CITP EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
LATEST UPDATE (ALREADY GRADED A+.)
Two state police officers beat a handcuffed prisoner until he identified his drug supplier. The prisoner
sued the officers. The lawsuit is legally recognized under:
a. the Federal Tort Claims Act
b. the Good Samaritan Act
c. Bivens d. 42 U.S.C. 1983
a. the Federal Tort Claims Act INCORRECT: The FTCA is a law which allows the United States to be sued
for the actions of federal employees committed within the scope of their employment. It does not apply
to state or local police officers.
b. the Good Samaritan Act INCORRECT: The federal Good Samaritan Act defines additional
circumstances under which a federal officer might be determined to be in the scope of their
employment. It does not apply to state or local police officers.
c. Bivens INCORRECT: This would be correct if the two officers were federal agents, but Bivens does not
authorize lawsuits against state or local officers.
d. 42 U.S.C. 1983 CORRECT: This statute authorizes civil lawsuits against state and local officials who
violate federally protected rights.
Two federal agents illegally search Smith's house. The agents know they are conducting an illegal
search, but they hope they will not get caught. Smith learns of the illegal search and sues the two
federal agents. This lawsuit is legally recognized under:
a. the Federal Tort Claims Act
b. the Good Samaritan Act
c. Bivens
d. 42 U.S.C. 1983
a. the Federal Tort Claims Act INCORRECT: The FTCA is a law which allows the United States to be sued
for the actions of federal employees committed within the scope of their employment. Knowingly
conducting an illegal search is not an act within the scope of employment.
b. the Good Samaritan Act INCORRECT: The federal Good Samaritan Act defines additional
circumstances under which a federal officer might be determined to be in the scope of their
employment. It does not apply to federal agents who are intentionally breaking the law.
c. Bivens CORRECT: This case authorizes lawsuits against federal agents who intentionally violate an
individual's 4th, 5th or 8th amendment rights.
d. 42 U.S.C. 1983 INCORRECT: This statute authorizes civil lawsuits against state and local officials who
violate federally protected rights, not federal agents.
In a Bivens action, a plaintiff must allege which of the following elements:
a. A federal law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting as a private citizen.
b. A federal law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting under color of law.
c. A state law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting as a private citizen.
d. A state law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting under color of law.
, a. A federal law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting as a private citizen.
INCORRECT: A Bivens action is only appropriate if a Constitutional violation was committed by a federal
officer acting under color of federal law. If an off-duty federal officer is simply acting as a private citizen,
his actions cannot support a Bivens lawsuit.
b. A federal law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting under color of law.
CORRECT: In a Bivens action, the plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) A violation of a Constitutional
right, and, (2) by a person acting under color of federal law.
c. A state law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting as a private citizen.
INCORRECT: A state law enforcement officer cannot be sued under Bivens. A state law enforcement
officer could be sued under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violating someone's rights while acting under
color of state law. If an off-duty state officer is simply acting as a private citizen, his actions cannot
support a 1983 lawsuit.
d. A state law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting under color of law.
INCORRECT: A state law enforcement officer cannot be sued under Bivens. A state law enforcement
officer could be sued under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violating someone's rights while acting under
color of state law.
Smith was a federal agent who was authorized to drive a government vehicle 24 hours a day because
of his duties. On his day off, he spotted some geese at his house that had been digging up his fancy
landscaping. Attempting to scare the geese away from his lawn, he started his government vehicle
and flashed his lights and siren. In his excitement, he accidentally put the car in drive and ran over his
neighbor's mailbox. The neighbor can bring a successful lawsuit against which of the following:
a. Smith personally under Bivens
b. the U.S. Government under the FTCA
c. the U.S. Government under 42 U.S.C. 1983
d. Smith personally for negligence
a. Smith personally under Bivens INCORRECT: Bivens allows a lawsuit against an individual federal officer
for violating someone's 4th, 5th, or 8th amendment rights while acting under color of law. Smith's
actions didn't violate anyone's 4th, 5th or 8th amendment rights, and he wasn't acting under color of
law.
b. Against the U.S. Government under the FTCA INCORRECT: The U.S. Government is liable under the
FTCA for actions by federal employees acting in the scope of their employment. Smith's actions were not
in the scope of his employment.
c. Against the U.S. Government under 42 U.S.C. 1983 INCORRECT: This statute authorizes civil lawsuits
against state and local officials who violate federally protected rights. Smith is a federal agent, and
cannot be sued under this statute.
d. Against Smith personally for negligence CORRECT: Since Smith was negligent, and not acting within
the scope of his employment, the neighbor can file suit against Smith personally in state court.
Federal Officer Jones was driving his government car on the way to interview a witness to a crime
under investigation. Jones became distracted, and ran into the back of Smith's car, causing $5000
worth of damage. In order to collect for his damages, 1) who should Smith sue, 2) in what court, and
3) who will pay the damages?
a. Smith should sue Jones in Federal court, and if Smith wins, Jones will pay the judgment.
b. Smith should sue Jones in Federal Court, but if the Smith wins, the United States will pay the
LATEST UPDATE (ALREADY GRADED A+.)
