Criminal Justice in America: Police and Law

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What must occur for consent to be considered valid in a search?

Consent must be coerced to ensure compliance.

Consent must be given voluntarily by someone with authority. (correct)

Consent must be given by a person related to the resident.

Consent must be documented in writing.

Which case established the principle that an officer cannot search a dwelling if one resident objects?

Carroll v. United States

Georgia v. Randolph (correct)

Miranda v. Arizona

Knowles v. Iowa

What is true regarding the search of an automobile under traffic violations?

Only the trunk can be searched with a traffic violation.

Traffic violations automatically permit a search of passenger compartments.

Traffic violations allow full searches of any vehicle.

Traffic violations do not authorize a search of the entire vehicle. (correct)

What is the purpose of an inventory search conducted by police?

To create a record of items in an impounded vehicle. Signup and view all the answers

What does the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination seek to protect?

The rights of individuals regardless of guilt. Signup and view all the answers

What does the concept of exigent circumstances allow police officers to do?

Justify a warrantless entry and search in urgent situations Signup and view all the answers

Which Supreme Court case endorsed warrantless searches for weapons and evidence in the vicinity of an arrestee?

Chimel v. California Signup and view all the answers

What is a key outcome of consent searches?

They prevent officers from being civilly liable. Signup and view all the answers

In United States v. Drayton, what was declared regarding police officers and consent?

They must inform individuals of their right to refuse consent. Signup and view all the answers

The ‘inevitable discovery rule’ primarily pertains to which aspect of law enforcement?

The admissibility of evidence gathered illegally. Signup and view all the answers

How does the concept of plain view relate to search and seizure?

It permits officers to seize evidence visible without a search. Signup and view all the answers

Which case established that the search of an automobile can occur without a warrant upon the arrest of the driver?

Virginia v. Moore Signup and view all the answers

What is the intent behind the Fourth Amendment regarding search and seizure?

To protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Signup and view all the answers

What does the Fourth Amendment primarily prohibit?

Unreasonable searches and seizures Signup and view all the answers

Which principle allows police to seize items that are visible to them while in a lawful location?

Plain view doctrine Signup and view all the answers

In what scenario can police conduct a search without obtaining a warrant?

If there is imminent danger or evidence destruction Signup and view all the answers

What does the exclusionary rule primarily aim to achieve?

Deter law enforcement from violating constitutional rights Signup and view all the answers

What is required for police to have reasonable suspicion to make a stop?

Specific articulable facts indicative of criminal activity Signup and view all the answers

What is the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule?

Allows admission of evidence if police did not intend to violate rights Signup and view all the answers

What does the inevitable discovery rule state?

Evidence that would have been discovered legally can be admitted Signup and view all the answers

What is characterized as a seizure under the Fourth Amendment?

Taking a suspect into custody following an arrest Signup and view all the answers

Under the plain view doctrine, evidence must meet which criteria to be admissible?

The officer must be lawfully present at the location where the evidence was seen Signup and view all the answers

What must occur for the exclusionary rule to apply?

The evidence must be illegal and obtained without a warrant Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Police and Law

Criminal Justice in America, Eighth Edition, authored by George F. Cole, Christopher E. Smith, and Christina DeJong, covers police and law.
Learning objectives include understanding police authority to stop and search people and property, warrant procedures for searches and arrests, situations where warrantless searches are permitted, the privilege against compelled self-incrimination, and the exclusionary rule.
A Miami, Florida case illustrates the debate about warrantless searches using trained drug-sniffing dogs.
The Bill of Rights is the foundation for individual rights, and judges balance crime control and individual rights when interpreting the Constitution.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
A "search" is an action that intrudes on a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.
The objective standard determines when a governmental intrusion constitutes a search.
The plain view doctrine allows officers to use visible evidence when in a permitted location.
Seizures involve police use of authority to deprive people of liberty, and are not always unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Arrests involve taking suspects into custody, while stops are brief, often measured in minutes, intrusions on freedom.
Reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts leading officers to believe criminal activity is afoot.
Police actions must be based on reasonable suspicion, not hunches.
Courts permit some stops without reasonable suspicion, such as at border crossings.
The Supreme Court's 1974 decision in Tennessee v. Garner limited the use of deadly force against unarmed, fleeing suspects, requiring probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat.
Graham v. Connor (1989 clarified the "objective reasonableness" standard for the use of force, judging it from the officer's viewpoint on the scene.
An arrest requires probable cause, sufficient evidence making it likely a suspect committed a crime.
Warrants must detail the place to be searched and the evidence sought based on probable cause and an oath of affirmation.
Courts consider the totality of circumstances to assess probable cause (Illinois v. Gates, 1983).
Warrantless searches may be justified by special needs beyond normal law enforcement, stop-and-frisk, incidents to lawful arrests, exigent circumstances, consent, and automobile searches.
Special needs involve justified searches, like airport metal detectors and sobriety checkpoints.
The 2000 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond case established that such checkpoints primarily for crime control are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
Police officers have the right to conduct stops and limited searches when they have reasonable suspicion of a person being involved in criminal activity.
The Terry v. Ohio (1968) case upheld the stop-and-frisk procedure as a justified police action under circumstances where a person presents an imminent danger to others or police.
Police conduct limited searches of outer clothing when reasonable suspicion warrants it for weapons used in assault.
The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination isn't intended to protect the guilty, but to protect all individuals by not forcing them to incriminate themselves.
The Miranda decision (1966) mandated informing suspects of their rights upon arrest before questioning.
Miranda warnings apply only to custodial interrogations; officers making routine questioning on the street do not need to read these rights.
The public safety exception to Miranda allows immediate questioning about safety issues.
Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) limited suspects’ right to remain silent regarding simply remaining silent during questioning.
Missouri v. Seibert (2004) case warned against attempting to circumvent Miranda rights through sequential interrogations.
The exclusionary rule, established in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) and strengthened in Weeks v. US (1914) and Mapp v. Ohio (1961), excludes illegally obtained evidence from trial.
Exceptions to the exclusionary rule include good faith, inevitable discovery, and other considerations.
Officers are allowed to use evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment if it would have inevitably been discovered by lawful means (Inevitable Discovery rule).
Consent searches are permissible if voluntary and given by someone with proper authority.
United States v. Drayton (2002) decided that officers don't have to inform people about their right to refuse a search when asking consent.
Permissible consent searches must be voluntary and given by someone with the authority to consent.
Carroll v. United States (1925) established that automobiles are a justifiable subject of warrantless searches because of mobility.
Knowles v. Iowa (1998) clarified that a traffic violation alone doesn't justify the search of an entire vehicle.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

This quiz explores the fundamental principles of police authority and law as outlined in 'Criminal Justice in America.' It delves into warrant procedures, the Fourth Amendment, and the balance between individual rights and crime control, featuring real case studies on warrantless searches. Gain a deeper understanding of the legal framework surrounding law enforcement practices.