MTA Constitutional Rights 5

Question 1

A suspect in custody says 'Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.' How should officers respond?

Accepted Answer

Continue questioning because the request was ambiguous and not an unequivocal invocation

Answer

Per Berghuis v. Thompkins, an ambiguous or equivocal request for counsel does not require cessation of questioning; the invocation must be unequivocal.

Question 2

What is the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule?

Accepted Answer

To deter police misconduct by removing the incentive to conduct unlawful searches

Answer

The exclusionary rule's primary purpose is deterrence of future constitutional violations by law enforcement, not punishment or compensation.

Question 3

Under the First Amendment, which type of speech receives the LEAST constitutional protection?

Accepted Answer

Obscenity that meets the Miller v. California three-part test

Answer

Obscenity as defined by Miller v. California is categorically unprotected speech under the First Amendment.

Question 4

An officer arrests a suspect without a warrant for a felony committed outside the officer's presence. This arrest is valid if:

Accepted Answer

The officer had probable cause to believe the suspect committed the felony

Answer

Officers may make warrantless felony arrests in public when they have probable cause, regardless of whether the offense was witnessed.

Question 5

The 'inevitable discovery' exception to the exclusionary rule allows admission of illegally obtained evidence when:

Accepted Answer

The prosecution proves the evidence would have been discovered through lawful means independent of the illegal conduct

Answer

Nix v. Williams established that evidence is admissible if the government proves by a preponderance that lawful discovery was inevitable.

MTA - Police Exam Practice Test

MTA - Police Exam Practice Test

MTA Constitutional Rights 5