NEW
Font size
S
M
L
XL
WorksheetsWarrants
Total questions: 46
Worksheet time: 23mins
Name
Class
Date
1.
According to the facts of Copley vs Commonwealth, an officer swore an affidavit for a search warrant before...
a)
a notary public
b)
a Judge
c)
an oath machine
d)
a mayor
2.
According to the facts of Copley vs Commonwealth, the trial court denied Copley's motion to suppress because the violation was...
a)
technical, not constitutional
b)
technical and constitutional
c)
not technical or constitutional
d)
constitutional, not technical
3.
According to the facts of Copley vs Commonwealth,...
a)
a Circuit Court Clerk issued the warrant after reviewing it
b)
a Notary Public issued the warrant after reviewing it
c)
a Circuit Court Clerk searched the premises with the officers
d)
a Notary Public searched the premises with the officers
4.
According to the facts of Copley vs Commonwealth, Copley filed a motion to suppress the evidence because he claimed...
a)
a clerk cannot issue a warrant
b)
a Judge cannot issue a warrant
c)
a Jury cannot issue a warrant
d)
an officer cannot issue a warrant
5.
In the Copley vs Commonwealth case, the appellant claimed a notary public …
a)
cannot administer the oath for a warrant affidavit according to the 4th amendment
b)
can administer the oath for a warrant affidavit according to the 4th amendment
c)
cannot administer the oath for a warrant affidavit according to the 6th amendment
d)
can administer the oath for a warrant affidavit according to the 6th amendment
6.
In the Copley vs Commonwealth case, the appellant claimed a notary public …
a)
cannot administer the oath for a warrant affidavit according to Kentucky statutory law
b)
can administer the oath for a warrant affidavit according to the federal statutory law
c)
can administer the oath for a warrant affidavit according to the 6th amendment
d)
d
7.
-In the Copley vs Commonwealth case, the McRay v. Commonwealth precedent was relevant
-This precedent states that if a technical violation is...
-This precedent states that if a technical violation is...
a)
intentional or in “bad faith,” the warrant may not be upheld
b)
intentional ort in “bad faith,” the warrant will still be upheld
c)
unintentional or not in “bad faith,” the warrant may not be upheld
d)
unintentional or not in “bad faith,” the warrant must be thrown out
8.
In the Copley vs Commonwealth case, the Commonwealth v. Wilson precedent was relevant -This precedent states that the exclusionary rule only applies to...
a)
constitutional violations, not statutory violations
b)
constitutional violations and statutory violations
c)
statutory violations, not legal violations
d)
legal violations, not statutory violations or constitutional violations
9.
Who is responsible for filling out a search/arrest warrant?
a)
a police officer
b)
a court clerk
c)
a warrant clerk
d)
the criminal justice department
10.
What is a warrant affidavit?
a)
a document that an officer writes to explain why they have probable cause to conduct a search or arrest
b)
a script that was written for a witness to read at trial
c)
an indictment of a particular witness
d)
a description of a witness
11.
Is an officer required to sign their warrant affidavit?
a)
yes, they must sign it and swear to its truth
b)
no, they cannot guarantee that the claims within are true
c)
no, because they don’t fill out any part of it
d)
no because they can’t be sure it is true until the trial
12.
Who must review a warrant affidavit to determine if probable cause exists?
a)
the local Judge
b)
the clerk
c)
the prosecuting lawyer
d)
the police chief
13.
Who usually administers the oath when an officer swears to the accuracy of their warrant affidavit?
a)
the local Judge
b)
the court clerk
c)
the prosecuting lawyer
d)
the police chief
14.
-In the Copley vs Commonwealth case, RCr 2.02 was relevant
-This law states that a warrant must be sworn before a person who is…
-This law states that a warrant must be sworn before a person who is…
a)
legally empowered to administer oaths, and, authorized to administer oaths by a judge’s written order
b)
legally empowered to administer oaths, or, authorized to administer oaths by a judge’s written order
c)
legally empowered to administer oaths, but not authorized to administer oaths by a judge’s written order
d)
legally empowered to administer oaths by a judge’s written order, but not already authorized to administer oaths
15.
