QuestionM ultiple Choice Q uestions

01 May QuestionM ultiple Choice Q uestions

Question
M ultiple Choice Q uestions

1. Before non-personnel enter public buildings in the State of Grace, security officers routinely require them to walk through a metal detector. In addition, all bags, including women’s purses, are subject to an external scan designed to detect the presence of weapons. Concerned that the scan is not sufficiently sensitive to detect a well-hidden weapon, security officers in many buildings have taken to removing the contests of all bags as part of the screening process. After numerous complaints from women objecting to the public exposure of private items in their purses, the Grace legislature enacted a law permitting an invasive search of bags only where the initial scan suggested the presence of a weapon.

The month after the law went into effect, Alice went to the state courthouse in the hope of watching a high-profile trial taking place that day. When she entered, security officers scanned her purse and, after doing so, required her to empty its contents for further inspection. “Why?” Alice asked. “Did you see something suspicious on the scan?” “No,” the guard replied. “We just thought you looked kinda shifty.” “No problem,” Alice replied. “People look through my purse all the time. I do not care. There is nothing personal in there. Knock yourself out.” The guards then searched the purse thoroughly, finding a razor blade in a side pocket. They seized it, and charged Alice with attempting to carry a concealed weapon into a public building. If Alice claims that the search of her purse violated her Fourth Amendment rights, she will likely:

A. Prevail, because the guard did not believe that the purse contained a weapon.

B. Prevail, because the legislature has recognized women’s privacy rights in their purses.

C. Fail, because the guard found a razor blade inside the purse.

D. Fail, because Alice did not care if the guards search her purse.

Questions 2-3 below are based on the following fact situation.

Pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, Defendant was arrested in a public place for the murder of his wife. Before putting him in the police car, the police searched Defendant’s entire person and found one ounce of heroin, which he had concealed in a flat plastic envelope under his belt.

2. At Defendant’s motion to suppress the heroin, the court should rule that:

A. The search was invalid, since the police did not have a search warrant.

B. The search was invalid, since incident to a lawful arrest, the police may only search a suspect’s person for weapons or evidence of the crime.

C. The search was valid, since Defendant’s arrest was proper.

D. The search was valid, because evidence of a crime was, in fact, discovered.

E. None of the above.

3. Assume that, in the above situation, the police arrested Defendant without a warrant, although they had (1) time to obtain one, and (2) probable cause to believe Defendant was his wife’s murderer. In challenging the validity of his arrest and the heroin found on his person. Defendant will:

A. Succeed, because an arrest without a warrant is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

B. Succeed, because the police must always obtain a warrant if there is sufficient time to do so.

C. Fail, because the police had probable cause to make the arrest.

D. Fail, because even without probable cause, the subsequent disco very of heroin would have been sufficient justification for the arrest.

4 Mark carefully plots a course of action to embezzle $100,000.00 from his employer, Sue.

He is fired before he ever gets a chance to put the plan in action. In cleaning out his desk, Sue finds his plans. Mark is:

A. Guilty of a crime because he intended to carry it out.

B. Guilty of a crime because he had a “guilty mind”.

C. Not guilty because he did not act on his plan.

D. Not guilty because he is no longer employed by Sue.

5. Which of the following is correct with respect to a grand jury?

A. The grand jury decides guilt or innocence of the defendant.

B. The grand jury always hears testimony from the defendant.

C. The grand jury can issue an indictment it if finds sufficient evidence to justify a trial on the charges alleged.

D. None of the above.

6. Detective received information from informant, who had given reliable information many times in the past. Specifically, Informant said that, two days before, he had visited Harry’s apartment with Bill and saw Harry sell Bill some heroin. Detective knew that Informant, Harry, and Bill were

friends. Thereafter, Detective put this information into affidavit form, appeared before a magistrate, and secured a search warrant for Harry’s apartment. The search turned up a supply of heroin. Harry’s motion to suppress introduction of the heroin into evidence probably will be:

A. Granted, because a search warrant cannot validly be issued solely on the basis of an informant’s information.

B. Granted, because the information supplied to Detective concerned an occurrence too remote in time to justify a finding of probable cause.

