Legal and Ethical Considerations Flashcards

An officer fails to disclose a prior disciplinary record for dishonesty to the defense before testifying. This violates which constitutional doctrine?

Answer: Brady/Giglio disclosure requirements

Brady and Giglio require prosecutors and officers to disclose evidence impeaching witness credibility, including dishonesty findings.

Missouri v. McNeely (2013) is significant to SFST follow-up procedures because it ruled that:

Answer: Warrantless blood draws do not qualify under the exigent circumstances exception automatically

McNeely held that natural dissipation of alcohol alone does not create automatic exigency to justify warrantless blood draws.

When SFST results are used in a civil DUI-related injury lawsuit, the standard of proof required is:

Answer: Preponderance of the evidence

Civil cases use the preponderance of the evidence standard, meaning it is more likely than not that the fact is true.

An officer's use of racial or ethnic appearance as the primary basis for initiating an SFST stop violates:

Answer: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Race-based stops violate the Equal Protection Clause because they treat individuals unequally without legitimate justification.

An officer conducting SFSTs on a military base without jurisdiction authorization may have the evidence:

Answer: Suppressed for lack of legal authority to act

Evidence obtained by an officer acting outside their jurisdiction may be suppressed because the stop lacked legal authority.

Qualified immunity in SFST-related civil suits protects officers from liability when:

Answer: Their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Qualified immunity shields officers unless their conduct violated clearly established law that a reasonable officer would know.

An officer who coaches a witness to match the officer's SFST report testimony commits:

Answer: Witness tampering or obstruction of justice

Coaching witness testimony to align with an officer's version of events constitutes witness tampering and obstruction of justice.