Accounting
Anthropology
Archaeology
Art History
Banking
Biology & Life Science
Business
Business Communication
Business Development
Business Ethics
Business Law
Chemistry
Communication
Computer Science
Counseling
Criminal Law
Curriculum & Instruction
Design
Earth Science
Economic
Education
Engineering
Finance
History & Theory
Humanities
Human Resource
International Business
Investments & Securities
Journalism
Law
Management
Marketing
Medicine
Medicine & Health Science
Nursing
Philosophy
Physic
Psychology
Real Estate
Science
Social Science
Sociology
Special Education
Speech
Visual Arts
Constitutional Law
Q:
You are a police detective and, though you lack probable cause, you are convinced that Amy Able is the mastermind behind a series of art thefts in the north end of town. You believe that she plans the thefts, hires local thieves, then sells the artwork overseas. You know that her usual thief has been arrested on an unrelated charge, so you decide to arrange a meeting between a confidential informant (CI) with a history of petty theft and Amy Able. At the meeting, your CI is wearing a "wire" to tape the conversations. During the meeting, Amy is reluctant to go ahead with more thefts, because she tells your CI that she is "out of the business" and wants to retire. At this point, your listening device malfunctions, but your CI later tells you he convinced her by threatening to go to the police and ruining her reputation as an art dealer. Amy reluctantly agrees to plan the heist and, several days later, meets with your CI to go over the details. At this point, you know that she has committed sufficient acts to be guilty of conspiracy to commit theft under local law and arrest her. You give the DA the transcript of the conversations recorded by the wire and she says it is a "slam dunk." What legal issues, if any, are raised by the facts? What should you do, if anything, as the detective on this case?
Q:
Did Ashcroft v. ACLU [I] settle the issue of internet pornography regulation? Why or why not?
Q:
Why did Congress pass the Communications Decency Act in 1996? Why did the ACLU (and others) oppose the law?
Q:
The Supreme Court held that a violation of Miranda does not require the suppression of the "physical fruits" of the statement, only the nonuse of the actual statement in the case ofa. Arizona v. Robertson b. Minnick v. Mississippi c. New York v. Quarlesd. United States v. Patane
Q:
The Supreme Court held that a suspect who wishes to invoke his or her right to remain silent must first speak up and unambiguously state that desire in the case of
a. Michigan v. Mosley
b. Berghuis v. Thompkins
c. Howes v. Fields
d. United States v. Jonas
Q:
How has the Court applied its obscenity law to depictions of acts of violence or cruelty?
Q:
How are cases involving child pornography different from typical obscenity cases?
Q:
The Supreme Court clarified the definition of interrogation to include any actions or words on the part of the police that they should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect in the case of
a. Howes v. Fields
b. Yates v. United States
c. United States v. Muhlenbruch
d. Rhode Island v. Innis
Q:
For the purposes of Miranda, the case that established that the ultimate determinant of whether a person is in custody is whether the suspect has been subjected to formal arrest or to equivalent restraints on their freedom of movement was
a. California v. Beheler
b. California v. Gold
c. Terry v. Ohio
d. Oregon v. Mathiason
Q:
How is the standard for proving libel different between public figures and private citizens?
Q:
Describe the standard the Court set out for proving libel in Sullivan.
Q:
The Supreme Court ruled that Miranda rights are not inadequate simply because of the order in which they are given in the case ofa. Miranda v. Arizona b. Brown v. Mississippi c. Edwards v. Boxlyd. California v. Prysock
Q:
When the process shifts from investigatory to __________the accused must be permitted to consult with his or her lawyer.
Q:
How did Miller alter the Roth test?
Q:
__________interrogation triggers the requirement to read Miranda rights.
Q:
Explain the three prongs of the Roth test for discerning if material is obscene. Is this a strict or lenient test? Why?
Q:
_______________confessions are those in which innocent but vulnerable suspects, exposed to highly suggestive interrogation techniques, come to confess as well as to believe they committed the crime in question.