C. Denied, because there was reasonable cause to believe a crime had been committed.

D. Denied, because there was probable cause to issue the warrant.

E. None of the above.

Questions 7 – 11 below are based on the following fact situation.

The police received an anonymous telephone call that Paul was engaged in illegal gambling operations consisting of betting on professional sporting events. The informant did not say how he knew any of this information. Officers Laverne and Shirley went to Paul’s place of business (Joe’s Restaurant, where Paul worked as a waiter) and were given permission to speak to him. They advised Paul that they had full knowledge of his involvement in illegal gambling operations, and that he would probably be sent to jail as a consequence of these activities.

When Paul responded, “I’ve got nothing to say to you gals,” he was told that he should consider himself under arrest. Before Paul was advised of his Miranda rights, Officer Shirley told Paul, “Confession is good for the soul,” and asked Paul if he would like to make a statement about his illegal activities. Paul hesitated, but then informed the officers that he did “take” bets on sporting events. He then voluntarily led the officers back to the garage adjacent to his home, where he showed them notebooks in which were written names of bettors, the amounts of money they had wagered, and the corresponding events.

The police also searched Paul’s person, and found a pocket notebook which revealed bets that had been placed with Paul that day. The police then advised Paul that they were too busy to him to the station house for booking then, but that they were confiscating the notebook as evidence. Paul did not protest this action. About two weeks later, Paul was subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury investigating illegal gambling. He appeared with an attorney whom he had retained, but was advised that he was not entitled to have counsel present. In a rage, Paul walked out. He has refused to return until his lawyer is allowed to be with him, even though he has been warned that he could be cited for contempt.

7. In the grand jury proceedings, Paul’s confession as to his involvement in illegal gambling is:

I. Admissible, because a Miranda rights violation does not result in suppression.

II. Inadmissible, because it was given after Paul was improperly arrested.

III. Inadmissible, because it was obtained in violation of Paul’s Miranda rights.

A. I only.

B. II only.

C. III only.

D. II and III.

8. Can Paul be compelled to appear as a witness at the grand jury proceedings?

A. No, because the police initially lacked probable cause to arrest him.

B. No, because he was not given Miranda warnings.

C. Yes, despite the lack of Miranda warnings.

D. Yes, but only if the grand jury has reason to believe that Paul was involved in gambling operations, without reference to Paul’s confession.

9. Which of the following statements is correct:

A. Paul had an absolute right to have counsel present at the grand jury proceedings.

B. There is no right to have counsel present at grand jury proceedings.

C. Paul had no right to have counsel present at the grand jury proceedings if evidence obtained from his was inadmissible in a criminal case.

D. Paul had a right to have counsel present because he was arrested in connection with the purpose of the grand jury proceedings.

10. As a consequence of Paul’s refusal to answer any questions, which of the following is correct?

I. Paul could be convicted of perjury.

II. Paul could be convicted of contempt.

III. Paul cannot be convicted of any crime because the evidence obtained from his is inadmissible in a criminal case.

A. I only

B. II only.

C. III only

D. None of the above.

11. In the subsequent trial of Paul for the crime of participating in an illegal gambling

operation, which of the following items of evidence obtained by the police officers would be admissible?

A. Paul’s confession, but nothing else.

B. The regular size notebooks, but noting else.

C. The pocket notebook, but nothing else.

D. None of the evidence.

12. Alan, the president of Bravo Investments, Inc., and Colin, Bravo’s accountant, are charged with a crime, after the police search Bravo’s offices. Under the exclusionary rule:

A. Certain Bravo records are excluded from subpoena by the government.

B. Certain parties to a criminal action may be excluded from a trial.

C. Illegally obtained evidence must be excluded from a trial.

D. Persons who have biases that would prevent them from fairly deciding the case may be excluded from the jury.

Questions 13 – 14 below are based on the following fact situation.

Willy was validly arrested on a charge of drunken driving. Over Willy’s objection, the police took Willy’s car to a lot which was owned by the police department and inventoried the contents of the car. Under the front passenger seat, the police found a plastic bag containing heroin. On the rear seat, there was a suitcase which was sealed by a zipper. The police unzipped the suitcase, opened it, and found two illegal machine guns. In the locked trunk of the car (which the police broke into), the police discovered a dead body.

