1. Which of the following is not guaranteed or prohibited by the Fifth Amendment?
a. right against self–incrimination b. trial by jury
c. double jeopardy d. just compensation
2. The exclusionary rule prohibits the use of confessions obtained in violation of a person‘s constitutional rights and
those that are otherwise coerced for all of the following reasons, except:
a. they are inherently unreliable.
b. to do otherwise would be a violation of due process.
c. of a need to hold government accountable by holding such confessions inadmissible.
d. the concern for public safety is not a Fifth Amendment issue.
3. The U.S. Supreme Court held that confessions obtained through brutality and torture by law enforcement officials
are violations of constitutionally protected due process rights in:
a. Brown v. Mississippi b. Fikes v. Alabama
c. Katz v. United States d. Dickerson v. United States
4. No Miranda warning is required if there is no seizure of the person as long as the police do not:
a. convey the message that compliance is required.
b. secretly intend to arrest the person at a later time.
c. ask the person any incriminating questions.
d. let the person voluntarily come to the police station.
5. When considering the characteristics of the accused, all of the following would apply, except:
a. if the accused is of low intelligence. b. if the accused is mentally ill.
c. if the accused is intoxicated. d. if the accused is remorseful.
6. The U.S. Supreme Court established the right to counsel during police interrogation for all criminal suspects in:
a. Escobedo v. Illinois b. Miranda v. Arizona.
c. Dickerson v. United States d. Fikes v. Alabama
7. The USA PATRIOT Act improves counter-terrorism efforts by all of the following, except:
a. allowing investigators to use tools already available to investigate organized crime and
drug trafficking.
b. facilitating information sharing and cooperation among government agencies.
c. increasing penalties for those who support or commit organized crime.
d. Updating the law to reflect new technologies and new threats.
8. The Supreme Court
effectively
set an expiration date on the right to counsel
invocation
by
announcing
a new “14
day break in custody” rule in:
a. Edwards v. Arizona b. Arizona v. Roberson
c. United States v. Dunn d. Maryland v. Shatzer
9. Which of the following statements would probably constitute an invocation of Miranda rights?
a. “I think I may have said too much.”
b. “If I don’t like your questions, it’s lawyer time.”
c. “I’ll talk, but I’m not signing that waiver
form.”
d. “I’m done talking to you.”
10. The Miranda warning must be given:
a. immediately upon arresting an individual.
b. only to those suspects interrogated in the custody of police.
c. to all witnesses who may be called upon to testify in court.
d. to anyone being interrogated by the police.
11. Miranda warnings must be given to a suspect interrogated in police custody, defined as when the suspect is:
a. under arrest. b. facing criminal charges.
c. not free to leave. d. reasonably free to leave the situation.
12. At issue in Dickerson v. United States was Section 3501 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 which stated that the admissibility of statements should turn only on whether they were voluntarily made, and
not only on whether:
a. coercive tactics were used.
b. Miranda warnings had been given.
c. custodial interrogation had occurred.
d. the statement was made without an attorney present.
13. In which scenario would Miranda warnings be required?
a. Suspect in custody for an unrelated offense.
b. When suspect appears to testify before grand jury.
c. undercover officer poses as inmate and asks incriminating questions.
d. during line–ups, show–ups, and photographic identifications.
14. Police actions that would “shock the conscience” were found to violate due process in:
a. Miranda v. Arizona. b. Rochin v. California.
c. In re Gault. d. Katz v. United States.
15. The first confession case decided by the Supreme Court was:
a. Miranda v. Arizona. b. In re Gault.
c. New York v. Quarles. d. Brown v. Mississippi.
16. The due process
voluntariness
test is “whether the totality of the
circumstances
that preceded the confession
deprived the
defendant
of his…”:
a. reasonable expectation of privacy b. power of resistance
c. self–incrimination rights d. determination to remain silent.
17. It is not unconstitutional to obtain a confession by:
a. deprivation of food, drink, and sleep b. psychological coercion
c. trickery and deceit d. threats, but not acts, of violence
18. You are the on–duty desk sergeant. A man walks in and says “I killed someone and want to confess.” You grab
your digital voice recorder and direct the man to a chair at your desk. He sits down and tells the tale of what turns
out to be a first-degree murder. You record every word, including the
numerous
instances in which you said “Uh
huh” and “I see.” Satisfied that the subject did, indeed, commit a murder, you place him under arrest.
The confession is:
a.
inadmissible
because recording it was a violation of the subject’s reasonable
expectation of privacy.
b. inadmissible because the subject was in a coercive environment (police station), was
therefore in custody for purposes of Miranda, and the encouragement to continue was
interrogation.
c.
admissible
under the “public safety”
exception
to Miranda as the subject was a danger
to the officer and public.
d. admissible as a voluntary statement when the subject was neither in custody nor
interrogated for purposes of Miranda.
19. In order for a confession to be admissible it must be:
a. voluntary. b. true.
c. independently corroborated. d. in writing.