Q:
Explain the three prongs of the Hicklin test for discerning if material is obscene. Is this a strict or lenient test? Why?
Q:
What rationale did the Court use to deny the reporter's privilege in Branzburg v. Hayes?
Q:
Factors such as a suspect's age, education, and intelligence levels will be considered when assessing the ___________of any confession to a criminal act.
Q:
Why did the framers believe that freedom of press was so fundamental to the new nation?
Q:
Explain the standard the Court set out for determining prior restraint in Near v. Minnesota and the exceptions that might make government restraint necessary.
Q:
_________will only be considered coercive if it has the effect of overbearing one's will.
Q:
Voluntariness of a confession is determined by the police conduct involved and whether the individual has been read their Miranda rights.
a. True
b. False
Q:
How did Congress respond to the Court's decision in Reno?A. It overturned the Court's ruling.B. It passed the Child Online Protection Act.C. It did nothing, and agreed with the Court's decision.D. None of the above.
Q:
Reno indicates the Court views the Internet as _______.A. More like print media than like broadcast mediaB. More like broadcast media than like print mediaC. Completely separate from print and broadcast mediaD. A hybrid between print and broadcast media
Q:
Using physical torture as a means to obtain a confession violates due process, though not Miranda.
a. True
b. False
Q:
In United .States. v. Williams, the Court ruled that the PROTECT Act was _______.A. Facially violative of the First AmendmentB. Overbroad and vague in violation of the due process clauseC. Not violative of the First AmendmentD. Not overbroad and vague and therefore constitutionally valid
Q:
It is not against due process to pump the stomach of a suspect against their consent to obtain evidence, because the individual is not being interrogated.
a. True
b. False
Q:
In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, the Court struck the Communications Decency Act because it _______.A. Was overly broadB. Was overly vagueC. Focused on the Internet, which cannot be regulatedD. Took away the power of parents to regulate their own children
Q:
The right to remain silent was not granted suspects in criminal cases until Miranda.
a. True
b. False
Q:
Incrimination is the act of accusing, implicating, or identifying someone as having been involved in the crime or other wrongdoing.
a. True
b. False
Q:
Prior to 1964, _______.A. States could not set any standards for libel.B. All state laws covering libel were the same.C. States were free to set their own standards for libel.D. None of the above.
Q:
Explain Miranda requirements as they relate to private security.
Q:
Why has the Court had a difficult time setting libel standards?A. Prior to 1964 libel it was an undeveloped area of law.B. Libel is a difficult legal concept.C. Libel is not a legal concept, so courts do not have the ability to decide these cases.D. All of the above.
Q:
Discuss the USA PATRIOT Act, its elements, and how it aims to improve the nation's counter-terrorism efforts.
Q:
Libel and obscenity _______.A. Are fully protected by the First AmendmentB. Are sometimes protected by the First AmendmentC. Fall outside the protections of the First AmendmentD. None of the above
Q:
According to New York Times v. Sullivan, a public official must prove _______ to sustain a libel claim:A. defamationB. falsehoodC. actual malice
Q:
Describe the challenge to Miranda presented in Dickerson v. United States (2000) and the Supreme Court's ruling.
Q:
Explain the public safety exception to the Miranda warnings.
Q:
Which justice could not define obscenity but knew it when he/she saw it?A. O"ConnorB. WhiteC. PowellD. Stewart
Q:
In Miller the Court set which standard for determining the value of a work?A. It is utterly without redeeming social importance.B. It lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.C. It possesses redeeming social importance.D. It possesses serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Q:
Describe at least eight instances in which Miranda need not be given.
Q:
According to the Court in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, an item is not deemed obscene if it _______.A. Has at least a modicum of social valueB. Has no modicum of social valueC. Appeals to the prurient interestD. Lacks serious literary value
Q:
______________is a deliberate "end run" around Miranda by purposely withholding warnings until after a confession is obtained and then giving Miranda to re-ask the question (and is unconstitutional).
Q:
The ____________________-Act strengthens the ability of the Justice Department and the FBI to monitor suspected terrorists and their associates.
