|
Term
| Is a checkpoint lawful if its purpose is to deter drug trafficking? Why or why not? |
|
Definition
| No, a checkpoint is unconstitutional if its primary purpose is indistinguishable from general crime control. If all that were required for checkpoints to be allowed was a license and registration check, such a stop could be made for any purpose whatsoever |
|
|
Term
| Are the staff of a jail allowed to search a person who is there awaiting trial, as opposed to an actual inmate? Why or why not? |
|
Definition
| Yes. The search is made of every incoming person for safety purposes (that of the staff, person, and other inmates). The jail needs to be able to ensure this safety and should not have to check the purpose of every person's presence in the building |
|
|
Term
| Is the Fourth Amendment being violated if police transport a suspect without consent or probable cause in order that the suspect be fingerprinted? |
|
Definition
| Yes, as the person is being seized and transported to a place he or she has no desire to be. If, however, the officers were to stop a person in the field they had reasonable suspicion to suspect, the officers could fingerprint that person in the field |
|
|
Term
| Can the Government listen in to a conversation being held through a public utility such as a phone booth without a warrant? |
|
Definition
| No. The purpose of such booths is auditory privacy, which society accepts as reasonable. Lacking a warrant or exigent circumstances, the Government has no grounds to wire tap a phone line |
|
|
Term
| Is attaching a GPS unit to a person’s car and tracking them a search and/or seizure? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| If two people are having a conversation inside a home and one person is wired, is the evidence admissible in court or is this similar to the situation in Katz where the Government had no right listening to a private conversation? |
|
Definition
| The recording is lawful since one participant was aware of the wire. Just as the suspect cannot be legally assured that the person he or she is talking to will not go to the police, he or she also has no right to believe the police will not be made aware of the conversation |
|
|
Term
| Is the exclusionary rule mandated by the Constitution? |
|
Definition
| No, it is a statute created by the Court as a remedy to evidence seized in violation of the 4th amendment |
|
|
Term
| Does using a thermal imaging device from a public street to detect relative heat amounts in a private residence constitute a search? |
|
Definition
| The Court decided that “obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical ‘intrusion into a constitutionally protected area’ constitutes a search...” |
|
|
Term
| Suppose an undercover agent approached a suspected drug manufacturer and offered to obtain a difficult to obtain ingredient in exchange for some of the drugs. Is the manufacturer being entrapped? |
|
Definition
| Provided that the manufacturer was able to obtain the drug his or herself (ie without direct, governmental help) then no. |
|
|
Term
| What is the test used to determine if Governmental action constitutes entrapment? |
|
Definition
| The predisposition of the suspect: if he or she was going to commit the crime regardless of government interference and all the government did was assist in the act in order to establish proof of wrongdoing |
|
|
Term
| A person suspected of jury tampering invites a colleague over to his hotel room to talk about business. The colleague then reports what he had learned from the conversations to the government. Was this an illegal search for verbal evidence, since had the suspect known about the colleague, the suspect would never have allowed him in? |
|
Definition
| No. As the conversations took place in the colleague's presence and the colleague was expressly invited in, no constitutional violation occurred. The suspect had no right to believe the colleague would not tell the government anything |
|
|
Term
| How long does the government have after arresting a person to prove probable cause? Are there any exceptions to this? |
|
Definition
| The government has 48 hours to prove probable cause, inclusive of weekends and holidays. If there is a delay, the government must prove such a delay was necessary and reasonable |
|
|
Term
| Is a grand jury required to look at both inculpatory AND exculpatory evidence? Why or why not? |
|
Definition
| No. Since the grand jury is not a judiciary body, they need only evaluate inculpatory evidence in order to determine if the State has a case |
|
|
Term
| In determining whether or not a trial is "speedy," what factors must be considered? Or, is there a bright line restriction, such as within 6 months? |
|
Definition
| There is no such rigid time restriction. Instead, the Court must consider this on a case by case basis, looking at the length of the delay, reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his or her 6th amendment right, and the prejudice of the defendant |
|
|
Term
| If a person officially pleads guilty to a charge but declares that he or she is actually innocent and just doesn't want to risk a higher penalty, can a court accept the guilty plea? |
|
Definition
| Provided there is a factual basis for guilt and an express waiver of his or her trial rights from the defendant, then yes. |
|
|
Term
| Does a person have a constitutional right to bail? If you are held in jail until your trial, are you in effect being punished before you've been found guilty? |
|
Definition
| No, the Constitution only guards against EXCESSIVE bail, it does not guarantee you'll receive it. Since you are being held in the regulatory sense and not the penal, you are not being punished. |
|
|
Term
| What are some reasons you may not be allowed bail? |
|
Definition
| If you pose a threat to society, if you might intimidate witnesses, or if there is a chance you may flee |
|
|
Term
| If you are forced to wear a prison jumpsuit during your trial, are you being denied due process? |
|
Definition
| It depends on the circumstances. Typically yes, but in cases where the defendant presents a danger or cannot behave properly in court, that defendant may be required to be shackled, gagged, etc. A defendant may also ELECT to wear such clothing in order to elicit sympathy from the jury. |
|
|
Term
| What are some ways a court can control the media? |
|
Definition
| The court may issue gag orders for witnesses, sequester the jury, change the venue, limit media access to the court room (or eliminate), postpone the trial until the fervor has died down, or grant a new trial |
|
|
Term
| What factors can the court look at when deciding bail? What can the court NOT consider? |
|
Definition
Nature and seriousness of the charges, substantiality of evidence, the arrestee's background, danger to the community, and arrestee's ability to flee.
The court cannot consider a person's economic ability to make bail |
|
|
Term
| Are knock and notice violations substantial enough to merit exclusion? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Is the prosecution required to turn over all of their files to the defense? Is the same required of the defense? |
|
Definition
No, only those that, if not disclosed, would negate the defendant’s right to a fair trial
No, they do not have to turn over anything |
|
|
Term
| Is the defense or prosecution allowed to peremptory exclude jurors based on physical characteristics like race or gender? |
|
Definition
| No. Peremptory challenges are made on an individual basis and must show a personal bias that would not allow him or her to consider the facts fairly |
|
|
