4 Written Questions

1. (2000) Cops got anonymous call saying a guy had a gun illegally, but this wasn't enough probable cause to warrant a search. Conviction was thrown out.
2. (1964) 6th Amendment applies during interrogation. (Escobedo is interrogated without lawyer and eventually confesses). S.C. rules interrogation illegal because lawyer wasn't present - Suspect's right to an attorney DURING police interrogation.
3. (1976) "Hot Pursuit" clause made, meaning evidence is admissible if found during hot pursuit.
4. (1984) If effort to get a legitimate warrant was made in "good faith" then evidence is admissible.

4 Multiple Choice Questions

1. (1984) The evidence pertaining to the discovery and condition of the victim's body was properly admitted at respondent's second trial on the ground that it would ultimately or inevitably have been discovered even if no violation of any constitutional provision had taken place.
   1. Nix v Williams
   2. US v Leon
   3. Wolf v Colorado
   4. Mapp v Ohio
2. (1966) Ernesto Miranda confesses to raping a girl, but wasn't made aware of his protection in the bill of rights. Supreme Court held that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police.
   1. Miranda v Arizona
   2. Santana v US
   3. Maryland v Garrison
   4. Mapp v Ohio
3. (1999) Made "in plain view" rule. Guys bagging coke next to a window where a cop saw them.
   1. Santana v US
   2. Gideon v Wainright
   3. Minnesota v Carter
   4. Miranda v Arizona
4. (1914) Established exclusionary rule, evidence gotten without a warrant isn't admissable in a federal court
   1. Florida v JL
   2. US v Leon
   3. Santana v US
   4. Weeks v US

4 True/False Questions

1. Gideon v Wainright → (1984) The evidence pertaining to the discovery and condition of the victim's body was properly admitted at respondent's second trial on the ground that it would ultimately or inevitably have been discovered even if no violation of any constitutional provision had taken place.

   True        False

2. Mapp v Ohio → (1961) Person is searched and the cops find pornography(against Ohio law), but court found the evidence inadmissible. Exclusionary rule had to be binding on all state cases.

   True        False

3. Wolf v Colorado → (1984) The evidence pertaining to the discovery and condition of the victim's body was properly admitted at respondent's second trial on the ground that it would ultimately or inevitably have been discovered even if no violation of any constitutional provision had taken place.

   True        False

4. Maryland v Garrison → (1987) "Honest Mistake" clause made when drugs were found with a warrant for a different location, but unintentionally.

   True        False