MN POST Test
Weeks v. US (1914) - CORRECT ANSWER-Exclusionary rule
- warrantless seizure of items from private residence violates 4th Amendment
Terry v. Ohio (1968) - CORRECT ANSWER-"Stop and Frisk"
police may:
- stop a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person committed, or
is about to commit, a crime
- frisk the suspect for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person
is armed and dangerous
Reasonable Suspicion - CORRECT ANSWER-a suspicion based on specific
facts, training, and experience; less than probable cause
Probable cause to arrest - CORRECT ANSWER-facts and circumstances that
would cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed
and a particular person has committed it
Probable cause to search - CORRECT ANSWER-facts and circumstances that
would cause a reasonable person to believe that a evidence/property is located
in a particular place to be searched
frisk - CORRECT ANSWER-an over-the-clothes pat-down or minimal search by
police to discover weapons
Chimel v. California (1969) - "Chimel Rule" - CORRECT ANSWER-arresting
officers are limited to searches within the immediate vicinity/control of the suspect
being arrested; any other search requires warrant
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - CORRECT ANSWER-Extended the Exclusionary Rule to
the states
Carroll v. U.S. (1925) - "Carroll Doctrine" - CORRECT ANSWER-Automobile
exception
,- warrantless search of a car does not violate 4th Amendment, if there is PC to
believe evidence a crime is present in vehicle, and exigent circumstances exist to
believe vehicle could be moved before warrant is obtained
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) - CORRECT ANSWER-Right to counsel
- extended right to counsel during criminal trial to the states
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) - CORRECT ANSWER-Right to counsel
- criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - "Miranda Warning" - CORRECT ANSWER-law
enforcement required to give formal warning advising criminal suspects in
custody of their rights, before interrogation
In re Gault (1967) - CORRECT ANSWER-Due process
- 14th Amendment Due Process Clause applies to juveniles
In re Winship (1970) - CORRECT ANSWER-Due process
- established burden of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" as standard in all
federal and state cases
- removed "preponderance of evidence" standard previously used in juvenile
delinquency proceedings
Roper v. Simmons (2005) - CORRECT ANSWER-unconstitutional to impose
capital punishment for crimes committed while under 18
Atkins v. Virginia (2002) - CORRECT ANSWER-unconstitutional to impose
capital punishment on people with intellectual disabilities
Tennessee v. Garner (1985) - CORRECT ANSWER-Deadly force may not be
used against an unarmed and fleeing suspect unless necessary to prevent the
escape and unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect
poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to the officers or others
Graham v. Connor (1989) - CORRECT ANSWER-Use of Force "Objective
Reasonableness" standard
- judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene
, - factors:
1. severity of crime at issue
2. suspect poses immediate threat to safety of officers or others
3. actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by fleeing
(other factors may be considered)
Scales v Minnesota (1994) - CORRECT ANSWER-Recording requirement
(Minnesota only)
- custodial interrogation including Miranda warning, waiving of rights, and all
questioning shall be electronically recorded where feasible
- must be recorded when questioning occurs at place of detention
Herring v. US (2009) - CORRECT ANSWER-Good faith exception
- exclusionary rule cannot be used to suppress illegally obtained evidence if
officer was acting on erroneous warrant in good faith
Whren v. US (1996) - CORRECT ANSWER-any traffic offense committed by a
driver is a legitimate legal basis for a stop
Pena v Leombruni, US 7th Circuit (1999) - CORRECT ANSWER-officer justified
in using deadly force against "crazy suspect" who posed immediate threat of
death or great bodily harm, regardless of suspect's mental state
City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris (1989) - CORRECT ANSWER-municipalities may
be liable for inadequate training of employees, but only when "failure to train
amounts to deliberate indifference" to the public's constitutional rights
Thompson v Hubbard, US 8th Circuit (2001) - CORRECT ANSWER-officer
entitled to qualified immunity against excessive force claim for shooting fleeing
suspect when suspect reached toward waistband, even if suspect's waistband
could not hold a gun; officer not required to wait until seeing weapon before
employing deadly force
Plakas v. Drinski (1994) - CORRECT ANSWER-officers not required to used
other, less-lethal, alternatives when deadly force is justified
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller TUTORSON. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $12.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