Q:
In Roth the Court ruled that Community Standards are based on _______.A. The nation as a wholeB. Individual statesC. Individual localitiesD. None of the above; the Court did not define community in Roth
Q:
The ______________-exception allows police to questions suspects without first giving Miranda warnings if information sought sufficiently affects the officers' and the public's safety.
Q:
__________________________is questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way.
Q:
When it comes to content regulation, _______.A. The Court has shown great tolerance for government regulationsB. The Court has ignored government regulationsC. The Court has shown little tolerance for government regulations
Q:
A purposeful, voluntary giving up of a known right is a _________.
Q:
Which All of the following is not an exception that may allow the government to invoke prior restraint?A. The protection of national securityB. The protection of the president's reputationC. The prohibition of obscene materialsD. The prohibition of expression that may incite violence
Q:
False confession cases in which the suspect acquiesces to escape from a stressful situation, to avoid punishment, or gain a promised or implied reward are called _________-confessions.
Q:
The term Prior Restraint means that _______.A. the government reviews materials after publication.B. the government review materials once they are published or producedC. the government has the ability to decide what is published.D. A and C
Q:
The requirement that laws themselves be applied fairly refers to ________due process.
Q:
New York Times v. United .States. virtually eradicated _______.A. The ability of the government to censor expression that is obsceneB. The ability of the government to censor expression that might incite violenceC. The ability of the government to regulate expression to protect national security
Q:
The voluntariness of a confession is determined by the ________________and the characteristics of the accused.
Q:
In Branzburg v. Hayes the Court ruled that _______.A. Reporters have a privilege that protects them from appearing in front of a grand juryB. Reporters do not have a privilege that protects them from appearing in front of a grand juryC. Reporters can never divulge the names of informantsD. Reporters must always divulge the names of informants
Q:
In Morse v. Frederick the Court decided that _______.A. Schools may ban speech that may reasonably seem to promote drug useB. Schools may not ban speech that may reasonably seem to promote drug useC. Schools must allow speech that may reasonably seem to promote drug use but may ask the students to carry out their speech away from the public eyeD. Schools may not suspend students for speech that may reasonably seem to promote drug use but they may ask them to leave school grounds during rallies
Q:
Statements are not admissible in court if obtained without Miranda rights during custodial __________.
Q:
In Tinker v. Des Moines the Court held that _______.A. students shed their constitutional right to free speech at schoolB. students do not shed their constitutional right to free speech at schoolC. teachers shed their constitutional right to free speech at schoolD. teachers do not shed their constitutional right to free speech at schoolE. A and CF. B and D
Q:
__________due process is constitutionally guaranteed rights of fairness in how the law is carried out or applied.
Q:
The Miranda warning must be given during lineups, show-ups, and photographic identifications.
a. True
b. False
Q:
Moving full circle from Schenck to Brandenburg, the Court settled on which test in Brandenburg?A. Clear and Present Danger TestB. Preferred Freedoms DoctrineC. Clear and Probable Danger TestD. Imminent Lawless Action Test
Q:
The Preferred Freedoms Doctrine states that _______.A. laws in conflict with the Bill of Rights are not presumed constitutionalB. the judiciary has a special responsibility to protect freedom of speechC. the judiciary has a special responsibility to protect minority interestsD. All of the aboveE. None of the above
Q:
A waiver of Miranda is valid even if the suspect thought the questioning was going to be about a minor crime and the questioning switched to a more serious crime.
a. True
b. False
Q:
Gitlow is an important case because it _______.A. banned freedom of speechB. incorporated freedom of speechC. restricted freedom of speech in statesD. allowed regulation of freedom of speech by the federal government only
Q:
A "soft" Miranda warning recited less harshly and directly than is imprinted on most Miranda cards is permissible if all four warnings are adequately conveyed to the suspect.
a. True
b. False
Q:
In Schenck v. United States the Court created the _______.A. Clear and Present Danger TestB. Preferred Freedoms DoctrineC. Clear and Probable Danger TestD. Imminent Lawless Action Test
Q:
The precedent case for analyzing confessions issues is Miranda v. Arizona.
