250 likes | 390 Views
CHAPTER. 7. Policing: Legal Aspects. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect our rights especially against the abuses of police power, however times have changed. What do you believe is most important today?. The ability of the police to do their job effectively
E N D
CHAPTER 7 Policing: Legal Aspects
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect our rights especially against the abuses of police power, however times have changed. What do you believe is most important today? • The ability of the police to do their job effectively • Individual rights and due process • I would like police and the laws to continue to seek a balance
Correct Answer Survey or opinion question Graph answers for class discussion
Both Weeks v U.S. and Mapp v Ohio upheld the exclusionary rule by doing what? • Allowing illegally seized evidence to be used in court • Requiring both federal and state law enforcement to adhere to the exclusionary rule • Restricting searches of residences
Correct Answer • Requiring both federal and state law enforcement to adhere to the exclusionary rule
Our due process protection under the 4th amendment applies to places not people according to U.S. v. Rabinowitz. • Correct • Wrong
Correct Answer 2. Wrong
Which of the following cases allows the police to search to protect the officer, keep evidence from being destroyed or to stop escape? • Illinois v Rodriguez • U.S. v Leon • Arizona v Evans • Chimel v U.S.
Correct Answer 4. Chimel v U.S.
The Arizona v. Evans case about computers clarified what? • the admissibility of evidence obtained from e mails • that the exclusionary rule was intended for police misconduct not clerical mistakes • when officers should be held legally responsible for altering evidence in a computer search
Correct Answer • that the exclusionary rule was intended for police misconduct not clerical mistakes
The Plain View Doctrine is extended to allow the seizure of evidence NOT listed on the search warrant in what case? • Harris v U.S. • Horton v California • Arizona v Hicks • U.S. v Irizarry
Correct Answer 2. Horton v California
The Yarborough v. Alvardo 2004 case addresses the “free to leave test” during interrogation. What else needs to be considered? • Type of case • “Totality of Circumstances” • Danger to the public • “Due process” • Whether there is probable cause for arrest
Correct Answer 2. “Totality of Circumstances”
You must have probable cause in order to “stop and frisk” a suspect under a “Terry” stop. • Correct • Wrong
Correct Answer 2. Wrong
If you were to refuse a “warrantless” search by an officer, you should cite which case? • Brown v Texas • Hiibel v Nevada • Smith v Ohio • U.S. v Arvizu
Correct Answer 3. Smith v Ohio
When searching a vehicle the officer may search the passengers, trunk and sealed containers. • Correct • Wrong
Correct Answer 2. Wrong
Do you agree in this day and age we need high technology searches and suspicionless searches on public streets and transportation? • No it is invasive • Yes, I would feel safer • Undecided
Correct Answer Survey or opinion question Graph answers for class discussion
What is your opinion of the Patriot Act I and II? • I agree with its provisions and believe it is necessary for our country’s protection • I disagree with its continued and extensive use as it erodes our rights
Correct Answer Survey or opinion question Graph answers for class discussion