Multiple
Choice Questions
1. Before
non-personnel enter public buildings in the State of Setonia, 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
Setonia 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. AWhy?@ Alice asked. ADid you see something
suspicious on the scan?@ ANo,@ the guard replied. AWe just thought you looked
kinda shifty.@ ANo problem,@ Alice replied. APeople 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 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 Aguilty 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
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,
AI=ve got nothing to say to you gals,@ he was told that he should consider
himself under arrest. Before Paul was advised of his Mirandarights,
Officer Shirley told Paul, AConfession 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 Atake@ 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 Mirandarights 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 Mirandarights.
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 Mirandawarnings.
C. Yes, despite the
lack of Mirandawarnings.
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 Beta Investments, Inc., and Colin, Beta=s accountant, are charged
with a crime, after
the police search Beta=s offices. Under the exclusionary rule
A. Certain Beta
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
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 Atend 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
Aminimum 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 Awhole@ in the economic
sense, are called:
A. Compensatory.
B. Consequential.
C. Punitive.
D. Specific.
Questions 25 – 28
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 HowardStreet. 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 Akinda 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 Afrisked@ 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 Aprobable 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 HaroldStreet. Hoover went to
Fingers= home at 823 HowardStreet without noticing the mistake in the
warrant regarding the street name. He knocked on the door. When Fingers asked
who it was, Hoover replied, AFuller 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 Aplain 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, ANo problem@
and then fails to return the saw. Mark has become so angry, he decides to kill
Phil. He makes a list called ASix ways to do away with Phil.@ One entry on the
list is ABuy 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 A6-Ways List@ into his
picket, grabs his new hammer, and creeps up behind Phil as the latter sits in
the hot tub. Yelling AYou 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, (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 A6-Ways List@ is found in his pocket.
If the A6-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 MirandaRights
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 to 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.
