HPD Test 2 Exam ACTUAL QUESTIONS
AND CORRECT ANSWERS
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt - CORRECT ANSWER All persons are presumed to
be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense
is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that he has been arrested, confined, indicted
for, or otherwise charged with the offense gives rise to no inference of guilty at his trial.
Probable cause to arrest (Brinegar V United States) - CORRECT ANSWER probable
cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge, and of which
they have reasonable trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief
by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed
Probable cause to search (Carroll V United States) - CORRECT ANSWER Probable
cause to search exists when "the facts and circumstances within their [the officers']
knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in
themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that [seizable property would
be found in a particular place or on a particular person]
Probable cause to arrest (Brinegar V United States case) - CORRECT
ANSWER Federal officers, patrolling a highway leading from known sources of liquor
supply to a probable illegal market, observed a car driven defendant Brinegar; one of the
officers had arrested Brinegar about five months earlier for illegally transporting liquor. In
addition, that officer had seen Brinegar loading liquor into a car on at least two occasions
during the preceding six months, and he knew that Brinegar had a reputation for hauling
liquor. The officers pursued the car for about a mile at top speed, and then forced it off the
road. Upon questioning by officers, Brinegar admitted that he was transporting some liquor in
his car. Twelve cases of liquor were seized and used as evidence at trial in federal district
court after the court denied Brinegar's motion to suppress the liquor. Brinegar was convicted
of violating the Federal Liquor Enforcement Act. Brinegar appealed, challenging the
constitutionality of the search of his car. Brinegar also asserted that it was improper for the
trial to allow the officer to testify, at the probable cause hearing, about Brinegar's prior arrests
and pending trial in another court, while excluding that evidence at trial. The court of appeals
affirmed the conviction. Brinegar was granted a writ of certiorari on the issue of whether the
search and seizure violated Brinegar's Fourth Amendment rights.
,Probable Cause to Search (Carroll V United States case) - CORRECT ANSWER Police
arrested Leon Carroll and Daniel Stewart on warrants for violating local lottery laws and
conspiring to run a lottery. Each filed a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence found at the
time of arrest. The district court granted the motions, citing a lack of probable cause. The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, holding that the order for
suppression of evidence was appealable.
Probable Cause to Search: (Beck V Ohio holdings) - CORRECT ANSWER (If
subjective good faith alone (of probable cause) were the test, the protection of the Fourth
Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be 'secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects' only in the discretion of the police).
No probable cause for petitioner's arrest having been shown, the arrest, and therefore
necessarily the search for and seizure of the slips incident thereto, were invalid under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Probable Cause to Search: (Beck V Ohio Case) - CORRECT ANSWER Police officers,
who had received unspecified "information" and "reports" about petitioner, who knew what
he looked like, and that he had a gambling record, stopped petitioner, who was driving an
automobile. Placing him under arrest, they searched his car, though they had no arrest or
search warrant. They found nothing of interest. They took him to a police station, where they
found some clearing house slips on his person, for the possession of which he was
subsequently tried. His motion to suppress the slips as seized in violation of the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments was overruled, the slips were admitted into evidence, and he was
convicted, his conviction being ultimately sustained on appeal by the Supreme Court of Ohio,
which found the search valid as incident to a lawful arrest.
Reasonable Suspicion - CORRECT ANSWER a suspicion based on specific facts; less
than probable cause
Reasonable Suspicion (US V Sokolow case) - CORRECT ANSWER Drug
Enforcement Administration agents stopped Sokolow in Honolulu International Airport after
his behavior indicated he may be a drug trafficker: he paid $2,100 in cash for airline tickets,
he was not traveling under his own name, his original destination was Miami, he appeared
nervous during the trip, and he checked none of his luggage. Agents arrested Sokolow and
searched his luggage without a warrant. Later, at the DEA office, agents obtained warrants
allowing more extensive searches and they discovered 1,063 grams of cocaine.
,Reasonable Suspicion (US V Sokolow holdings - CORRECT ANSWER -The Court
upheld the search and reasoned that the agents had a "reasonable suspicion that respondent
was engaged in wrongdoing." Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the validity of such a stop
should be based on the "totality of the circumstances," (United States v. Cortez, 1981), which,
in this case, gave agents a clear reason to suspect Sokolow of drug trafficking.
Mere Suspicion - CORRECT ANSWER A hunch or the feeling of intuition. Although
intuitively knowing something is undoubtedly a skill that serves law enforcement officers
well, mere suspicion is insufficient proof of any fact in a court of law
Burden of proof: Exception - CORRECT ANSWER An exception to an offense in this
code is labeled by the phrase: "it is an exception to the application of...
