Download Louisiana POST Exam: Key Legal Concepts and Case Law and more Exams Advanced Education in PDF only on Docsity! Louisiana POST Exam Questions and Answers Kirby v. Illinois - Answer- The sixth and Fourth amendment rights to counsel do not apply to pre-indictment identification procedures. US v. Wade - Answer- Held that a lineup or other face to face confrontation after the accused has been formally charged with an offense is considered a critical stage of proceedings; therefore the accused has a right to have counsel present. Tennessee v. Garner - 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. Katz v. US - Answer- warrantless wiretaps violate the 4th Amendment Miranda v. Arizona - Answer- Supreme Court held that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self- incrimination prior to questioning by police. Watson v US - Answer- An arrest warrant is not required to arrest a suspected felon in a public place if probable cause for arrest exists Terry v. Ohio - Answer- Held that a police officer on less than probable cause for arrest, may pat down a suspicious person whom he has reason to believe presents a present danger to himself or others Chimel v. California - Answer- Held that a police officer, after making a lawful arrest, could legally search only the area within the arrestee's immediate control. Arm-span or wing-span theory Pennsylvania v. Mimms - Answer- Held that police officers can compel a driver to step out of his car when stopping him for a minor traffic violation Gideon v. Wainwright - Answer- Held that the fourth amendment requires the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in state criminal cases whether the offense is capital or non capital Draper v. U.S. (1959) - Answer- Information obtained from a proven, reliable informant is good enough to establish probable cause in order to obtain a search warrant. Schmerber v. California - Answer- held that the taking of physical evidence such as a blood sample over objection did not violate defendants constitutional rights and is admissible in evidence Caroll v US - Answer- Held that automobiles and conveyances being highly mobile, may be searched without a warrant in circumstances that will not justify the search without a warrant of a house or an office provided there is probable cause to believe they contain articles that the officers are entitled to see use i.e. contraband US v. Robinson - Answer- Held that the Fourth Amendment PERMITS a warrantless search incident to a lawful custodial arrest of motorist. Mapp v. Ohio - Answer- Held that evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was inadmissible in state criminal prosecutions by virtue of the due process clause of the 14th amendment known as the exclusionary rule New York v. Belton - Answer- the constitutionally permissible scope of a search incident to a lawful custodial arrest extends to the passenger compartment of the automobile in which the person was riding First Amendment - Answer- 5 freedoms: speech, press, religion, assembly, petition Amendment 4 (IV) - Answer- Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures Amendment 5 V - Answer- Right to a grand jury indictment for a capital or other serious crime Protects against self incrimination and double jeopardy Amendment 6 (VI) - Answer- Right to speedy and public trial Right to impartial jury Right to be informed of the nature and chase of the accusation Right to confront witnesses Right to summon witnesses Right to assistance of counsel Amendment 8 (VIII) - Answer- Protection against excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment Amendment XIV (14) - Answer- Right to due process Right to equal protection
