Q&A Hero

Q: When a person on the witness stand "pleads the Fifth," they are asserting their right against selfincrimination. a. True b. False

Q: How has the Court determined that symbolic speech can qualify for First Amendment protection?

Q: Which of the following would not violate the right against double jeopardy? a. A second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. b. More than one punishment for the same offense. c. Independent trials for an offense in both state and federal courts. d. Lesser-included offenses tried after initial trial.

Q: Explain the concept of prior restraint and provide at least two examples of government use of prior restraint.

Q: The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination comes into play: a. whenever a law enforcement officer questions a suspect, whether in custody or not. b. only during custodial interrogation. c. only at trial. d. whenever incriminating information is being communicated.

Q: Give three reasons the court turned back to a more conservative approach to the First Amendment in the early 1950s.

Q: Explain why, in light of Tinker, the Court was willing to allow the school to suspend students for holding the "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" banner in Morse v. Fredrick?

Q: In re Gault assured juveniles: a. the right to a jury trial. b. due process in the legal system. c. the right to be tried as an adult in certain cases. d. the right against self-incrimination.

Q: In prisoners' rights cases the Fifth Amendment arises: a. infrequently. b. quite often, involving nearly half of all lawsuits filed by prisoners. c. very often, involving more than 80 percent of all lawsuits filed by prisoners. d. neverprisoners are not protected by the Fifth Amendment.

Q: The only unincorporated right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment is the right to: a. be a witness against oneself. b. a grand jury indictment. c. due process of law. d. just compensation when government takes private property.

Q: What rationale led the Court to hold that the city of St. Paul in R.A.V. violated the First Amendment while it held Mitchell's First Amendment rights were not violated by a Wisconsin law a year later in Wisconsin v. Mitchell?

Q: Explain the standard the Court uses to determine whether an utterance may be considered fighting words.

Q: Which of the following is not true about grand juries? a. Choice of jurors determined by state law. b. Does not make a determination of guilt. c. May initiate investigations. d. Different jury for each case.

Q: The public safety exception was established in: a. Jacobson v. United States. b. Katz v. United States. c. New York v. Quarles. d. Illinois v. Perkins.

Q: Explain three conditions that may trigger valid government regulation of expression.

Q: Which of the following is not a part of the Miranda warning? a. You have the right to remain silent. b. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost. c. You may stop answering questions at any time you choose. d. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court.

Q: What is the preferred freedoms doctrine and how does it relate to the freedom of speech?

Q: Explain the difference between the clear and present danger test and the clear and probable danger test.

Q: Statements, including confessions, will not be admissible in court if obtained while violating a person's right to reasonable expectation of privacy under the:a. Fourth Amendmentb. Fifth Amendmentc. Sixth Amendmentd. Fourteenth Amendment

Q: How does the Court's decision in Abrams differ from the standard it set in Schenck?

Q: The precedent case for analyzing confession issues is: a. Terry v. Ohio. b. Miranda v. Arizona. c. Escobedo v. Illinois. d. Massiah v. United States.

Q: The conception and planning of an offense by an officer and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion, or fraud of the officer is: a. ensnarement b. entrapment c. framing d. a set up

Q: Why are restrictions on speech often associated with times of crisis?

Q: In order for a confession to be admissible it must be: a. voluntary. b. true. c. independently corroborated. d. in writing.

Q: Which of the following is an example of a clear and present danger?A. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.B. Shouting "Fire!" out in the middle of a forest.C. Speaking out for one's political beliefs in front of the White House.D. None of the above.

Q: How does the clear and probable danger test differ from the clear and present danger test?A. The two do not differ in any meaningful way.B. The Clear and present danger test requires danger to be proximate.C. The Clear and probable danger test does not require danger to be proximate.D. Both B and C.

Q: You are the on-duty desk sergeant. A man walks in and says "I killed someone and want to confess." You grab your digital voice recorder and direct the man to a chair at your desk. He sits down and tells the tale of what turns out to be a first-degree murder. You record every word, including the numerous instances in which you said "Uh huh" and "I see." Satisfied that the subject did, indeed, commit a murder, you place him under arrest. The confession is:a. inadmissible because recording it was a violation of the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy.b. inadmissible because the subject was in a coercive environment (police station), was therefore in custody for purposes of Miranda, and the encouragement to continue was interrogation.c. admissible under the "public safety" exception to Miranda as the subject was a danger to the officer and public.d. admissible as a voluntary statement when the subject was neither in custody nor interrogated for purposes of Miranda.