The prosecuting attorney must negate the existence of an exception in the accusation charging
commission of the offense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant or
defendant's conduct does not fall within the exception
This section does not affect exceptions applicable to offenses enacted prior to the effective
date of this code.
Reasonable Belief definition - CORRECT ANSWER means a belief that would be held
by an ordinary and prudent man in the same circumstances as the actor.
Consensual encounters definition (Florida v Royer case) - CORRECT ANSWER Peace
Officers are free to approach and ask questions of persons so long as officers recognize that
those persons can refuse to identify themselves, refuse to cooperate, refuse to answer
questions, and simply walk away.
Investigatory Stops/Detentions (Terry V Ohio Case) definition - CORRECT
ANSWER The temporary seizure of a person for investigation based on an officer's
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
, Arrests definition (US V Mendenhall) - CORRECT ANSWER Take persons into
custody for purposes of charging them with a crime based on an officer's establishment of
probable cause
US V Mendenhall case/holdings - CORRECT ANSWER public place (airport), FDA
no uniform and no weapons, identified themselves and asked to see ticket and ID,
Mendenhall agreed to go with them to the office, gave consent for them to search her and her
bags --> this is FREELY and VOLUNTARY
Court ruled that it was a reasonable search
What can a peace officer do with mere suspicion: - CORRECT ANSWER Computer
checks may be made of license plates. Surveillance may occur. Officers can lay back and
watch the individual(s) or activity suspected for additional facts and circumstances that
amount to more than mere suspicion. • Officers can initiate a police-citizen encounter so long
as the officer understands the persons approached do not have to identify themselves or
answer the officer's questions, and are free to walk away at any time. • The officer's objective
is to obtain articulable facts and circumstances that rise to the level of either reasonable
suspicion that gives officers the power to detain or probable cause, which permits the officer
to arrest.
(identify the necessary conditions for arrest) Intent - CORRECT ANSWER - A peace
officer's purpose or intention to take a person into the custody of the law
(identify the necessary conditions for arrest) Authority - CORRECT ANSWER The
peace officer's arrest must be made under real authority. This means the officer is authorized
by law to make an arrest and the arrest is supported by probable cause.
(identify the necessary conditions for arrest) Actual Seizure - CORRECT
ANSWER The person arrested is taken into custody either by physical force or by
submission to assertion of authority.
(identify the necessary conditions for arrest) Understanding - CORRECT ANSWER by
the person to be arrested of the officer's intention to arrest
AND CORRECT ANSWERS
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt - CORRECT ANSWER All persons are presumed to
be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense
is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that he has been arrested, confined, indicted
for, or otherwise charged with the offense gives rise to no inference of guilty at his trial.
Probable cause to arrest (Brinegar V United States) - CORRECT ANSWER probable
cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge, and of which
they have reasonable trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief
by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed
Probable cause to search (Carroll V United States) - CORRECT ANSWER Probable
cause to search exists when "the facts and circumstances within their [the officers']
knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in
themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that [seizable property would
be found in a particular place or on a particular person]
Probable cause to arrest (Brinegar V United States case) - CORRECT
ANSWER Federal officers, patrolling a highway leading from known sources of liquor
supply to a probable illegal market, observed a car driven defendant Brinegar; one of the
officers had arrested Brinegar about five months earlier for illegally transporting liquor. In
addition, that officer had seen Brinegar loading liquor into a car on at least two occasions
during the preceding six months, and he knew that Brinegar had a reputation for hauling
liquor. The officers pursued the car for about a mile at top speed, and then forced it off the
road. Upon questioning by officers, Brinegar admitted that he was transporting some liquor in
his car. Twelve cases of liquor were seized and used as evidence at trial in federal district
court after the court denied Brinegar's motion to suppress the liquor. Brinegar was convicted
of violating the Federal Liquor Enforcement Act. Brinegar appealed, challenging the
constitutionality of the search of his car. Brinegar also asserted that it was improper for the
trial to allow the officer to testify, at the probable cause hearing, about Brinegar's prior arrests
and pending trial in another court, while excluding that evidence at trial. The court of appeals
affirmed the conviction. Brinegar was granted a writ of certiorari on the issue of whether the
search and seizure violated Brinegar's Fourth Amendment rights.
,Probable Cause to Search (Carroll V United States case) - CORRECT ANSWER Police
arrested Leon Carroll and Daniel Stewart on warrants for violating local lottery laws and
conspiring to run a lottery. Each filed a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence found at the
time of arrest. The district court granted the motions, citing a lack of probable cause. The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, holding that the order for
suppression of evidence was appealable.
Probable Cause to Search: (Beck V Ohio holdings) - CORRECT ANSWER (If
subjective good faith alone (of probable cause) were the test, the protection of the Fourth
Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be 'secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects' only in the discretion of the police).
