Crim Pro Study Group (week 1)
Criminal Procedure Study Quiz
Test your knowledge of criminal procedure with this engaging quiz! Designed for students, legal enthusiasts, and professionals alike, each question will challenge your understanding of essential concepts and landmark cases.
Key Features:
- 7 Thought-Provoking Questions
- Multiple Choice Format
- Applicable Legal Principles
Under the holdings of Randolph, which of the following is NOT a required element of a valid co-occupant consent to search?
Objecting co-occupant is physically absent at the time consent is asked for
Police have a warrant to search the home
Consent to search was given by one who possess common authority over premises or effects
T/F: When getting consent to search from co-occupants, police may remove the objecting occupant from the premises for the purpose of avoiding the objection
True
False
T/F: Consent to search cannot be validly given if the individual does not know they have the right to refuse consent
True
False
In which of the following cases did the Court establish the "hot pursuit" exception?
Kentucky v. King
Michigan v. Fisher
Brigham City v. Stuart
Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden
Missouri v. McNeely
T/F Hypo: Officers walk up to the front door of someone's home, cover the peephole, knock on the front door, and pretend they are someone else. After knocking, they hear someone inside say, "flush the drugs!" Police immediately enter the house and find contraband. Was this a valid search?
Yes - Valid exigent circumstance
No - Invalid exigent circumstance
{"name":"Crim Pro Study Group (week 1)", "url":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/QPREVIEW","txt":"Test your knowledge of criminal procedure with this engaging quiz! Designed for students, legal enthusiasts, and professionals alike, each question will challenge your understanding of essential concepts and landmark cases.Key Features:7 Thought-Provoking QuestionsMultiple Choice FormatApplicable Legal Principles","img":"https:/images/course4.png"}