Sergeant Promotion Exam – Comprehensive Study Guide and Practice Questions for Law
Enforcement Supervisory Promotion
Probable Cause - correct answer ✔✔more than Mere Suspicion. It Exists when "the facts and
circumstances with 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 an offense has been or is being committed. (Brinegar v US 1949)
Exclusionary Rule - correct answer ✔✔Provides that any evidence obtained by the government
in violation of the Fourth Amendment Right against unreasonable searches and seizures is not
admissible in a court of law.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - correct answer ✔✔Supreme court ruled that the Exclusionary rule also
applied to state criminal prosecutions., thus extending the exclusionary rule to state criminal
proceedings.
Weeks v. US (1914) - correct answer ✔✔Exclusionary Rule - Evidence obtained in violation of
the 4th amendment is not admissible in criminal prosecution
Wong Sun v. United States - correct answer ✔✔established the 'fruit of the poisoned tree
doctrine', part of the exclusionary rule
United States v. Leon - correct answer ✔✔Established the "good faith" exception to the
exclusionary rule
Minnesota v. Olson (1989) - correct answer ✔✔A warrantless non-consensual entry of a
residence by police to arrest an overnight guest violates the Fourth Amendment without exigent
circumstances
, Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) - correct answer ✔✔Emergency Searches: need for emergency
warrantless entries under certain circumstances - may enter home when reasonable basis for
believing that an occupant is injured or imminently threatened with injury.
Stop and Frisk - correct answer ✔✔The right of the police to detain an individual for a brief
period of time and to search the outside of the person's clothing if the police have a reasonable
suspicion that the individual has committed or is about to commit a crime
Terry v. Ohio (1968) - correct answer ✔✔Supreme Court decision endorsing police officers'
authority to stop and frisk suspects on the streets when there is reasonable suspicion that they
are armed and involved in criminal activity
Adams v. Williams (1972) - correct answer ✔✔Ruled reasonable cause for a stop and frisk may
be based on information supplied by another person, such as a police informant
United States v. Hensley - correct answer ✔✔The Police may stop and briefly detain an
individual who is the subject of a "wanted" flyer from another jurisdiction.
United States v. Sharpe (1985) - correct answer ✔✔There is no rigid time limit for the length of
an investigatory stop; instead, the following should be taken into account:
1. Purpose of the stop
2. Reasonableness of the time used for the investigation that the officers want to conduct
3. Reasonableness of the means of investigation used by the Officers
Alabama v. White (1990) - correct answer ✔✔Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding
standard than probable cause, and can be based on an anonymous tip corroborated by
independent police work.
Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) - correct answer ✔✔Plain Feel: Must be there legally, must
immediately recognize contraband, & must not manipulate
Enforcement Supervisory Promotion
Probable Cause - correct answer ✔✔more than Mere Suspicion. It Exists when "the facts and
circumstances with 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 an offense has been or is being committed. (Brinegar v US 1949)
Exclusionary Rule - correct answer ✔✔Provides that any evidence obtained by the government
in violation of the Fourth Amendment Right against unreasonable searches and seizures is not
admissible in a court of law.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - correct answer ✔✔Supreme court ruled that the Exclusionary rule also
applied to state criminal prosecutions., thus extending the exclusionary rule to state criminal
proceedings.
Weeks v. US (1914) - correct answer ✔✔Exclusionary Rule - Evidence obtained in violation of
the 4th amendment is not admissible in criminal prosecution
Wong Sun v. United States - correct answer ✔✔established the 'fruit of the poisoned tree
doctrine', part of the exclusionary rule
United States v. Leon - correct answer ✔✔Established the "good faith" exception to the
exclusionary rule
Minnesota v. Olson (1989) - correct answer ✔✔A warrantless non-consensual entry of a
residence by police to arrest an overnight guest violates the Fourth Amendment without exigent
circumstances
, Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) - correct answer ✔✔Emergency Searches: need for emergency
warrantless entries under certain circumstances - may enter home when reasonable basis for
believing that an occupant is injured or imminently threatened with injury.
Stop and Frisk - correct answer ✔✔The right of the police to detain an individual for a brief
period of time and to search the outside of the person's clothing if the police have a reasonable
suspicion that the individual has committed or is about to commit a crime
Terry v. Ohio (1968) - correct answer ✔✔Supreme Court decision endorsing police officers'
authority to stop and frisk suspects on the streets when there is reasonable suspicion that they
are armed and involved in criminal activity
Adams v. Williams (1972) - correct answer ✔✔Ruled reasonable cause for a stop and frisk may
be based on information supplied by another person, such as a police informant
United States v. Hensley - correct answer ✔✔The Police may stop and briefly detain an
individual who is the subject of a "wanted" flyer from another jurisdiction.
United States v. Sharpe (1985) - correct answer ✔✔There is no rigid time limit for the length of
an investigatory stop; instead, the following should be taken into account:
1. Purpose of the stop
2. Reasonableness of the time used for the investigation that the officers want to conduct
3. Reasonableness of the means of investigation used by the Officers
Alabama v. White (1990) - correct answer ✔✔Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding
standard than probable cause, and can be based on an anonymous tip corroborated by
independent police work.
Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) - correct answer ✔✔Plain Feel: Must be there legally, must
immediately recognize contraband, & must not manipulate