13. The police impoundment of Willy’s car was:

A. Lawful, because Willy was lawfully arrested.

B. Lawful, because Willy impliedly consented to this action.

C. Lawful, if done pursuant to standardized police procledures.

D. All of the above.

E. None of the above.

14. Is the heroin admissible against Willy in a criminal prosecution for unlawful possession of that substance?

A. No, because the vehicle was not searched at the time Willy was arrested.

B. Yes, if the impoundment was lawful.

C. No, because the police did not have probable cause to search the interior of the vehicle.

D. No, because while probable cause existed to search the car, no warrant was ever obtained by the police.

15. Defendant was arrested and charged with distributing controlled substances. As part of its case, the prosecution wanted to show that a huge quantity of illegal drugs had been seized at a

summer cabin owned by Defendant. However, at a suppression hearing which preceded the trial, the evidence discovered at the cabin was excluded because no search warrant had been obtained.

At trial, Defendant took the stand and testified that, while his brother was heavily involved in the drug trade, he was completely innocent of the charges against him. When Defendant was asked on cross-examination if he ever had drugs in his possession, on advice of counsel, he claimed that he was privileged to refuse to answer since it might “tend to incriminate him.” Although the judge ordered Defendant to answer the prosecution’s question, Defendant still refused. The prosecution was then permitted to introduce into evidence the drugs which had been illegally seized at Defendant’s summer home.

The prosecution’s use of the illegally seized evidence was:

A. Proper, because it was used to impeach Defendant.

B. Proper, because Defendant improperly refused to answer the prosecution’s question.

C. Improper, because the evidence had been suppressed at a pre-trial hearing.

D. Improper, because Defendant’s refusal to answer the prosecution’s question was on the instructions of his attorney.

16. The authority of a particular court to adjudicate a controversy of a particular kind is called:

A. Exclusive federal jurisdiction.

B. In rem jurisdiction.

C. Personal jurisdiction.

D. Subject jurisdiction.

E. None of the above.

17. The pleadings in a lawsuit include:

A. The complaint.

B. The answer.

C. Written interrogatories.

D. (A) and (B) above.

E. None of the above.

18. The legal principle that deals with the location where a lawsuit should be brought is:

A. Venue.

B. In personam jurisdiction.

C. Subject matter jurisdiction.

D. Stare decisis.

19. When a trial is conducted with a jury, the judge determines issue of and the jury determines questions of .

A. Evidence, Law

B. Law, Evidence

C. Law, Fact

D. Fact, Law

E. None of the above.

20. The term “minimum contacts” includes within its definition:

A. That a defendant’s contacts with the forum state must be such that maintenance of the suit offends traditional notions of fair play and justice.

B. Doing business by selling goods or shipping them from a point within the forum state.

C. A corporation’s use of a portion of interstate highway that passes through the forum state to transport its goods.

D. (A) and (B) only.

21. The procedural stage of a lawsuit after the pleadings but before trial is:

A. The peremptory challenge stage.

B. The pretrial stage, including discovery.

C. The special verdict stage.

D. The offer of proof stage.

22. Arthus wrote a defamatory letter regarding Bill, but which he mailed to Bill, but which he did not show to anyone else.

A. Arthur committed the tort of slander.

B. Arthur committed the tort of libel.

C. Arthur has committed neither libel nor slander, because there has been no publication of the letter.

D. Arthur has committed the tort of false light.

E. None of the above.

23. Claudia’s baby daughter Carolyn is snatched from her arms at the grocery store. The kidnapper threatens to drop the baby if the store does not hand over the contents of the vault. Claudia may:

A. Trip the kidnapper, because she is limited to non-life threatening force.

B. Shoot the kidnapper, since she can protect the baby in the same way she can protect herself.

C. Not seriously harm the kidnapper since she, personally, is not in danger.

D. Only call the police, since she cannot take the law into her own hands.

24. Damages that are awarded to make the victim of the breach of a contact “whole” in the economic sense, are called:

A. Compensatory.

B. Consequential.

C. Punitive.

D. Specific.

Questions 25 – 28 below are based on the following fact situation.

