The Exclusionary Rule
| Description: The Exclusionary Rule Quiz | |
| Number of Questions: 14 | |
| Created by: Aliensbrain Bot | |
| Tags: criminal procedure evidence fourth amendment |
What is the purpose of the exclusionary rule?
-
To prevent the government from using evidence that was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
-
To deter law enforcement officers from violating the Fourth Amendment.
-
To protect the privacy of individuals.
-
All of the above.
The exclusionary rule serves all of these purposes. It prevents the government from using evidence that was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which deters law enforcement officers from violating the Fourth Amendment and protects the privacy of individuals.
What is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
-
The right to bear arms.
-
The right to a speedy and public trial.
-
The right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.
-
The right to counsel.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
What is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine?
-
Evidence that is obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure is inadmissible in court.
-
Evidence that is obtained as a result of a legal search or seizure is admissible in court.
-
Evidence that is obtained as a result of a search or seizure that is later found to be illegal is inadmissible in court.
-
None of the above.
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is a legal principle that states that evidence that is obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure is inadmissible in court. This doctrine is based on the idea that the government should not be allowed to benefit from its own illegal conduct.
What is the "independent source" doctrine?
-
Evidence that is obtained from an independent source is admissible in court, even if it was also obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure.
-
Evidence that is obtained from an independent source is inadmissible in court, even if it was also obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure.
-
Evidence that is obtained from an independent source is admissible in court only if it was obtained before the illegal search or seizure.
-
None of the above.
The "independent source" doctrine is a legal principle that states that evidence that is obtained from an independent source is admissible in court, even if it was also obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure. This doctrine is based on the idea that the government should not be prevented from using evidence that was obtained legally, even if it was also obtained illegally.
What is the "inevitable discovery" doctrine?
-
Evidence that would have been inevitably discovered through a legal search or seizure is admissible in court, even if it was also obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure.
-
Evidence that would have been inevitably discovered through a legal search or seizure is inadmissible in court, even if it was also obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure.
-
Evidence that would have been inevitably discovered through a legal search or seizure is admissible in court only if it was obtained before the illegal search or seizure.
-
None of the above.
The "inevitable discovery" doctrine is a legal principle that states that evidence that would have been inevitably discovered through a legal search or seizure is admissible in court, even if it was also obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure. This doctrine is based on the idea that the government should not be prevented from using evidence that would have been obtained legally, even if it was also obtained illegally.
What is the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule?
-
Evidence that is obtained by law enforcement officers who acted in good faith is admissible in court, even if it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
-
Evidence that is obtained by law enforcement officers who acted in good faith is inadmissible in court, even if it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
-
Evidence that is obtained by law enforcement officers who acted in good faith is admissible in court only if it was obtained before the Fourth Amendment violation.
-
None of the above.
The "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule is a legal principle that states that evidence that is obtained by law enforcement officers who acted in good faith is admissible in court, even if it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This exception is based on the idea that it would be unfair to exclude evidence that was obtained by law enforcement officers who were acting in good faith and who did not know that they were violating the Fourth Amendment.
What is the "plain view" doctrine?
-
Evidence that is in plain view of law enforcement officers is admissible in court, even if it was obtained without a warrant.
-
Evidence that is in plain view of law enforcement officers is inadmissible in court, even if it was obtained without a warrant.
-
Evidence that is in plain view of law enforcement officers is admissible in court only if it was obtained before the warrantless search.
-
None of the above.
The "plain view" doctrine is a legal principle that states that evidence that is in plain view of law enforcement officers is admissible in court, even if it was obtained without a warrant. This doctrine is based on the idea that it would be unreasonable to require law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant before they can seize evidence that is in plain view.
What is the "hot pursuit" doctrine?
-
Evidence that is obtained by law enforcement officers who are in hot pursuit of a suspect is admissible in court, even if it was obtained without a warrant.
-
Evidence that is obtained by law enforcement officers who are in hot pursuit of a suspect is inadmissible in court, even if it was obtained without a warrant.
-
Evidence that is obtained by law enforcement officers who are in hot pursuit of a suspect is admissible in court only if it was obtained before the warrantless search.
-
None of the above.
The "hot pursuit" doctrine is a legal principle that states that evidence that is obtained by law enforcement officers who are in hot pursuit of a suspect is admissible in court, even if it was obtained without a warrant. This doctrine is based on the idea that it would be unreasonable to require law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant before they can seize evidence that is obtained during a hot pursuit.
What is the "consent" exception to the exclusionary rule?
-
Evidence that is obtained with the consent of the person whose property was searched or seized is admissible in court.
-
Evidence that is obtained with the consent of the person whose property was searched or seized is inadmissible in court.
-
Evidence that is obtained with the consent of the person whose property was searched or seized is admissible in court only if the consent was given voluntarily.
-
None of the above.
The "consent" exception to the exclusionary rule is a legal principle that states that evidence that is obtained with the consent of the person whose property was searched or seized is admissible in court. This exception is based on the idea that a person has the right to waive their Fourth Amendment rights and consent to a search or seizure.
What is the "abandoned property" doctrine?
-
Evidence that is abandoned by its owner is admissible in court, even if it was obtained without a warrant.
-
Evidence that is abandoned by its owner is inadmissible in court, even if it was obtained without a warrant.
-
Evidence that is abandoned by its owner is admissible in court only if it was obtained before the warrantless search.
-
None of the above.
The "abandoned property" doctrine is a legal principle that states that evidence that is abandoned by its owner is admissible in court, even if it was obtained without a warrant. This doctrine is based on the idea that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in property that they have abandoned.
What is the "open fields" doctrine?
-
Evidence that is obtained from open fields is admissible in court, even if it was obtained without a warrant.
-
Evidence that is obtained from open fields is inadmissible in court, even if it was obtained without a warrant.
-
Evidence that is obtained from open fields is admissible in court only if it was obtained before the warrantless search.
-
None of the above.
The "open fields" doctrine is a legal principle that states that evidence that is obtained from open fields is admissible in court, even if it was obtained without a warrant. This doctrine is based on the idea that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in open fields.
What is the "curtilage" doctrine?
-
The area immediately surrounding a home is considered to be part of the home for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
-
The area immediately surrounding a home is not considered to be part of the home for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
-
The area immediately surrounding a home is considered to be part of the home for purposes of the Fourth Amendment only if it is enclosed by a fence or wall.
-
None of the above.
The "curtilage" doctrine is a legal principle that states that the area immediately surrounding a home is considered to be part of the home for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. This means that law enforcement officers need a warrant to search the curtilage of a home.
What is the "knock-and-announce" rule?
-
Law enforcement officers must knock and announce their presence before entering a home to execute a search warrant.
-
Law enforcement officers do not have to knock and announce their presence before entering a home to execute a search warrant.
-
Law enforcement officers must knock and announce their presence before entering a home to execute a search warrant only if the home is occupied.
-
None of the above.
The "knock-and-announce" rule is a legal principle that states that law enforcement officers must knock and announce their presence before entering a home to execute a search warrant. This rule is based on the idea that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home and that law enforcement officers should not be able to enter a home without first giving the occupants a chance to answer the door.
What is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine?
-
Evidence that is obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure is inadmissible in court.
-
Evidence that is obtained as a result of a legal search or seizure is admissible in court.
-
Evidence that is obtained as a result of a search or seizure that is later found to be illegal is inadmissible in court.
-
None of the above.
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is a legal principle that states that evidence that is obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure is inadmissible in court. This doctrine is based on the idea that the government should not be allowed to benefit from its own illegal conduct.