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 will be;A. Affirmed;because a subpoenaed grand jury witness must answer all questions;B. Affirmed;because Suspect did not specifically invoke the Fifth Amendment;C. Reversed;because grand jury witnesses are not legally obliged to answer questions;D. Reversed;if Suspect?s answer might have implicated him in a crime;E. None of;the above.;30. Over the;years, Mark and his neighbor Phil have come to despise each other. Most;recently, Phil has neglected to return a power saw borrowed;from Mark. Mark has asked Phil to return the item many times. But each time;Phil merely replies, ?No problem? and then fails to return the saw. Mark has;become so angry, he decides to kill Phil. He makes a list called ?Six ways to;do away with Phil.? One entry on the list is ?Buy new hammer to bash Phil?s;skull in.? Mark finally decides he?s had enough and buys the hammer.;The next day, Mark sees Phil lounging in his backyard;hot. Mark shoves the ?6-Ways List? into;his picket, grabs his new hammer, and creeps up behind Phil as the latter sits;in the hot tub. Yelling ?You lazy bum,? Mark strikes Phil in the skull with the;hammer several times, killing hi. Betty;Phil?s wife hears Mark?s yell and rushes out to find Phil dead. She calls the;police and tells them (1) that Phil and Mark hated each other, and (2) that she;heard Mark?s yell and saw him near the body.;The police then arrest Mark for murder.;When Mark is booked at the police station, his clothes are searched and;the ?6-Ways List? is found in his pocket.;If the ?6-Ways List? is introduced into evidence by the;prosecution at trial, it is most likely that;A. It is;admissible, if Mark was validly arrested.;B. It is;admissible, if Mark had waived his Miranda Rights;C. It is;inadmissible, because a valid search warrant had not be obtained.;D. It is;inadmissible, if Mark?s prior consent to the search had not be obtained.;31. Which burden;of proof in a civil case is harder prove?;A. Preponderance;of the evidence.;B. Clear and;convincing evidence.;C. Beyond a;reasonable doubt.;D. Without a;doubt.;E. None of;the above.;32. The;improper taking of another?s property by one in lawful possession of it, that;violates a trust is;A. Robbery.;B. Theft.;C. Larceny.;D. Embezzlement;E. None of;the above.;33. Self-defense;will not protect a person from criminal prosecution of she;A. Shoots a;man who is about to stab her with a knife.;B. Hits a;man who is pushing her off the bus while it is still moving.;C. Shoots a;man who is holding a realistic-looking cap pistol at her head.;D. Shoots a;man who has shoplifted a rare, expensive diamond necklace from her store.;E. None of;the above.;34. The;doctrine of stare decisis means that;A. The;common law has not been able to evolve in a stable and predictable manner;B. Decisions;cannot be overruled.;C. Courts;adhere to and rely on rules of law that they, of superior courts announced and;applied in prior similar decisions.;D. Courts;are allowed to correct erroneous decisions or choose among conflicting;precedents.;35. Patricia;Plaintiff, a resident of California, has a valid judgment against David;Defendant;a resident of Nevada, which she now wishes to execute. David;owns thousands of acres of beachfront property in California. Patricia may;execute her judgment in California based on what type of jurisdiction?;A. Subject;matter jurisdiction.;B. Concurrent;federal jurisdiction.;C. Quasi in;rem jurisdiction.;D. Diversity;of citizenship jurisdiction.;E. None of;the above.;36. Able and;Baker are both residents of Iowa, but they have a dispute regarding some land;located in Kansas. Able files a lawsuit;regarding the land in Kansas, and Baker objects, claiming the Kansas courts;have no jurisdiction in the case.;A. Only the;Iowa courts can hear the case.;B. The Iowa;federal district court can hear the case based on diversity of citizenship;C. The;Kansas courts have in rem jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim regarding the;property.;D. The;Kansas federal district court can hear the case upon diversity of citizenship;37. Maria is;driving at night in a very heavy rain. She is driving under the speed limit;but accidently leaves the road and drives across Mike?s lawn leaving long deep;tread marks.;A. Maria has;committed a civil trespass and will be liable for compensatory damages;B. Maria has;committed a civil trespass and will be liable for both compensatory damages and;punitive damages.;C. Maria has;committed both a civil and criminal trespass and will be liable for;compensatory damages and may suffer criminal penalties.;D. The;darkness and rain along with Maria?s lack of intent frees her from all;liability.;E. None of;the above.;38. Jimmy is;annoyed because his neighbor?s dog is constantly barking. He intentionally walks up to the dog in his;neighbor?s year and viciously kicks it. Jimmy has committed;A. Civil;battery.;B. Civil;assault.;C. Both;civil battery and civil assault.;D. None of;the above.;39. Having;obtained an arrest warrant for Ben for securities fraud, Officer Don arrested;the;suspect at his place of work. At the time of the arrest, Ben is seated at;his desk. Don asks him to stand;whereupon the officer searches Ben?s person, finding a small packet of cocaine;inside his wallet. Opening the bottom drawer of Ben?s desk. Don finds a packet;of marijuana. Believing there might be;more drugs in the office, Don opens a filing cabinet on the other side of the;room, inside of which he finds a crack cocaine.;If Ben challenges the searches by Don, which of the following is his;best argument?;A. All three;searches are unconstitutional, because Ben was not likely to be armed or to be;in possession of evidence that could be readily destroyed.;B. Only the;search of the wallet is unconstitutional, because Don had no authority to open;it.;C. Only the;search of the desk drawer is unconstitutional, because it was closed.;D. Only the;search of the filing cabinet is unconstitutional, because it was outside Ben?s;reach.;E. None of;the above.;40. Officer;Jameel had probable cause to believe that Chester was storing stolen laptop;computers in a number of garbage cans placed in his;backyard. When he entered Chester?s;backyard to execute the warrant, Jameel found six covered garbage cans lined up;next to each other. There were no;barriers separating any of the cans.;Inside a plastic bag in one of the cans, Jameel found four pipes with;what he recognized to be marijuana residue on them. Because the property line between Chester?s;property and that of his neighbor, Reggie, was unmarked, Jameel did not realize;that the can with the pipes belonged to Reggie.;If that can is found to be within the common curtilage of both homes;will Reggie succeed in a motion to suppress the pipes?;A. No;because Jameel reasonably believed the garbage can was on Chester?s property.;B. No;because there is no protected privacy interest in garbage.;C. No;because Reggie failed to lock the garbage cans.;D. Yes.
Paper#59160 | Written in 18-Jul-2015Price : $30