Minnesota POST Test (2026) |
Practice Test with Correct
Answers | Graded A+
‣ Terry v. Ohio (1968) 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 Answer: a suspicion based on specific facts,
training, and experience; less than probable cause
‣ Probable cause to arrest 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 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 Answer: an over-the-clothes pat-down or minimal search by
police to discover weapons
,‣ Chimel v. California (1969) - "Chimel Rule" 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) Answer: Extended the Exclusionary Rule to the
states
‣ Carroll v. U.S. (1925) - "Carroll Doctrine" 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) Answer: Right to counsel
- extended right to counsel during criminal trial to the states
‣ Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Answer: Right to counsel
- criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations
‣ Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - "Miranda Warning" Answer: law
enforcement required to give formal warning advising criminal suspects
in custody of their rights, before interrogation
‣ In re Gault (1967) Answer: Due process
,- 14th Amendment Due Process Clause applies to juveniles
‣ In re Winship (1970) 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) Answer: unconstitutional to impose capital
punishment for crimes committed while under 18
‣ Atkins v. Virginia (2002) Answer: unconstitutional to impose capital
punishment on people with intellectual disabilities
‣ Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 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) Answer: Use of Force "Objective
Reasonableness" standard
- judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene
- factors:
1. severity of crime at issue
2. suspect poses immediate threat to safety of officers or others
, 3. actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by fleeing
(other factors may be considered)
‣ Scales v Minnesota (1994) 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) 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) Answer: any traffic offense committed by a driver
is a legitimate legal basis for a stop
‣ Pena v Leombruni, US 7th Circuit (1999) 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) 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
Practice Test with Correct
Answers | Graded A+
‣ Terry v. Ohio (1968) 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 Answer: a suspicion based on specific facts,
training, and experience; less than probable cause
‣ Probable cause to arrest 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 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 Answer: an over-the-clothes pat-down or minimal search by
police to discover weapons
,‣ Chimel v. California (1969) - "Chimel Rule" 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) Answer: Extended the Exclusionary Rule to the
states
‣ Carroll v. U.S. (1925) - "Carroll Doctrine" 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) Answer: Right to counsel
- extended right to counsel during criminal trial to the states
‣ Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Answer: Right to counsel
- criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations
‣ Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - "Miranda Warning" Answer: law
enforcement required to give formal warning advising criminal suspects
in custody of their rights, before interrogation
‣ In re Gault (1967) Answer: Due process
,- 14th Amendment Due Process Clause applies to juveniles
‣ In re Winship (1970) 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) Answer: unconstitutional to impose capital
punishment for crimes committed while under 18
‣ Atkins v. Virginia (2002) Answer: unconstitutional to impose capital
punishment on people with intellectual disabilities
‣ Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 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) Answer: Use of Force "Objective
Reasonableness" standard
- judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene
- factors:
1. severity of crime at issue
2. suspect poses immediate threat to safety of officers or others
, 3. actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by fleeing
(other factors may be considered)
‣ Scales v Minnesota (1994) 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) 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) Answer: any traffic offense committed by a driver
is a legitimate legal basis for a stop
‣ Pena v Leombruni, US 7th Circuit (1999) 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) 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