Q: It is not unconstitutional to obtain a confession by: a. deprivation of food, drink, and sleep b. psychological coercion c. trickery and deceit d. threats, but not acts, of violence

Q: According to R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the government_______.A. It may never regulate hate speech.B. It may regulate hate speech in a content-neutral manner.C. It may regulate hate speech in any way necessary to stop it.

Q: In Snyder v. Phelps Justice Alito broke from his traditional coalition and wrote a dissenting opinion. Why did he do so?A. He argued that the government should be able to regulate all speech.B. He argued that the government has no interest in regulating speech.C. He argued that the government has an interest in regulating speech that protects innocent people from hateful speech.D. None of the above.

Q: The due process voluntariness test is "whether the totality of the circumstances that preceded the confession deprived the defendant of his...": a. reasonable expectation of privacy b. power of resistance c. self-incrimination rights d. determination to remain silent.

Q: The first confession case decided by the Supreme Court was: a. Miranda v. Arizona. b. In re Gault. c. New York v. Quarles. d. Brown v. Mississippi.

Q: Police actions that would "shock the conscience" were found to violate due process in: a. Miranda v. Arizona. b. Rochin v. California. c. In re Gault. d. Katz v. United States.

Q: The "fighting words" doctrine was enunciated in _______.A. Chaplinksy v. New HampshireB. Rumsfeld v. FAIRC. Boy Scots of America v. DaleD. Texas v. Johnson

Q: In terms of Freedom of Association, the Rehnquist Court generally _______.A. Made it clear that government antidiscrimination interests may outweigh the expression rights of a groupB. Made it clear that the expression rights of a group outweigh government antidiscrimination interestsC. made it clear that the government may always regulate freedom of associationD. made it clear that the government may never regulate freedom of association

Q: In which scenario would Miranda warnings be required? a. Suspect in custody for an unrelated offense. b. When suspect appears to testify before grand jury. c. undercover officer poses as inmate and asks incriminating questions. d. during line-ups, show-ups, and photographic identifications.

Q: At issue in Dickerson v. United States was Section 3501 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which stated that the admissibility of statements should turn only on whether they were voluntarily made, and not only on whether:a. coercive tactics were used.b. Miranda warnings had been given.c. custodial interrogation had occurred.d. the statement was made without an attorney present.

Q: Which of the following at is an example of a content-neutral regulation? _______A. Strikers may not picket against a specific company.B. Strikers may picket only when the government approves of their signs.C. Strikers may not picket in residential areas between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.D. There is no such thing as a content-neutral regulation.

Q: Miranda warnings must be given to a suspect interrogated in police custody, defined as when the suspect is: a. under arrest. b. facing criminal charges. c. not free to leave. d. reasonably free to leave the situation.

Q: Content-based speech regulations _______.A. Apply to all speech and does not discriminateB. Apply to some speech based on subject matter or the message conveyedC. Apply only in discrimination casesD. Apply only in political protest cases

Q: The Miranda warning must be given:a. immediately upon arresting an individual.b. only to those suspects interrogated in the custody of police. c. to all witnesses who may be called upon to testify in court. d. to anyone being interrogated by the police.

