Constitutional Law Flashcards

Police arrest a suspect without a warrant inside his home. Under Payton v. New York, this warrantless home arrest is:

Answer: Unconstitutional absent exigent circumstances or consent

Payton v. New York held that absent exigent circumstances or consent, the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless, nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home to make a felony arrest.

A defendant is tried twice for the same offense after the first jury was discharged without rendering a verdict because the jury was deadlocked. The second prosecution violates:

Answer: Neither the Double Jeopardy Clause nor Due Process, because manifest necessity justified the mistrial

A hung jury constitutes manifest necessity for declaring a mistrial, and retrial after a hung jury does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, when the government physically occupies private property even briefly or on a small scale, it is considered a:

Answer: Per se taking requiring just compensation

A permanent physical occupation of private property, however minor, constitutes a per se taking under Loretto v. Teleprompter, requiring the government to pay just compensation.

A criminal defendant invokes his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent after being given Miranda warnings. At trial, the prosecutor comments on the defendant's silence. Under Doyle v. Ohio, this comment is:

Answer: Impermissible because post-Miranda silence cannot be used for impeachment

Doyle v. Ohio held that using a defendant's post-Miranda silence for impeachment violates due process because Miranda warnings implicitly assure suspects that silence will not be used against them.

A law enforcement officer conducts a search incident to a lawful arrest and finds contraband in the arrestee's jacket pocket. This search is:

Answer: Constitutional as a search incident to lawful arrest under Chimel v. California

Chimel v. California authorizes officers to search the person and the area within the arrestee's immediate control incident to a lawful arrest, without a warrant or additional justification.

Which constitutional provision was interpreted in Mapp v. Ohio to apply the exclusionary rule to state court proceedings?

Answer: The Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches, incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment

Mapp v. Ohio applied the exclusionary rule to state courts by incorporating the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

A statute provides that any person convicted of a felony may not receive welfare benefits for life. This law is challenged on substantive due process grounds. The court most likely applies:

Answer: Rational basis review because welfare benefits are not a fundamental right

Welfare benefits are not a fundamental right, so a law conditioning their receipt on criminal history is evaluated under rational basis review, requiring only a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest.