Lawmaxxer

USA · 3L · Criminal Procedure

Searches, Exclusion & Trial Rights

More Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment law.

1/10

Space flip · ← → navigate · S save

Show all 10 questions and answers in this book

  1. 1.Chimel v. California (1969) — search incident to arrest scope?

    Limited to the arrestee's person and the area within their immediate control (from which they might gain a weapon or destroy evidence).

    Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)

  2. 2.Riley v. California (2014) — held?

    Police generally need a warrant to search the digital contents of a cell phone seized incident to arrest.

    Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)

  3. 3.Carpenter v. United States (2018) — held?

    Acquiring historical cell-site location information is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant.

    Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018)

  4. 4.Kyllo v. United States (2001) — held?

    Using a thermal imaging device not in general public use to explore details of a home is a search.

    Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)

  5. 5.Wong Sun v. United States (1963) — doctrine?

    Fruit of the poisonous tree: evidence derived from an illegal search or arrest is excluded unless the taint is purged (attenuation).

    Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)

  6. 6.United States v. Leon (1984) — held?

    Good-faith exception: evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant later held invalid is not excluded.

    United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)

  7. 7.Batson v. Kentucky (1986) — held?

    The prosecution may not use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of race.

    Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)

  8. 8.Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) — rule?

    Other than a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)

  9. 9.Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) — held?

    The Sixth Amendment requires a unanimous jury verdict to convict of a serious offence in state as well as federal court.

    Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020)

  10. 10.Dickerson v. United States (2000) — held?

    Miranda announced a constitutional rule that Congress could not overrule by statute (18 U.S.C. § 3501).

    Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)