According to the court’s ruling in Copley vs Commonwealth, RCr 2.02 was …
a)
violated because a judge did not issue a written order authorizing the notary to administer the oath
b)
not violated because a judge issued a written order authorizing the notary to administer the oath
c)
not violated because a judge did not issue a written order authorizing the notary to administer the oath
d)
violated because a judge issued a written order authorizing the notary to administer the oath
16.
According to the court’s ruling in Copley vs Commonwealth, the violation of RCr 2.02 was …
a)
only a technical violation, not a constitutional violation
b)
only a constitutional violation, not a technical violation
c)
not technical or constitutional
d)
technically constitutional
17.
According to the court’s ruling in Copley vs Commonwealth, the exclusionary rule does…
a)
not apply to technical violations
b)
not apply to constitutional violations
c)
not apply to constitutional or technical violations
d)
apply to constitutional and technical violations
18.
According to the court’s ruling in Copley vs Commonwealth, the 4th amendment requirements for obtaining a warrant were …
a)
met because the warrant was based on probable cause
b)
not met because the warrant was not based on probable cause
c)
met because the warrant was based on reasonable suspicion
d)
not met because the warrant was not based on reasonable suspicion
19.
According to the court’s ruling in Copley vs Commonwealth, the 4th amendment’s requirements were …
a)
met because the warrant particularly described the place and items to be searched and seized
b)
met because the warrant generally described the place and items to be searched and seized
c)
NOT met because the warrant particularly described the place and items to be searched and seized
d)
met because the warrant did not specifically describe the place and items to be searched and seized
20.
What fact is true about the Hedgepath vs Commonwealth case?
a)
Hedgepath called 911 to report that his girlfriend would not wake up
b)
Hedgepath called 911 to report that his girlfriend attacked him
c)
Hedgepath called 911 to report that his girlfriend was missing
d)
Hedgepath called 911 to report that his girlfriend attacked their pet
21.
What fact is true about the Hedgepath vs Commonwealth case?
a)
Hedgepath claimed he did not do any harm to his girlfriend
b)
Hedgepath’s girlfriend claimed she did not do any harm to Hedgepath
c)
Hedgepath claimed he harmed his girlfriend
d)
Hedgepath’s girlfriend claimed she harmed Hedgepath
22.
What fact is true about the Hedgepath vs Commonwealth case?
a)
Hedgepath voluntarily met with police after speaking with them on the phone
b)
Hedgepath was forced to meet with police
c)
Hedgepath refused to meet with police, but he eventually gave in
d)
Hedgepath never met with police
23.
What fact is true about the Hedgepath vs Commonwealth case?
a)
Police seized Hedgepath’s vehicle after they arrested him, and his phone was inside the vehicle
b)
Police seized Hedgepath’s vehicle after they arrested him, but Hedgepath kept his phone with him
c)
Police seized Hedgepath’s phone after he was arrested to help them locate his vehicle
d)
Hedgepath never allowed the police to seize his vehicle because he knew his phone was inside it
24.
What fact is true about the Hedgepath vs Commonwealth case?
a)
Police obtained a warrant allowing them to search for Hedgepath’s phone
b)
Police did not obtain a warrant allowing them to search for Hedgepath’s phone
c)
Police obtained a warrant to search Hedgepath’s locker
d)
Police did not search Hedgepath’s phone
25.
According to the facts of Hedgepath vs Commonwealth, officers did...
a)
not obtain a warrant before pinging Hedgepath’s phone
b)
not prove good probable cause in the warrant used pinging Hedgepath’s phone
c)
not ping Hedgepath’s phone
d)
obtain a warrant before pinging Hedgepath’s phone
26.
In the Hedgepath vs Commonwealth case, the appellant claimed all evidence found on his cell phone should be excluded because it is …
a)
“fruit of the poisonous tree”
b)
is too incriminating
c)
is not incriminating
d)
is NOT “fruit of the poisonous tree”
27.
In the Hedgepath vs Commonwealth case, the Wong Sun v. United States precedent was relevant
-This precedent states evidence will be excluded if it is discovered using clues from other evidence that was...
-This precedent states evidence will be excluded if it is discovered using clues from other evidence that was...
a)
unlawfully seized
b)
already lawfully seized
c)
discovered using confidential informants
d)
found using clues from undercover and anonymous officers
28.
In the Hedgepath vs Commonwealth case, the Segura v. United States precedent was relevant -This precedent states that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply to evidence if...
a)
its discovery is so distinguishable from an unconstitutional search that the evidence is purged of the unconstitutional search’s taint
b)
its discovery is not distinguishable from an unconstitutional search
c)
it is tainted by an unconstitutional search, even if it is unlawfully seized
d)
it is tainted by an unconstitutional search, even if it is lawfully seized
29.
According to the court’s ruling in Hedgepath vs Commonwealth, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does/will …
a)
not apply to the evidence found on Hedgepath’s phone
b)
prevent the evidence found on Hedgepath’s phone from being considered by the jury
c)
not allow the evidence found on Hedgepath’s phone to be admitted into evidence
d)
significantly affect the evidence found on Hedgepath’s phone
30.
According to the court’s ruling in Hedgepath vs Commonwealth, the search of Hedgepath’s phone contents was …
a)
very distinguishable from the warrantless ping so it was completely purged of the unconstitutional taint
b)
not distinguishable from the warrantless ping so it was completely purged of the unconstitutional taint
c)
not distinguishable from the warrantless ping so it was not purged of the unconstitutional taint
d)
very distinguishable from the warrantless ping so it was not purged of the unconstitutional taint
31.
According to the facts of Michael Simpson vs Commonwealth, officers had an arrest warrant for a...
a)
suspect, but not a search warrant for the suspect’s residence
b)
suspect’s residence, but not an arrest warrant for the suspect
c)
suspect’s residence or an arrest warrant for their arrest
d)
suspect and a search warrant for the suspect’s residence
32.
According to the facts of Michael Simpson vs Commonwealth, an officer located Michael Simpson hiding in...
a)
someone else’s basement
b)
his son’s treehouse
c)
his car
d)
someone else’s office
33.
According to the facts of Michael Simpson vs Commonwealth, an officer located Michael Simpson during a/an...
a)
protective sweep
b)
warrant search
c)
neighborhood patrol
d)
ocean patrol
34.
According to the facts of Michael Simpson vs Commonwealth, the officers...
a)
did not have a warrant to search the home in which they found Michael Simpson
b)
had a warrant to search the home in which they found Michael Simpson
c)
did not have a reason to be in the home in which they found Michael Simpson
d)
only found Michael Simpson in the home they searched
35.
In the Michael Simpson vs Commonwealth case, the appellant claimed police are …
a)
not allowed to search a home without a search warrant
b)
allowed to search a home without a search warrant
c)
not allowed to search a home without a search or arrest warrant
d)
not allowed to search a home without an arrest warrant
36.
In the Michael Simpson vs Commonwealth case, the Bratcher v. Commonwealth precedent was relevant
-This precedent states that a warrantless search of a residence is...
-This precedent states that a warrantless search of a residence is...
a)
lawful if a citizen grants consent for officers to search the residence, and, that citizen appears to have the authority to consent
b)
lawful if a citizen grants consent for officers to search the residence, even if it doesn’t appear the citizen has the authority to consent
c)
never lawful, even if a citizen grants consent for officers to search the residence
d)
never lawful even if a citizen grants consent, because officers must have a warrant
37.
