Week 3

Question 1

Chapter 6

actual authority (objective) third-party consent

Answer 1

When a person in fact has legal authority to consent to a particular search for someone else.

Question 2

Chapter 6

apparent authority (subjective) third-party consent

Answer 2

When a person does not in fact have legal authority to consent to a search for someone else but police reasonably believe the consenting person does.

Question 3

Chapter 6

bright-line rule

Answer 3

A rule announced by the Supreme Court in
United States v. Robinson that police can automatically do a search incident to lawful arrest of anyone they take into custody, regardless of the offense the person searched was arrested for.

Question 4

Chapter 6

consent search

Answer 4

A search where individuals give police permission to look through their home or possessions or to do a body search of some kind.

Question 5

Chapter 6

emergency searches

Answer 5

Another term for exigent circumstances searches.

Question 6

Chapter 6

exigent circumstances searches

Answer 6

Circumstances requiring prompt action that eliminates the warrant requirement.

Question 7

Chapter 6

grabbable area

Answer 7

The arrested person and the area within his or her immediate physical control.

Question 8

Chapter 6

hot pursuit

Answer 8

The exigent circumstance constituting the need to apprehend a fleeing suspect.

Question 9

Chapter 6

knock and announce rule

Answer 9

The practice of law enforcement officers knocking and announcing their presence before a home to search it.

Question 10

Chapter 6

no-knock entry

Answer 10

An entry to execute a warrant in which the officers do not first knock and announce their presence.

Question 11

Chapter 6

particularity requirement

Answer 11

Requirement that a warrant must describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Question 12

Chapter 6

pretext arrests

Answer 12

An arrest done as a pretext to provide the opportunity for some other action police wish to take.

Question 13

Chapter 6

Robinson rule

Answer 13

The “bright rule” announced by the Supreme Court in United States v. Robinson that police can automatically do a search incident to lawful arrest of anyone they take into custody, regardless of the offense the person searched was arrested for.

Question 14

Chapter 6

searches incident to arrest

Answer 14

A search made of a lawfully arrested suspect without probable cause or warrant.

Question 15

Chapter 6

third-party consent searches

Answer 15

One person can consent for another person to a search.

Question 16

Chapter 6

unequivocal acts or statements withdrawal
of consent rule

Answer 16

To withdraw a consent to search, the withdrawal must be supported by unambiguous acts or unequivocal statements.

Question 17

Chapter 6

vehicle exception

Answer 17

Announced by the Supreme Court in Carroll v. U. S. (1925), the exception holds that automobiles can be searched without a warrant as long as officials had probable cause for the search.

Question 18

Chapter 6

voluntariness test of consent searches

Answer 18

A test in which the totality of circumstances is used to determine whether a consent to search was obtained without coercion, deception, or promises.

Question 19

Chapter 7

border search exception

Answer 19

Searches of persons and property at or near the borders of the United States to protect the integrity of international borders.

Question 20

Chapter 7

in loco parentis

Answer 20

The principle by which the government stands in place of parents while students are at school.

Question 21

Chapter 7

inventory searches

Answer 21

Searches conducted without probable cause or warrants in order to protect property and the safety of police and to prevent claims against police.

Question 22

Chapter 7

routine written procedure requirement

Answer 22

Requirement that inventory searches must be conducted according to approved, written procedures that apply to all inventory searches.

Question 23

Chapter 7

special-needs searches

Answer 23

Government inspections and other regulatory measures not conducted to gather criminal evidence.

Question 24

Chapter 8

accusatory system rationale

Answer 24

The justification for reviewing state confession cases based on the idea that confessions are typical of inquisitorial, not adversarial, systems of justice.

Question 25

Chapter 8

accusatory stage

Answer 25

The point at which the criminal process focuses on a specific suspect.

Question 26

Chapter 8

bright line rule (in Miranda v. Arizona)

Answer 26

Miranda warnings provide instruction to prevent police coercion but still allow police pressure.

Question 27

Chapter 8

critical stage in criminal prosecutions

Answer 27

The point in criminal prosecutions, when under the Sixth Amendment, suspects have a right to a lawyer.

Question 28

Chapter 8

custodial interrogation

Answer 28

The questioning that occurs after the police have taken suspects into custody.

Question 29

Chapter 8

custody

Answer 29

: Being held by police or deprived by police of freedom of action in a significant way.

Question 30

Chapter 8

deliberately eliciting a response standard

Answer 30

The standard applied only to interrogation that takes place after formal charges have been filed which focuses on the police officer’s intent.

Question 31

Chapter 8

due process approach

Answer 31

Confessions must be voluntary, involuntary confessions violate due process, not because they are compelled but because they may not be true.

Question 32

Chapter 8

due process clause

Answer 32

The clause in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that provides that “[n]o state shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

Question 33

Chapter 8

express waiver test

Answer 33

A person specifically saying or writing that he/she gives up their rights.

Question 34

Chapter 8

free will rationale

Answer 34

Involuntary confessions are not only unreliable, they are coerced because they were not the product of a rational intellect and free will.

Question 35

Chapter 8

“functional equivalent of a question” test

Answer 35

Any words or actions by the police that they should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect, a standard that focuses on the perceptions of the suspect.

Question 36

Chapter 8

implied waiver

Answer 36

Examining the totality of circumstances to decide if a person has given up his/her rights.

Question 37

Chapter 8

inherently coercive

Answer 37

The Supreme Court has found custodial interrogation is coercive because suspects are held in unfamiliar surroundings, are not free to leave, and police officers can use psychological pressure.

Question 38

Chapter 8

interrogation

Answer 38

For Fifth Amendment purposes, it is the functional equivalent of asking a question. For Sixth Amendment purposes, it is deliberately eliciting a response.

Question 39

Chapter 8

public safety exception (to Miranda v. Arizona)

Answer 39

The rule that Miranda warnings need not be administered if doing so endangers the public.

Question 40

Chapter 8

reliability rationale

Answer 40

The justification for reviewing state confessions based on their untrustworthiness.

Question 41

Chapter 8

right-to-counsel clause

Answer 41

The clause in the Sixth Amendment that provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall … have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

Question 42

Chapter 8

self-incrimination clause

Answer 42

The clause in the Fifth Amendment that provides that “[n]o person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

Question 43

Chapter 8

testimony

Answer 43

The context of what you say and write against yourself.

Question 44

Chapter 8

voluntariness test of self-incrimination

Answer 44

The standard that relies on the totality of circumstances to determine whether waivers and confessions are voluntary.