Q: At 1:15 p.m. on Friday, August 15, 2013, a small tornado touched down just outside Springfield, Minnesota. The tornado caused substantial property damage, injured scores of people, and resulted in ten fatalities. The following Sunday, Adrian Peterson, a local high school teacher, tweeted: "Every day at 1:15 p.m., until the town is fully recovered, everyone in Springfield should tweet #prayingforthevictims." In the past, Peterson had used Twitter extensively to communicate with students about their assignments and other school announcements. As a result, many of Peterson's students follow him on Twitter. At 1:15 p.m. on Monday Peterson and fifteen of his students tweeted "#prayingforthevictims." That afternoon, the Springfield High School Morning Prayer Group (MPG), an official school student group, launched an Internet campaign to convince other students to participate in the daily Twitter prayers. Each day that week, at the specified time, an increasing number of high school students tweeted "#prayingforthevictims." In addition, MPG collaborated with the Muslim Student Association, the Mormon Faith Club, the Jewish Student Union, and the Springfield High Humanists to organize an official prayer event to be held one -week after the day of the tornado. The event called for all students to dress in black and to simultaneously stop what they are doing at 1:15 p.m., take a moment of silence, bow their heads, and tweet "#prayingforthevictims." Peterson, who had been re-tweeting that message all week, participated in the silent tweet-prayer but did not assist in coordinating it. The school's official Twitter feed also used the "prayingforthevictims" hashtag on Friday, but the school administration was similarly uninvolved in the event planning. Kevin Love, an 18 eighteen-year-old senior at Springfield High and an outspoken atheist, did not participate in any of the Twitter prayers. He filed suit against Peterson and the school in federal district court, claiming the defendants' participation in, and support of, the Twitter prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. He asked the court to enjoin the school and its teachers from sending any more religiously motivated tweets. He also asked the court to require that the school institute a policy banning the use of social networking sites during school hours by students for religious purposes. The district court ruled for Love, and the Eighth Circuit Court affirmed that decision. Peterson and the school appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the tweets were nonsectarian and completely voluntary, and that the tweets sent by Peterson and the school did not amount to an endorsement of religion. They further argued that the injunction would prohibit the teachers' and students' free exercise of religion and freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment. You are the "swing" justice on the U.S. Supreme Court for this case. Four justices side with the school and Peterson; four others want to rule for Love. Your vote, therefore, will make the majority in either direction, and you are designated to write the majority opinion. Your goal is to craft a plausible, persuasive, and realistic majority opinion in this case. Be sure to cite cases from class to support your position. There is no right answer, but all your arguments must be logical and supported with case law. Be specific about what actions are or are not constitutional.

Q: Which of the following statements would probably constitute an invocation of Miranda rights?a. "I think I may have said too much."b. "If I don"t like your questions, it's lawyer time." c. "I"ll talk, but I"m not signing that waiver form." d. "I"m done talking to you."

Q: In West Sussex, Alabama, district judge Robert Favre runs a very formal courtroom where justice is handed out quietly but swiftly. The formality of Favre's courtroom is demonstrated by the fact that he runs all proceedings with an iron fist. Additionally, the judge begins every court session day with a prayer that asks God to allow him to act judiciously and fairly when dealing with defendants. These prayers, while nondenominational, are read by different members of the clergy each week. The pool of clergy includes several Presbyterian ministers and a few Catholic priests, but it is mostly comprised of Southern Baptist ministers from the surrounding counties. These ministers are not paid, but on days that they read the Court's prayer they are provided with breakfast at a local coffee shop across from the courthouse.To help him serve justice, and to "show his place under God," Judge Favre carved a replica of the stone tablets upon which the Ten Commandments were inscribed. He took it upon himself to hang these tablets behind his bench for all to see. When asked why he put them in his courtroom, the judge said simply, "We must all realize that no matter what our laws may be, we all live under God's law and must follow it without question." While protesters said he should remove the tablets, Favre refused to do so.On January 5, 1999, Roger Vinatonka was brought into Judge Favre's courtroom to defend an accusation that he had robbed five gas stations in the past month. As this was the first case of the day, Judge Favre asked Southern Baptist minister Mordecai Brown to read the invocation. After he finished, Vinatonka's attorney objected that the reading of the prayer was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Additionally, he objected to the Ten Commandments in the courtroom, as these also violated the wall of separation between church and state. His argument was that it was a violation of his client's rights to be subjected to such prayers when he was not Christian, and his beliefs did not include praying to God or following the Ten Commandments. He also argued that for justice to be conducted fairly in this courtroom the prayers must be stopped and the Ten Commandments taken down. Favre overruled the objection and noted that even though Vinatonka was not a Christian, these were ideals by which all "red-blooded" Americans should live. Because Vinatonka waived his right to a jury trial the judge decided the case and found the defendant guilty. After telling him, "Thou shall not steal," he sentenced Vinatonka to three years in a state prison. On appeal Vinatonka's attorney argued that the trial was unfair and biased because it was conducted under the auspices of Christian tenets that Vinatonka did not recognize, which was a direct violation of the Establishment Clause. The appeals court in Alabama affirmed the conviction and said there was no First Amendment problem. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court.As a justice on the Court, how would you rule given the line of Establishment Clause cases decided by the Court? Should the judge be allowed to continue the prayers? Why or why not? Is there a way that the prayers could be altered so that they would not violate the Establishment Clause? How would you deal with the issue of the Ten Commandments? Should they be taken down, or can they stay as a symbol of respect for God? Finally, should Vinatonka be granted a new trial? Why or why not?Be sure to cite cases from class to support your answers. There is no right answer, but all your answers must be logical and supported with case law.

