A lane search or partitioning the area into lanes

STRAYER CRJ320 WK 3 QUIZ 3 CHAPTER 4,5

1. In which 1984 case did the Supreme Court define a search as “a governmental infringement of a legitimate expectation of privacy?”
a. United States v. Ross

b. United States v. Jacobsen

c. Mapp v. Ohio
d. Terry v. Ohio
2. A lane search, or partitioning the area into lanes,
a. can be adapted to any number of police personnel.
b. is intended to be used only with one officer.
c. works well inside.
d. must always be used with a traffic director.
3. Which of the following is not a goal of a search during an investigation?
a. to establish that a crime was committed
b. to establish when the crime was committed
c. to identify who committed the crime
d. to punish the offender
4. Which of the following do investigators not need to know in order to conduct an effective search?
a. the legal requirements for searching
b. the identity of the offender
c. the elements of the crime being investigated
d. the items being searched for
5. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids what type of searches and seizures?
a. illegal

b. unsupervised

c. unreasonable
d. undercover
6. In which of the following cases is a search not legal?
a. The search is incidental to a lawful arrest.
b. An officer stops a suspicious person and believes the person to be armed.
c. An emergency exists.
d. An officer conducts a search of a motorist for a driving infraction.
7. A way to determine if probable cause exists today is which test?
a. plain-view doctrine

b. totality-of-the-circumstances test

c. voice stress test
d. truth-in-evidence test
8. A judge may issue a search warrant if which of the following items are being sought by an officer?
a. stolen or embezzled property
b. property that is designed for noncriminal activity
c. evidence that demonstrates a person is continuing criminal activity while on probation
d. personal drug usage of medicinal marijuana
9. A search conducted with a warrant must be limited to
a. only the specific room in the house.
b. cars that are present on the property.
c. only the specific area and items named in the warrant.
d. only those items within the arm’s-length rule.
10. Consent to search is valid only if given
a. under duress.
b. by a person who is not in control of the property.
c. voluntarily.
d. unknowingly.
11. Terry v. Ohio supported officers’ right to
a. question suspects with an attorney present.
b. conduct a patdown or a frisk if they believe the person might be armed and dangerous.
c. conduct a full-body cavity search of an individual who is not in custody.
d. search vehicles upon probable cause to do so.
12. Every lawful arrest is accompanied by a search of the arrested person. This is referred to as
a. search of the person.

b. search incident to arrest.

c. search upon complaint.
d. search with consent.
13. The Chimel decision established that a search incidental to a lawful arrest must be made simultaneously with the arrest. A search incidental to arrest must be confined to
a. the arrested person’s body.
b. the arrested person’s body and car.
c. the area within the suspect’s immediate control.
d. the general area.
14. Emergency circumstances (such as fire or officers hearing shots fired or screams) that allow officers to enter a home without a warrant are referred to as
a. no-knock entries.

b. high-risk entries.

c. exigent circumstances.
d. warrantless emergencies.
15. The Carroll decision established that with probable cause,
a. automobiles may not be searched unless consent is given.
b. houses may be searched if the person was arrested in the house.
c. individuals associated with an arrested person may be searched.
d. automobiles may be searched based on their obvious mobility.
16. Mincey v. Arizona established that
a. officers may always search the premises when the search is associated with an arrest.
b. while officers are on the premises pursuing their legitimate emergency activities, any evidence in plain view may be seized.
c. searching a location where there are illegal drugs is legal without a search warrant, owing to special federal antidrug legislation.
d. officers may not seize evidence they find in plain view while pursuing emergency activities.
17. Wyoming v. Houghton (1999) held that an officer may search an automobile passenger’s belongings simply because the officer suspects the driver has done something wrong. This ruling, which was intended to prevent drivers from claiming that illegal drugs or other contraband belongs to passengers rather than themselves, is referred to as the
a. jump-seat exception.

b. passenger patdown.

c. passenger property exception.
d. shotgun-seat exception.
18. The courts have ruled that when police take custody of a vehicle or other property, the police
a. may not inventory the property without a court order.
b. may not inventory the property without probable cause.
c. may inventory the property.
d. may search the property regardless of circumstances.
19. The most important limitation on searches is that they must be
a. expedient in scope.

b. narrow in scope.

c. broad in scope.
d. prearranged by warrant.
20. Which rule said that courts would not accept evidence obtained by unreasonable search and seizure?
a. silver-platter rule

b. exclusionary rule

c. roots-of-the-tree rule
d. rule of thumb
21. In Nix v. Williams, the Court said that if illegally obtained evidence (a statement, in this case, which led to a little girl’s body) would, in all likelihood, eventually have been discovered legally (for example, by a large search party), it may be used. This is referred to as what exception to the exclusionary rule?
a. the inevitable-discovery doctrine

b. the plain-view rule

c. the public safety rule
d. the eyes-on rule
22. Hopefully, a well-organized, thorough and proper organization of a crime scene search will result in
a. a meticulous search with no accidental destruction of evidence.
b. generating ideas about who might be a suspect.
c. ignoring some evidence that may have been found by accident.
d. identifying the motive.
23. In United States v. Leon, the court established that illegally obtained evidence may be admissible if the police were truly not aware they were violating a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights. In this case, the police were following up on a tip from an unreliable informant, which later invalidated the warrant. This exception is called the
a. sidewalk exception.

b. good-faith doctrine.

c. public safety exception.
d. just-in-time exception.
24. Physical evidence is
a. blood-spattered.

b. on a person.

c. anything material and relevant.
d. easily obtainable.
25. In California v. Greenwood, the Supreme Court ruled that
a. searches of homes are illegal.
b. searches of cars are legal if part of an inventory.
c. the curtilage rule applies to all evidence.
d. containers left on public property are open to search by police without a warrant.