No probable cause for petitioner's arrest having been shown, the arrest, and therefore
necessarily the search for and seizure of the slips incident thereto, were invalid under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Probable Cause to Search: (Beck V Ohio Case) - CORRECT ANSWER Police officers,
who had received unspecified "information" and "reports" about petitioner, who knew what
he looked like, and that he had a gambling record, stopped petitioner, who was driving an
automobile. Placing him under arrest, they searched his car, though they had no arrest or
search warrant. They found nothing of interest. They took him to a police station, where they
found some clearing house slips on his person, for the possession of which he was
subsequently tried. His motion to suppress the slips as seized in violation of the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments was overruled, the slips were admitted into evidence, and he was
convicted, his conviction being ultimately sustained on appeal by the Supreme Court of Ohio,
which found the search valid as incident to a lawful arrest.
Reasonable Suspicion - CORRECT ANSWER a suspicion based on specific facts; less
than probable cause
Reasonable Suspicion (US V Sokolow case) - CORRECT ANSWER Drug
Enforcement Administration agents stopped Sokolow in Honolulu International Airport after
his behavior indicated he may be a drug trafficker: he paid $2,100 in cash for airline tickets,
he was not traveling under his own name, his original destination was Miami, he appeared
nervous during the trip, and he checked none of his luggage. Agents arrested Sokolow and
searched his luggage without a warrant. Later, at the DEA office, agents obtained warrants
allowing more extensive searches and they discovered 1,063 grams of cocaine.
,Reasonable Suspicion (US V Sokolow holdings - CORRECT ANSWER -The Court
upheld the search and reasoned that the agents had a "reasonable suspicion that respondent
was engaged in wrongdoing." Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the validity of such a stop
should be based on the "totality of the circumstances," (United States v. Cortez, 1981), which,
in this case, gave agents a clear reason to suspect Sokolow of drug trafficking.
Mere Suspicion - CORRECT ANSWER A hunch or the feeling of intuition. Although
intuitively knowing something is undoubtedly a skill that serves law enforcement officers
well, mere suspicion is insufficient proof of any fact in a court of law
Burden of proof: Exception - CORRECT ANSWER An exception to an offense in this
code is labeled by the phrase: "it is an exception to the application of...
The prosecuting attorney must negate the existence of an exception in the accusation charging
commission of the offense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant or
defendant's conduct does not fall within the exception
This section does not affect exceptions applicable to offenses enacted prior to the effective
date of this code.
Reasonable Belief definition - CORRECT ANSWER means a belief that would be held
by an ordinary and prudent man in the same circumstances as the actor.
Consensual encounters definition (Florida v Royer case) - CORRECT ANSWER Peace
Officers are free to approach and ask questions of persons so long as officers recognize that
those persons can refuse to identify themselves, refuse to cooperate, refuse to answer
questions, and simply walk away.
Investigatory Stops/Detentions (Terry V Ohio Case) definition - CORRECT
ANSWER The temporary seizure of a person for investigation based on an officer's
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
, Arrests definition (US V Mendenhall) - CORRECT ANSWER Take persons into
custody for purposes of charging them with a crime based on an officer's establishment of
probable cause
US V Mendenhall case/holdings - CORRECT ANSWER public place (airport), FDA
no uniform and no weapons, identified themselves and asked to see ticket and ID,
Mendenhall agreed to go with them to the office, gave consent for them to search her and her
bags --> this is FREELY and VOLUNTARY
Court ruled that it was a reasonable search
What can a peace officer do with mere suspicion: - CORRECT ANSWER Computer
checks may be made of license plates. Surveillance may occur. Officers can lay back and
watch the individual(s) or activity suspected for additional facts and circumstances that
amount to more than mere suspicion. • Officers can initiate a police-citizen encounter so long
as the officer understands the persons approached do not have to identify themselves or
answer the officer's questions, and are free to walk away at any time. • The officer's objective
is to obtain articulable facts and circumstances that rise to the level of either reasonable
suspicion that gives officers the power to detain or probable cause, which permits the officer
to arrest.
(identify the necessary conditions for arrest) Intent - CORRECT ANSWER - A peace
officer's purpose or intention to take a person into the custody of the law
(identify the necessary conditions for arrest) Authority - CORRECT ANSWER The
peace officer's arrest must be made under real authority. This means the officer is authorized
by law to make an arrest and the arrest is supported by probable cause.
(identify the necessary conditions for arrest) Actual Seizure - CORRECT
ANSWER The person arrested is taken into custody either by physical force or by
submission to assertion of authority.
(identify the necessary conditions for arrest) Understanding - CORRECT ANSWER by
the person to be arrested of the officer's intention to arrest