Q: Scholars argue that the Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Establishment Clause are often at odds with each other and that, at a minimum, there is tension between them. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?Be sure to cite examples and cases you have read to justify your answer.

Q: The Supreme Court effectively set an expiration date on the right to counsel invocation by announcing a new "14 day break in custody" rule in: a. Edwards v. Arizona b. Arizona v. Roberson c. United States v. Dunn d. Maryland v. Shatzer

Q: The USA PATRIOT Act improves counter-terrorism efforts by all of the following, except: a. allowing investigators to use tools already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking. b. facilitating information sharing and cooperation among government agencies. c. increasing penalties for those who support or commit organized crime. d. Updating the law to reflect new technologies and new threats.

Q: The Court has consistently held that the free exercise of religion is a fundamental right. However, as with the Establishment Clause, the Court has not given a definitive answer as to what should be protected religious practices, and what should not be protected. In Cantwell the Court grounded its decision in a standard of government neutrality, but this standard did not remain good law for long. Instead, the Court changed its standard to one that restricts the state's ability to interfere with the right to free exercise of religion. Explain this standard, as well as how the Court applied it for several decades. From there, discuss the downfall of this standard, and what replaced it during the Rehnquist era. In short, discuss the evolution of the different standards used by the Court, from Cantwell through Smith. Finally, make an argument for where you believe Free Exercise doctrine is headed in light of the most recent cases we have read in this area, and considering the makeup of the current Court.

Q: The U.S. Supreme Court established the right to counsel during police interrogation for all criminal suspects in: a. Escobedo v. Illinois b. Miranda v. Arizona. c. Dickerson v. United States d. Fikes v. Alabama

Q: Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) provides the Supreme Court with one of its most famous "three-pronged tests." Since this case, however, the Court has not used the Lemon test consistently, and the justices have not reached consensus on a definitive standard by which to adjudicate religious Establishment Clause cases. First, explain the three prongs of the Lemon test and note from which cases each originated. Then, using cases from class, explain how the Court uses this test to judge Establishment Clause cases. Next, either defend this test as an appropriate standard, or argue that another test would be better (one that you have thought of, or one that another justice supports). Be sure to cite those cases that support your argument and the rationale within them that is relevant. Finally, explain why other tests are not as good as the one you support, and why the cases that support these other tests should not be considered relevant.

Q: How has the Supreme Court's definition of religion evolved throughout the Court's history of deciding First Amendment cases? Be sure to cite specific cases to explain how the evolution has taken place. Which definition do you think is most appropriate? Why?

Q: When considering the characteristics of the accused, all of the following would apply, except: a. if the accused is of low intelligence. b. if the accused is mentally ill. c. if the accused is intoxicated. d. if the accused is remorseful.

Q: No Miranda warning is required if there is no seizure of the person as long as the police do not:a. convey the message that compliance is required. b. secretly intend to arrest the person at a later time. c. ask the person any incriminating questions.d. let the person voluntarily come to the police station.

Q: Why is the Court more tolerant of lack of separation between church and state in colleges than in elementary and secondary schools?

Q: Given several examples of how the Lemon test has been applied to both to uphold and to strike government involvement with religion (use case examples).

Q: The U.S. Supreme Court held that confessions obtained through brutality and torture by law enforcement officials are violations of constitutionally protected due process rights in: a. Brown v. Mississippi b. Fikes v. Alabama c. Katz v. United States d. Dickerson v. United States

Q: The exclusionary rule prohibits the use of confessions obtained in violation of a person's constitutional rights and those that are otherwise coerced for all of the following reasons, except: a. they are inherently unreliable. b. to do otherwise would be a violation of due process. c. of a need to hold government accountable by holding such confessions inadmissible. d. the concern for public safety is not a Fifth Amendment issue.