20. The conception and planning of an offense by an officer and his procurement of its commission by one who would
not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion, or fraud of the officer is:
a. ensnarement b. entrapment
c. framing d. a set up
21. The precedent case for analyzing confession issues is:
a. Terry v. Ohio. b. Miranda v. Arizona.
c. Escobedo v. Illinois. d. Massiah v. United States.
22.
Statements, including confessions,
will not be
admissible
in court if
obtained
while
violating
a
person’s
right to
reasonable expectation of privacy under the:
a. Fourth Amendment b. Fifth Amendment
c. Sixth Amendment d. Fourteenth Amendment
23. Which of the following is not a part of the Miranda warning?
a. You have the right to remain silent.
b. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost.
c. You may stop answering questions at any time you choose.
d. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court.
24. The public safety exception was established in:
a. Jacobson v. United States. b. Katz v. United States.
c. New York v. Quarles. d. Illinois v. Perkins.
25. Which of the following is not true about grand juries?
a. Choice of jurors determined by state law.
b. Does not make a determination of guilt.
c. May initiate investigations.
d. Different jury for each case.
26. The only unincorporated right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment is the right to:
a. be a witness against oneself.
b. a grand jury indictment.
c. due process of law.
d. just compensation when government takes private property.
27. In prisoners‘ rights cases the Fifth Amendment arises:
a. infrequently.
b. quite often, involving nearly half of all lawsuits filed by prisoners.
c. very often, involving more than 80 percent of all lawsuits filed by prisoners.
d.
never—prisoners
are not protected by the Fifth Amendment.
28. In re Gault assured juveniles:
a. the right to a jury trial.
b. due process in the legal system.
c. the right to be tried as an adult in certain cases.
d. the right against self–incrimination.
29. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self–incrimination comes into play:
a. whenever a law enforcement officer questions a suspect, whether in custody or not.
b. only during custodial interrogation.
c. only at trial.
d. whenever incriminating information is being communicated.
30. Which of the following would not violate the right against double jeopardy?
a. A second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal.
b. More than one punishment for the same offense.
c. Independent trials for an offense in both state and federal courts.
d. Lesser–included offenses tried after initial trial.
31. When a person on the witness stand “pleads the Fifth,” they are asserting their right against self–incrimination.
a. True
b. False
32. A suspect who has invoked only his right to silence cannot be re–approached to seek a waiver on a different case.
a. True
b. False
33. The Fifth Amendment requires just compensation when the government takes property.
a. True
b. False
34. The prohibition against double jeopardy prevents a second trial for the same offense for any reason.
a. True
b. False
35. Lying by the police to obtain a confession is a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
a. True
b. False
36. Since their actions can ultimately result in arrest, private security officers must inform suspects of their Miranda
rights prior to interrogation.
a. True
b. False
37. The precedent case for analyzing confessions issues is Miranda v. Arizona.
a. True
b. False
38. A “soft” Miranda warning recited less harshly and directly than is imprinted on most Miranda cards is permissible
if all four warnings are adequately conveyed to the suspect.
a. True
b. False
39. A waiver of Miranda is valid even if the suspect thought the questioning was going to be about a minor crime and
the questioning switched to a more serious crime.
a. True
b. False
40. The Miranda warning must be given during lineups, show–ups, and photographic identifications.
a. True
b. False
41. due process is constitutionally guaranteed rights of fairness in how the law is carried out or
applied.
42. Statements are not admissible in court if obtained without Miranda rights during custodial .
43. The voluntariness of a confession is determined by the and the characteristics of the
accused.
44. The requirement that laws themselves be applied fairly refers to due process.
45. False confession cases in which the suspect acquiesces to escape from a stressful situation, to avoid punishment,
or gain a promised or implied reward are called confessions.
46. A purposeful, voluntary giving up of a known right is a .
47. is questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way.
48. The exception allows police to questions suspects without first giving Miranda warnings if
information
sought
sufficiently
affects the
officers’
and the
public’s
safety.
49. The Act strengthens the ability of the Justice Department and the FBI to monitor suspected
terrorists and their associates.
50. is a deliberate “end run” around Miranda by purposely withholding warnings until after a
confession is obtained and then giving Miranda to re–ask the question (and is unconstitutional).
51. Describe at least eight instances in which Miranda need not be given.
52. Explain the public safety exception to the Miranda warnings.
53. Describe the challenge to Miranda presented in Dickerson v. United States (2000) and the Supreme
Court’s
ruling.
54. Discuss the USA PATRIOT Act, its elements, and how it aims to improve the nation’s
counter-terrorism efforts.
55. Explain Miranda requirements as they relate to private security.
56. Incrimination is the act of accusing, implicating, or identifying someone as having been involved in the crime or
other wrongdoing.
a. True
b. False
57. The right to remain silent was not granted suspects in criminal cases until Miranda.
a. True
b. False
58. It is not against due process to pump the stomach of a suspect against their consent to obtain evidence, because
the individual is not being interrogated.
a. True
b. False
59. Using physical torture as a means to obtain a confession violates due process, though not Miranda.
a. True
b. False
60. Voluntariness of a confession is determined by the police conduct involved and whether the individual has been
read their Miranda rights.
a. True
b. False
61. will only be considered coercive if it has the effect of overbearing one’s will.