Badluck called FBI Agent Hoover and told him that he had (1) participated in a bank robbery the previous day with Eddie Fingers, and (2) since seen in Eddie’s living room closet both the gun that Eddie used in the bank robbery and the stolen money. The bills were marked. Badluck described Eddie’s home as a one-story frame house located at 823 Howard Street. Badluck also told Hoover that he had heard a rumor that Fingers had given his brother-in-law, Donald Doyle, some of the proceeds of the robbery to repay a debt, and that Doyle had joked about the money feeling “kinda hot to the touch”.

Later the same day, Hoover saw Doyle standing outside a massage parlor downtown. Hoover approached Doyle, identified himself, and told Doyle that he was a suspect, and to raise his hands. Doyle complied. Hoover then “frisked” Doyle, feeling what Hoover thought to be a wallet, and Doyle handed it over. After, Hoover found in the wallet a map of the bank which had been robbed, he arrested Doyle. As he was leading Doyle to his (Hoover’s) car, Hoover passed Doyle’s car and noticed that it matched the description and bore the license plate of the robbery getaway car. Peering through a rear window, Hoover saw pants and a shirt on the floor. These items matched the description of those worn by one of the robbers. Hoover opened the closed (but unlocked) back door and seized the clothes.

After depositing Doyle at the federal jail, Hoover obtained a search warrant for the living room of Fingers’ home. The “probable cause” affidavit detailed the information given to him earlier I the day by Badluck. A warrant was issued, but is mistakenly described Fingers’ address ads 823 Harold Street. Hoover went to Fingers’ home at 823 Howard Street without noticing the mistake in the warrant regarding the street name. He knocked on the door. When Fingers asked who it was, Hoover replied, “Fuller Brush.” Fingers opened the door. Hoover then stated that he was really an FBI agent with a search warrant. Fingers told him to come in and was promptly arrested by Hoover. Following Fingers’ arrest, Hoover search the hall closet and found money on the floor, which had been taken from the bank. He seized the money and then opened the living room closed, where he found the gun described in the warrant. On the floor on his way out of the house, Hoover saw an unopened envelope addressed to Fingers from Doyle. Hoover opened the envelope and found a letter to Fingers from Doyle, thanking Fingers for the bank robbery opportunity.

Fingers asked to be allowed to go to his bedroom, and put on shoes and socks. Hoover agreed, and accompanied Fingers to the bedroom. While Fingers was seated on the side of the bed lacing his shoes, Hoover noticed and seized a wig which protruded from underneath the pillow. The wig matched the description of one worn by one of the robbers.

25. Hoover’s arrest of Fingers was:

A. Proper, as incident to the execution of the search warrant.

B. Improper, because Hoover had sufficient time to obtain an arrest warrant and failed to do so.

C. Proper, because Hoover had probable cause to arrest Fingers.

D. Proper, because Hoover did not need an arrest warrant.

26. The entry of Hoover into Fingers’ home was:

A. Invalid, because he obtained entry by ruse.

B. Valid, because he error in the address would not make the warrant invalid.

C. Valid, because the presence of the gun in the house constituted exigent circumstances.

D. Invalid, because the street address was incorrect.

27. Assuming Fingers moved to suppress the contents of the envelope, Hoover’s seizure and search of the envelope was:

A. Invalid, because only items described in a search warrant may be seized by police

B. Valid, because it was in “plain view.”

C. Valid, as incident to Fingers’ arrest.

D. Invalid, because Hoover had no probable cause to believe that the envelope contained evidence of a crime.

28. The seizure of the wig was:

A. Invalid, because it resulted from a search incident to an invalid arrest.

B. Invalid, because it was outside the scope of the warrant.

C. Invalid, because the warrant was defective.

D. Valid, if the wig was within Finger’s control.

29. A grand jury was investigating a murder. The only information known to the prosecutor was a rumor that Suspect might have been involved. The grand jury subpoenaed Suspect. Without specifying why, Suspect refused to answer questions about the murder. Suspect was found in contempt and has appealed this determination. The finding of contempt w