Q: Which of the following is not guaranteed or prohibited by the Fifth Amendment? a. right against self-incrimination b. trial by jury c. double jeopardy d. just compensation

Q: What special circumstances led the Court to rule in favor of the Massachusetts law in Prince v. Massachusetts? How was this case used in subsequent cases?

Q: What rationale did the Court use to support its ruling in Gobitis?

Q: One of the exceptions to a search warrant is known as exigent circumstances. If police officers have established probable cause that evidence is likely to be in a certain place and do not have time to get a search warrant, they may conduct a warrantless search. This can include a reasonable belief that evidence will be removed or destroyed if the officers wait for a warrant. Some courts are dubious of this exception since police officers can frequently create the risk of destruction of evidence by their own behavior. Do you think there is a potential abuse of this exception by the police? If so, how? If not, why not?

Q: What are the parts of the three-pronged test created by the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman? Provide examples of each.

Q: Police officers can legally tell and impound vehicles for many reasons, including vehicles involved in accidents, parked in a tow-away zone, or abandoned on the highway. When the police impound a vehicle for legitimate reason, they may lawfully conduct an inventory search. Assume a police officer lacks probable cause but has a "gut feeling" that a known malcontent from the community has marijuana in the trunk of his car. The police officer follows the malcontent until she fails to stop completely at a stop sign. The police officer pulls over at the malcontent and, after asking for license and registration, finds out (as she already suspected) that the malcontent has a suspended license. The police officer arrests the malcontent and puts her in the backseat of her police car. She then calls the local tow company to impound the vehicle for the owner's safety. The police officer is then happy to hear that during a normal inventory inspection of the vehicle, marijuana is found and she promptly informs the district attorney's office. If the police officer has done nothing that violates the law or the Fourth Amendment, can you articulate an argument that challenges what the police officer did?

Q: How did the Smith test differ from the Sherbert test?

Q: When a full body search is lawful, police might still be found to have gone too far. This area of law is still being shaped. What limits do you think should be placed on these searches? Do you think your standard adequately reflects the need for effective law enforcement to be balanced with individual rights? Explain.

Q: Explain the difference between the Valid Secular Policy Test and the Compelling interest test.

Q: The area within a person's reach or immediate control is known as __________.

Q: Explain the belief/action dichotomy and how the Court used it to decide Cantwell v. Connecticut.

Q: Using the three criteria for the plain view doctrine, provide one scenario involving illegal drugs in the trunk of a car that properly utilizes this doctrine and one with similar facts that fails to meet the test.

Q: Items felt during a lawful stop and frisk may be retrieved if the officer reasonably believes the items are ___________and can instantly recognize them as such.

Q: Discuss three legal victories Jehovah's witnesses have won at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Q: What did Alexis de Tocqueville observe about religion in America, and how does this relate to religion in the nation today?

Q: Courts generally justify the consent exception to the search warrant using the voluntariness and __________tests.

Q: If the police reasonably believe at the time of their entry that a third party possessed the authority to consent to the search, any evidence secured during the search is ____________at trial.

Q: In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris the Court upheld _______.A. The Cleveland school voucher programB. The Cleveland open school programC. The Cleveland free lunch programD. None of the above

Q: The test for ruling in religious establishment cases created by Chief Justice Burger is the _______.A. Coercion TestB. Non-preferential treatment testC. Lemon TestD. Endorsement Approach

Q: If a third-party has common authority over the premises of items to be searched, this person can provide government officials with valid ________________.

Q: County of Allegheny v. ACLU indicated that the Court _______.A. Would analyze context when determining whether religious symbols can be displayed on public propertyB. Would not analyze context when determining whether religious symbols can be displayed on public propertyC. Would never allow religious displays on public propertyD. Would only allow religious displays on public property

Q: Consent to search can only be given by the person who has the right to object to the unreasonableness of the search, because this person has legal _____________.

Q: With the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress _______.A. Made it more difficult for government agencies to impose restrictions on religious practicesB. Made it easier for government agencies to impose restrictions on religious practices