62. Factors such as a suspect’s age, education, and
intelligence
levels will be considered when assessing the
of any confession to a criminal act.
63. confessions are those in which innocent but vulnerable suspects, exposed to highly suggestive
interrogation techniques, come to confess as well as to believe they committed the crime in question.
64. interrogation triggers the requirement to read Miranda rights.
65. When the process shifts from investigatory to the accused must be permitted to consult with
his or her lawyer.
66. The Supreme Court ruled that Miranda rights are not inadequate simply because of the order in which they are
given in the case of
a. Miranda v. Arizona
b. Brown v. Mississippi
c. Edwards v. Boxly
d. California v. Prysock
67. For the purposes of Miranda, the case that established that the ultimate determinant of whether a person is in
custody is whether the suspect has been subjected to formal arrest or to equivalent restraints on their freedom of
movement was
a. California v. Beheler
b. California v. Gold
c. Terry v. Ohio
d. Oregon v. Mathiason
68. The Supreme Court clarified the definition of interrogation to include any actions or words on the part of the
police that they should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect in the case
of
a. Howes v. Fields
b. Yates v. United States
c. United States v. Muhlenbruch
d. Rhode Island v. Innis
69. The Supreme Court held that a suspect who wishes to invoke his or her right to remain silent must first speak up
and unambiguously state that desire in the case of
a. Michigan v. Mosley
b. Berghuis v. Thompkins
c. Howes v. Fields
d. United States v. Jonas
70. The Supreme Court held that a violation of Miranda does not require the suppression of the “physical fruits” of
the statement, only the nonuse of the actual statement in the case of
a. Arizona v. Robertson
b. Minnick v. Mississippi
c. New York v. Quarles
d. United States v. Patane
71. You are a police detective and, though you lack probable cause, you are convinced that Amy Able is the
mastermind behind a series of art thefts in the north end of town. You believe that she plans the thefts, hires local
thieves, then sells the artwork overseas. You know that her usual thief has been arrested on an unrelated charge,
so you decide to arrange a meeting between a confidential informant (CI) with a history of petty theft and Amy
Able. At the meeting, your CI is wearing a “wire” to tape the
conversations.
During the meeting, Amy is
reluctant
to go ahead with more thefts, because she tells your CI that she is “out of the business” and wants to retire. At this
point, your listening device malfunctions, but your CI later tells you he convinced her by threatening to go to the
police and ruining her reputation as an art dealer. Amy reluctantly agrees to plan the heist and, several days later,
meets with your CI to go over the details. At this point, you know that she has committed sufficient acts to be
guilty of conspiracy to commit theft under local law and arrest her. You give the DA the transcript of the
conversations
recorded by the wire and she says it is a “slam dunk.” What legal issues, if any, are raised by the
facts? What should you do, if anything, as the detective on this case?
72. You are interviewing the prime suspect in a serious case and know that his attorney is waiting to see him outside
the interrogation room. The suspect has been advised of his rights, but has not chosen to invoke his right to an
attorney. Under current law, you are not required to inform him that the attorney is present outside. Do you think
this is a violation of the spirit of Miranda? Why or why not?
73. You are a police officer trying to find a kidnap victim who has a health problem that requires medical treatment in
the next six hours in order for him to survive. You have located an individual who has admitted to kidnapping the
victim, but refuses to provide further information. Your partner says that you should leave the interview room and
he will “encourage” the suspect to talk. You know that your partner is trying to protect you from an allegation of
violating the suspect’s rights when he uses force and threats to compel the
information
from the suspect. You also
know that without this action it is likely you will not find the kidnap victim in time. What do you do? Does your
course of action conform with the law? Why or why not?
74. You are the senior detective in a major metropolitan police department. One of the junior detectives has come to
you to announce that they have had a break in the case involving an aggravated assault. A young woman has
confessed to using a hammer on her former boyfriend. Even though no hammer was found at the scene and the
injuries may not have been caused by hammer, it appears that the case has been solved. When you see the
suspect led away from the interrogation room in handcuffs, you hear her talk about the judgment of the elves
coming down on her and say that someone needs to beam her up to the starship. The other detectives laugh about
this, but what, if anything, should you do now?
75. You have brought in a suspect in a serious crime to the police station. So far, he has been silent. You did read him
his Miranda rights when you handcuffed him and also made him sign a written version of the rights while he was
sitting at the interrogation table. You ask him again if he would like to talk about what happened and, this time, he
says, “You know, I am very hungry and my blood sugar is starting to cause me some problems. Could you please
give me some food, you lousy cop?” Angry, you leave the interrogation room for 20 minutes to fill out paperwork
and let the suspect consider the situation. When you return, the suspect is even more agitated, demanding food
and also using profanity, insulting you and your family. What should you do? What are the legal ramifications of
your action or inaction?