CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE PRACTICE
TEST 2024 WITH ANS LATEST VERSION
1. Give three arguments in favor of the exclusionary rule as it currently stands, and three
arguments against it. Then explain your position on the issue, supporting it with logical
examples
The exclusionary rule ensures that immediate action is undertaken when a probable cause
becomes established.
The exclusionary rule is vital for law enforcement behavioral compliance while ensuring
collected evidence integrity.
The exclusionary rule prohibits constitutional violations associated with search and
seizures.
The exclusionary rule may inadvertently dismiss admissible evidence.
The exclusionary rule may prohibit the only physical or biological evidence linked to the
perpetrator.
The exclusionary rule may result in a dismissal of dangerous individuals and should be
constitutionally evaluated to apply to today’s criminal behaviors.
2. The exclusionary rule was fashioned to deter police misconduct. The Supreme Court has
refused to implement it to cases where the misconduct was not by the police. Should the
exclusionary rule be extended to other public officers besides the police? Why or why not? If
so, to what other public officers should the rule apply?
Yes, the exclusionary rule should extend to all individuals’ title color of the state. Public
officers that become aware of behavioral accountabilities tend to apply ethical and moral
decisions.
3. What was the effect of Mapp v. Ohio upon the criminal justice system?
, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE PRACTICE
TEST 2024 WITH ANS LATEST VERSION
Mapp v. Ohio (2017)1 established search, and seizure guidelines are making it illegal for
prosecutors to introduce evidence that becomes collected without search and seizure
warrants, violations of fourth amendment rights as well as interpreting constitutional
protections of unreasonable search and seizure associated with the 21st century.
4. The Court has held that probable cause is necessary for a station house detention
accompanied by interrogation as opposed to just fingerprinting even if no expressed arrest is
made. Do you agree with this holding Support your position?
As long as probable cause established and the interrogation accompanied by Miranda
warnings, and agreeing with the statutory procedure would be acceptable. However, if no
expressed arrest made, there can be no Miranda warning administered. Thus, no probable
cause would exist warranting the interrogation process.
5. Stops based on race alone are not valid, but there is disagreement whether race can be taken
as one factor in determining reasonable suspicion for a stop. Under what circumstances
should race be allowed as one factor in determining reasonable suspicion for a stop. Give an
example to support your conclusion.
The only situation I see that warrants utilizing race as a basis of reasonable suspicion
would be in a community that only has one cultural background. For example, it would
be hard to claim discrimination if a white officer stopped the black man in an entirely
black community. Same goes for Hispanic communities, Portuguese communities, and
the Oriental communities so forth and so on.
1
Mapp v. Ohio, LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/367/643 (last
visited Feb 21, 2017).
TEST 2024 WITH ANS LATEST VERSION
1. Give three arguments in favor of the exclusionary rule as it currently stands, and three
arguments against it. Then explain your position on the issue, supporting it with logical
examples
The exclusionary rule ensures that immediate action is undertaken when a probable cause
becomes established.
The exclusionary rule is vital for law enforcement behavioral compliance while ensuring
collected evidence integrity.
The exclusionary rule prohibits constitutional violations associated with search and
seizures.
The exclusionary rule may inadvertently dismiss admissible evidence.
The exclusionary rule may prohibit the only physical or biological evidence linked to the
perpetrator.
The exclusionary rule may result in a dismissal of dangerous individuals and should be
constitutionally evaluated to apply to today’s criminal behaviors.
2. The exclusionary rule was fashioned to deter police misconduct. The Supreme Court has
refused to implement it to cases where the misconduct was not by the police. Should the
exclusionary rule be extended to other public officers besides the police? Why or why not? If
so, to what other public officers should the rule apply?
Yes, the exclusionary rule should extend to all individuals’ title color of the state. Public
officers that become aware of behavioral accountabilities tend to apply ethical and moral
decisions.
3. What was the effect of Mapp v. Ohio upon the criminal justice system?
, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE PRACTICE
TEST 2024 WITH ANS LATEST VERSION
Mapp v. Ohio (2017)1 established search, and seizure guidelines are making it illegal for
prosecutors to introduce evidence that becomes collected without search and seizure
warrants, violations of fourth amendment rights as well as interpreting constitutional
protections of unreasonable search and seizure associated with the 21st century.
4. The Court has held that probable cause is necessary for a station house detention
accompanied by interrogation as opposed to just fingerprinting even if no expressed arrest is
made. Do you agree with this holding Support your position?
As long as probable cause established and the interrogation accompanied by Miranda
warnings, and agreeing with the statutory procedure would be acceptable. However, if no
expressed arrest made, there can be no Miranda warning administered. Thus, no probable
cause would exist warranting the interrogation process.
5. Stops based on race alone are not valid, but there is disagreement whether race can be taken
as one factor in determining reasonable suspicion for a stop. Under what circumstances
should race be allowed as one factor in determining reasonable suspicion for a stop. Give an
example to support your conclusion.
The only situation I see that warrants utilizing race as a basis of reasonable suspicion
would be in a community that only has one cultural background. For example, it would
be hard to claim discrimination if a white officer stopped the black man in an entirely
black community. Same goes for Hispanic communities, Portuguese communities, and
the Oriental communities so forth and so on.
1
Mapp v. Ohio, LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/367/643 (last
visited Feb 21, 2017).
