AnswersMI-GovernmentCivics 2023Your Rights: Due Process

Your Rights: Due Process Answers

0 verified answers2 views
1
Free Preview

In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), why did Ernesto Miranda say his Fifth Amendment rights had been violated?

A
He had been stopped and searched without a judge issuing a proper warrant.
B
He had been tried for serious crimes without a grand jury issuing an indictment.
C
He had confessed to crimes without being reminded of his right to avoid self-incrimination.
D
He had been jailed without being informed of the charges against him.
2
Free Preview

How did the Supreme Court rule in the Miranda decision?

A
Ernesto Miranda was found guilty on all counts.
B
Ernesto Miranda had been denied his rights.
C
Ernesto Miranda could not be tried twice for the same crime.
D
Ernesto Miranda did not have the right to avoid self-incrimination.
3

A key element of the Fourth Amendment is that searches and seizures must be conducted

A
only if a serious crime has been committed.
B
with compassion and support.
C
using a practical and organized method.
D
based on reasonable belief that a crime has been committed.
4

The exclusionary rule states that if evidence is found during an illegal search, it

A
must be destroyed immediately.
B
cannot be admitted as evidence in court.
C
can be admitted into court anyway.
D
cannot be admitted into court unless a judge agrees.
5

A warrant, which specifies the location that can be searched and exactly what can be legally seized, must be issued by a

A
police officer.
B
judge.
C
mayor.
D
religious leader.
6

[BLANK]

A
inclusionary rule
B
exclusionary rule
C
self-incrimination rule
D
warrant rule
7

In addition to protection against self-incrimination, the Fifth Amendment ensures that people have

A
double jeopardy and grand jury rights.
B
search and seizure and grand jury rights.
C
Miranda warning and probable cause rights.
D
just compensation and warrant rights.
8

[BLANK]

A
Miranda
B
voting
C
property
D
search and seizure
9

Which of these statements describes a Fifth Amendment protection?

A
A warrant must be issued before the police can search someone’s property.
B
No one can be tried twice for the same crime.
C
Searches and seizures must be based on probable cause.
D
In certain cases, the government may seize someone’s property without payment.
10

Under due process, all people accused of crimes are subject to

A
rules depending on their social class.
B
rules depending on their gender.
C
rules their city agrees to.
D
rules that are the same for everyone.
11

A man walking down the street appears to have an illegal weapon. What can a police officer do?

A
The officer must immediately go before a judge to obtain a search warrant.
B
With reasonable cause, the officer can stop this individual and frisk him.
C
With reasonable cause, the officer can arrest the individual without reading the Miranda warning.
D
Nothing. The officer cannot stop anyone based on appearance alone.
12

In Duckworth v. Eagan (1988), the Supreme Court held that the police

A
had been too harshly burdened by the Miranda decision and no longer had to follow it.
B
could create their own Miranda warning if it communicated the same message.
C
did not need to read the Miranda warning if they considered a suspect to be dangerous.
D
could create any warning they chose so long as they got a conviction.
13

Which statement accurately describes the Fourth Amendment?

A
The Fourth Amendment gives citizens the right to refuse a search under any circumstances.
B
Police officers may seize anything they find suspicious.
C
The Fourth Amendment describes the legal process for searches and seizures.
D
A police officer can search someone’s home, so long as a judge is present.
14

In New York v. Quarles (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda rights do not have to be read if a suspect

A
already has a criminal record.
B
puts public safety at immediate risk.
C
looks as if he or she has just committed a crime.
D
is someone the arresting officer already knows.
15

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Terry v. Ohio (1967) and Horton v. California (1990) both held that the police

A
may, in certain cases, search individuals or seize their property without a warrant.
B
must never, even with reasonable cause, carry out a stop and frisk.
C
must always have a warrant to seize evidence, even if it is in plain view.
D
may never violate the Fourth Amendment protections concerning searches and seizures.

Did you find these answers helpful?

More from this Course

Quiz
19 verified answers

Your Rights: Due Process

Quiz
10 verified answers

Your Rights: Due Process

Quiz
10 verified answers

Your Rights: Trials and Punishments