Legal and Ethical Considerations Flashcards

The exclusionary rule, as it applies to illegally obtained SFST evidence, was established primarily by:

Answer: Mapp v. Ohio

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) applied the exclusionary rule to state prosecutions, barring illegally obtained evidence.

In Berkemer v. McCarty, the Supreme Court held that roadside DUI questioning:

Answer: Is non-custodial and does not require Miranda warnings

Berkemer v. McCarty held that ordinary traffic stops are not custodial, so Miranda warnings are not required.

An officer administers SFSTs after arresting a suspect without first observing driving behavior. This may violate:

Answer: The foundational reasonable suspicion requirement

SFSTs require prior reasonable articulable suspicion from observed conduct before a lawful stop and investigation.

An SFST-certified officer testifying as an expert witness has a primary duty of truthfulness to:

Answer: The court and justice system

Expert witnesses owe their primary duty of truthfulness to the court, not to the party that calls them.

Implied consent laws typically require that a driver who refuses a chemical test following a failed SFST faces:

Answer: Administrative license suspension

Implied consent laws impose administrative license suspension as a civil penalty for chemical test refusal.

An officer who arrests a sober driver based solely on a medical condition that mimics intoxication may face civil liability under:

Answer: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil rights violations

Section 1983 allows individuals to sue state actors for violations of constitutional rights, including unlawful arrest.

Which SFST-related Supreme Court decision addressed the constitutionality of warrantless breath tests incident to arrest?

Answer: Birchfield v. North Dakota

Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016) held that breath tests incident to arrest are constitutional, but blood draws require a warrant.