[Michael Simpson vs Commonwealth] - The Payton v. New York precedent states that an arrest warrant implicitly carries authority to enter...
a)
the suspect’s dwelling if they are inside
b)
the suspect’s dwelling if they are not inside
c)
the suspect’s dwelling if anyone is inside
d)
only businesses or public buildings that the suspect could be inside
38.
-Officers have an arrest warrant for a suspect
-According to Michael Simpson vs Commonwealth, can officers search the suspect’s friend’s home using the arrest warrant?
-According to Michael Simpson vs Commonwealth, can officers search the suspect’s friend’s home using the arrest warrant?
a)
yes, if they reasonably believe the suspect is inside
b)
yes, if the arrest warrant is based on a Class D Felony or worse
c)
no, an officer can never enter a home with an arrest warrant
d)
yes, an officer can enter a home with any type of warrant
39.
-Officers have an arrest warrant for a suspect
-According to Michael Simpson vs Commonwealth, can officers search a 3rd party’s home using the arrest warrant?
-According to Michael Simpson vs Commonwealth, can officers search a 3rd party’s home using the arrest warrant?
a)
yes, if they reasonably believe the suspect is inside
b)
yes, if the arrest warrant is based on a Class D Felony or worse
c)
no, an officer can never enter a home with an arrest warrant
d)
yes, an officer can enter a home with any type of warrant
40.
What does the phrase “3rd party” mean these sentences: “The suspect was spotted walking down the street with 3rd parties” “The officers entered a 3rd party’s home to arrest a suspect”
a)
persons other than the suspect
b)
the 3rd person
c)
an undercover officer
d)
three different people
41.
-Officers have an arrest warrant for a suspect -Officers enter a 3rd party’s home and arrest the suspect
-Can the suspect appeal/challenge the warrantless entry?
-Can the suspect appeal/challenge the warrantless entry?
a)
no, the suspect lacks standing to challenge the warrantless entry
b)
yes, the suspect has standing to challenge the warrantless entry
c)
maybe, the homeowner can grant the suspect standing
d)
maybe, the neighborhood association can grant the suspect standing entry
42.
What does the vocabulary word, “standing” mean in this sentence: “The suspect had standing to challenge the officer’s search of their car”
a)
a legal right to complain
b)
a strong desire to complain
c)
a sufficient amount of money to complain
d)
legal paperwork that must be filed in order to gain standing
43.
According to the court’s ruling in Michael Simpson vs Commonwealth the search was lawful because O'Neal …
a)
consented and he appeared to have authority to give consent
b)
consented and even though he appeared to lack authority to consent
c)
lacked authority to consent
d)
did not consent
44.
According to the court’s ruling in Michael Simpson vs Commonwealth, if officers enter a 3rd party’s home without a warrant, then …
a)
the homeowner WOULD have standing to challenge the entry
b)
the suspect WOULD have standing to challenge the entry
c)
the suspect and the homeowner WOULD have standing to challenge the entry
d)
NEITHER the homeowner nor the suspect would have standing the challenge the entry
45.
According to the court’s ruling in Michael Simpson vs Commonwealth, officers arrested the suspect in a home. The suspect…
a)
does not have standing to challenge this arrest even though officers lacked a search warrant
b)
has standing to challenge this arrest even though officers lacked a search warrant
c)
does not have standing to challenge this arrest because officers had a search warrant v
d)
has standing to challenge this arrest because officers had a search warrant
46.
According to the court’s ruling in Michael Simpson vs Commonwealth, officers arrested the suspect in a home. The homeowner…
a)
has standing to challenge any charges the officers bring against the homeowner based on the entry
b)
has standing to challenge the arrest of the occupants in their own
c)
does not have standing to challenge any charges the officers bring against the homeowner based on the entry
d)
would not have standing to challenge their own arrest if officers arrested them based on evidence found in their home
Reset
