Terry v ohio - Study guides, Class notes & Summaries

NYPD Police Academy Ch.2 Law Rated A+ Weeks V. U.S. 1914 Established Exclusionary Rule Deters UNLAWFUL/IMPROPER police conduct Mapp V. Ohio 1961 Applied Exclusionary to the STATES Exclusionary Rule Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Evidence obtained by violating the defendants 4th amendment rights MAY NOT be introduced at Pre- Trial Hearing for the purpose of providing proof of guilt Terry V. Ohio Reasonable Suspicion of: COMMITTING a crime COMMITTED a crime or A...

Mapp v. Ohio - correct answer federal court exclusionary rule to the states Terry v. Ohio - correct answer Creates stop and frisk Nix v. Williams - correct answer inevitable discovery Katz v. US - correct answer reasonable expectation of privacy Who investigates aliens being smuggled or trafficked or aliens engaged in narcotics trafficking, bulk cash smuggling production of counterfeit ID documentation or nation security and terrorism - correct answer Homeland Security Special Agents...

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 specif...

100% Solved Weeks v. US (1914) Exclusionary rule - warrantless seizure of items from private residence violates 4th Amendment Terry v. Ohio (1968) "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 a suspicion based on specific facts, training, and experience; less than ...

Mapp v. Ohio correct answers- Facts: Mapp rented half her home out. Police investigating bombing in home of Don King, Police got a tip that man was in her home. No search warrant...forces the way into her home. Found "obscene material" and charged Evidence obtained illegally is excluded from use against a defendant at trail. Violation of 4th amendment "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" - Question: W...

POST EXAM PRACTICE TEST Subjects of an interrogation are witnesses and victims who are willing to provide police with information they possess about a matter under investigation F Simple Robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another form the person of another by the use of force or intimidation while armed with a firearm F A batter "under the color of law" can result in a civil rights lawsuit. T Livor Mortis is the stiffening of muscles are death due to che...

Mapp v. Ohio - ANS A landmark case in the area of U.S. criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts. Terry v. Ohio - ANS A policeman had been undercover observing Terry and three other men who were suspected of carrying concealed weapons. Terry was arrested. Terr...

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, tra...

Louisiana POST Study Guide with complete solutions |Graded A| 42 Pages Miranda vs. Arizona - Answer️️ -The supreme court case in which the court held that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self- incrimination prior to questioning by police. Mapp v. Ohio - Answer️️ -Evidence illegally gathered by the police may not be used in a criminal trial Terry vs. Ohio - Answer️️ -Allowed the police to stop and search a...

Miranda vs. Arizona - Answer The supreme court case in which the court held that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police. Mapp v. Ohio - Answer Evidence illegally gathered by the police may not be used in a criminal trial Terry vs. Ohio - Answer Allowed the police to stop and search a suspect if he has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or...