a. True
b. False
Q:
In a public park in Sweet Home, Oregon, a group of college students staged a peaceful demonstration against the Iraq War. The protest included the singing of peaceful songs, the display of banners condemning the acts of the U.S. government, and finally the use of several "barrels of oil" that were really large containers filled with colored water. A city ordinance stated that large groups must have a permit to gather in the park in question, and that all gatherings must cease by 11:30 p.m. The students chanted and marched all day on January 20, 2004, and continued until 11:30 that night, when local police told them they had to vacate the area. Then, around midnight, the leader of the group, Lee Segal, stood on a podium and shouted "U.S., we condemn you for a war that is only meant to save your precious oilwe spit on your efforts!" At that instant he pushed over five "barrels of oil" and shouted, "we do not need oil if it is going to kill our brothers and sisters!" The police arrested Segal and several others for their actions. They were charged with violating the terms of their permit because they had remained after 11:30, even though they were warned to leave. They were also charged with destruction of public property because the dye used to color the water in the symbolic barrels destroyed several trees, the grass, a park bench, and two picnic tables. Segal claimed his First Amendment rights were violated, and the ACLU took his case all the way to the Supreme Court.
If you were a justice on the Court, how would you rule in this case?
Q:
Since their actions can ultimately result in arrest, private security officers must inform suspects of their Miranda rights prior to interrogation.a. Trueb. False
Q:
Lying by the police to obtain a confession is a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
a. True
b. False
Q:
Jeremy Stevens, an ardent leftist, was known for his outrageous stunts in his high school of four hundred students in rural Southwest Minnesota. In his freshman year he came to school dressed in a skirt to protest the policy that, while skirts may be worn, no shorts may be worn to school between November 1 and April 1. When he was sent home for indecent conduct, he returned in a traditional Scottish kilt. While under suspension for violating school rules Stevens was granted the right to wear skirts after he sought the advice of the local American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) chapter. During his junior year he drafted an editorial cartoon for the school newspaper that depicted the principal as a drunkard. While the ACLU again wanted to help, it was bound by the Supreme Court's precedent that schools may edit, and restrict content in, school newspapers. Stevens's senior year has been tame, but he did wear a T-shirt to school that proclaimed, "the president is a terrorist." School officials asked him to remove the shirt or go home and change. When he refused, Stevens was suspended for two days. After consulting with the ACLU again, Stevens has decided to sue the school district for violating his freedom of speech found in the First and Fourth Amendments. The case has gone through the courts and has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court.As a justice on the Court, how would you rule given the line of free speech cases decided by the Court? Should Stevens be allowed to wear his T-shirt? Why or why not?Be sure to cite cases from class to support your answers. There is no right answer, but all your arguments must be logical and supported with case law.
Q:
The First Amendment is clear in its protection of the freedom of expression: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." However, only Justices Black and Douglas have ever adhered to a literalist interpretation of the Freedom of Expression Clause. All other justices have been willing to place some restrictions on the freedom of expression. Discuss the evolution of standards the Court has used to adjudicate freedom of expression from Schenck to Brandenburg and explain why the Court has not adhered to a single position, instead changing standards depending on the circumstances of the case. Why has the Court been more willing to restrict freedom of expression at certain times and allowed more liberal standards at other times? Are you satisfied with the standards that the Court has provided? Do you feel that the standards should be more or less precise, allowing for more or less freedom in interpreting the standards? Why?
Q:
The prohibition against double jeopardy prevents a second trial for the same offense for any reason.
a. True
b. False
Q:
The Fifth Amendment requires just compensation when the government takes property.
a. True
b. False
Q:
Explain the rationale the Court has used to determine that citizens have the right not to speak.
Q:
Why is it so difficult for the Court to decide offensive and hate speech cases?
Q:
A suspect who has invoked only his right to silence cannot be re-approached to seek a waiver on a different case.
a. True
b. False