MN POST Test Study Guide

MN POST Test Study Guide 2023/2024 with Complete Solutions Weeks v. US (1914) - Correct Answer Exclusionary rule

• warrantless seizure of items from private residence violates 4th Amendment

Terry v. Ohio (1968) - Correct Answer "Stop and Frisk"

police may:

• stop a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person committed, or is about

to commit, a crime

• frisk the suspect for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is

armed and dangerous Reasonable Suspicion - Correct Answer a suspicion based on specific facts, training, and experience; less than probable cause Probable cause to arrest - Correct Answer facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed and a particular person has committed it Probable cause to search - Correct Answer facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a evidence/property is located in a particular place to be searched frisk - Correct Answer an over-the-clothes pat-down or minimal search by police to discover weapons Chimel v. California (1969) - "Chimel Rule" - Correct Answer arresting officers are limited to searches within the immediate vicinity/control of the suspect being arrested; any other search requires warrant Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - Correct Answer Extended the Exclusionary Rule to the states Carroll v. U.S. (1925) - "Carroll Doctrine" - Correct Answer Automobile exception

• warrantless search of a car does not violate 4th Amendment, if there is PC to believe

evidence a crime is present in vehicle, and exigent circumstances exist to believe vehicle could be moved before warrant is obtained Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) - Correct Answer Right to counsel

• extended right to counsel during criminal trial to the states

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) - Correct Answer Right to counsel

• criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations 1 / 3

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - "Miranda Warning" - Correct Answer law enforcement required to give formal warning advising criminal suspects in custody of their rights, before interrogation In re Gault (1967) - Correct Answer Due process

• 14th Amendment Due Process Clause applies to juveniles

In re Winship (1970) - Correct Answer Due process

• established burden of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" as standard in all federal and

state cases

• removed "preponderance of evidence" standard previously used in juvenile

delinquency proceedings Roper v. Simmons (2005) - Correct Answer unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under 18 Atkins v. Virginia (2002) - Correct Answer unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on people with intellectual disabilities Tennessee v. Garner (1985) - Correct Answer Deadly force may not be used against an unarmed and fleeing suspect unless necessary to prevent the escape and unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to the officers or others Graham v. Connor (1989) - Correct Answer Use of Force "Objective Reasonableness" standard

• judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene

- factors:

• severity of crime at issue
• suspect poses immediate threat to safety of officers or others
• actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by fleeing

(other factors may be considered) Scales v Minnesota (1994) - Correct Answer Recording requirement (Minnesota only)

• custodial interrogation including Miranda warning, waiving of rights, and all questioning

shall be electronically recorded where feasible

• must be recorded when questioning occurs at place of detention

Herring v. US (2009) - Correct Answer Good faith exception

• exclusionary rule cannot be used to suppress illegally obtained evidence if officer was

acting on erroneous warrant in good faith Whren v. US (1996) - Correct Answer any traffic offense committed by a driver is a legitimate legal basis for a stop 2 / 3

Pena v Leombruni, US 7th Circuit (1999) - Correct Answer officer justified in using deadly force against "crazy suspect" who posed immediate threat of death or great bodily harm, regardless of suspect's mental state City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris (1989) - Correct Answer municipalities may be liable for inadequate training of employees, but only when "failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference" to the public's constitutional rights Thompson v Hubbard, US 8th Circuit (2001) - Correct Answer officer entitled to qualified immunity against excessive force claim for shooting fleeing suspect when suspect reached toward waistband, even if suspect's waistband could not hold a gun; officer not required to wait until seeing weapon before employing deadly force Plakas v. Drinski (1994) - Correct Answer officers not required to used other, less-lethal, alternatives when deadly force is justified Exclusionary rule - Correct Answer evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's rights may not be used in a criminal trial Fruit of the Poisonous Tree - Correct Answer Additional evidence that is discovered from evidence obtained through an illegal search, which is also not admissible in court.good faith exception - Correct Answer exclusionary rule cannot be used to suppress evidence illegally obtained due to simple mistakes (not the result of repeated patterns or flagrant misconduct), where officers were acting in good faith that warrant was valid felony - Correct Answer more than 1 year in prison (365+1), fine over $3000, or both gross misdemeanor - Correct Answer up to 1 year in jail, up to $3000 fine, or both misdemeanor - Correct Answer up to 90 days in jail, up to $1000 fine, or both petty misdemeanor - Correct Answer not a crime, no jail time, up to $300 fine sources of governance (use of force) - Correct Answer least to most restrictive: federal law > state law > dept policy totality of circumstances (use of force) - Correct Answer Officer/subject factors:

• age
• size
• sex
• skill
• number of participants

Special circumstances:

• weapons
• / 3