Two state police officers beat a handcuffed prisoner until he identified his drug supplier. The prisoner
sued the officers. The lawsuit is legally recognized under:
a. the Federal Tort Claims Act
b. the Good Samaritan Act
c. Bivens d. 42 U.S.C. 1983
a. the Federal Tort Claims Act INCORRECT: The FTCA is a law which allows the United States to be sued
for the actions of federal employees committed within the scope of their employment. It does not apply
to state or local police officers.
b. the Good Samaritan Act INCORRECT: The federal Good Samaritan Act defines additional
circumstances under which a federal officer might be determined to be in the scope of their
employment. It does not apply to state or local police officers.
c. Bivens INCORRECT: This would be correct if the two officers were federal agents, but Bivens does not
authorize lawsuits against state or local officers.
d. 42 U.S.C. 1983 CORRECT: This statute authorizes civil lawsuits against state and local officials who
violate federally protected rights.
Two federal agents illegally search Smith's house. The agents know they are conducting an illegal
search, but they hope they will not get caught. Smith learns of the illegal search and sues the two
federal agents. This lawsuit is legally recognized under:
a. the Federal Tort Claims Act
b. the Good Samaritan Act
c. Bivens
d. 42 U.S.C. 1983
a. the Federal Tort Claims Act INCORRECT: The FTCA is a law which allows the United States to be sued
for the actions of federal employees committed within the scope of their employment. Knowingly
conducting an illegal search is not an act within the scope of employment.
b. the Good Samaritan Act INCORRECT: The federal Good Samaritan Act defines additional
circumstances under which a federal officer might be determined to be in the scope of their
employment. It does not apply to federal agents who are intentionally breaking the law.
c. Bivens CORRECT: This case authorizes lawsuits against federal agents who intentionally violate an
individual's 4th, 5th or 8th amendment rights.
d. 42 U.S.C. 1983 INCORRECT: This statute authorizes civil lawsuits against state and local officials who
violate federally protected rights, not federal agents.
In a Bivens action, a plaintiff must allege which of the following elements:
a. A federal law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting as a private citizen.
b. A federal law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting under color of law.
c. A state law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting as a private citizen.
d. A state law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting under color of law.
, a. A federal law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting as a private citizen.
INCORRECT: A Bivens action is only appropriate if a Constitutional violation was committed by a federal
officer acting under color of federal law. If an off-duty federal officer is simply acting as a private citizen,
his actions cannot support a Bivens lawsuit.
b. A federal law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting under color of law.
CORRECT: In a Bivens action, the plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) A violation of a Constitutional
right, and, (2) by a person acting under color of federal law.
c. A state law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting as a private citizen.
INCORRECT: A state law enforcement officer cannot be sued under Bivens. A state law enforcement
officer could be sued under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violating someone's rights while acting under
color of state law. If an off-duty state officer is simply acting as a private citizen, his actions cannot
support a 1983 lawsuit.
d. A state law enforcement officer violated a Constitutional right while acting under color of law.
INCORRECT: A state law enforcement officer cannot be sued under Bivens. A state law enforcement
officer could be sued under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violating someone's rights while acting under
color of state law.
Smith was a federal agent who was authorized to drive a government vehicle 24 hours a day because
of his duties. On his day off, he spotted some geese at his house that had been digging up his fancy
landscaping. Attempting to scare the geese away from his lawn, he started his government vehicle
and flashed his lights and siren. In his excitement, he accidentally put the car in drive and ran over his
neighbor's mailbox. The neighbor can bring a successful lawsuit against which of the following:
a. Smith personally under Bivens
b. the U.S. Government under the FTCA
c. the U.S. Government under 42 U.S.C. 1983
d. Smith personally for negligence
a. Smith personally under Bivens INCORRECT: Bivens allows a lawsuit against an individual federal officer
for violating someone's 4th, 5th, or 8th amendment rights while acting under color of law. Smith's
actions didn't violate anyone's 4th, 5th or 8th amendment rights, and he wasn't acting under color of
law.
b. Against the U.S. Government under the FTCA INCORRECT: The U.S. Government is liable under the
FTCA for actions by federal employees acting in the scope of their employment. Smith's actions were not
in the scope of his employment.
c. Against the U.S. Government under 42 U.S.C. 1983 INCORRECT: This statute authorizes civil lawsuits
against state and local officials who violate federally protected rights. Smith is a federal agent, and
cannot be sued under this statute.
d. Against Smith personally for negligence CORRECT: Since Smith was negligent, and not acting within
the scope of his employment, the neighbor can file suit against Smith personally in state court.
Federal Officer Jones was driving his government car on the way to interview a witness to a crime
under investigation. Jones became distracted, and ran into the back of Smith's car, causing $5000
worth of damage. In order to collect for his damages, 1) who should Smith sue, 2) in what court, and
3) who will pay the damages?
a. Smith should sue Jones in Federal court, and if Smith wins, Jones will pay the judgment.
b. Smith should sue Jones in Federal Court, but if the Smith wins, the United States will pay the
