BPOC Case Law 2421 || Acknowledged Answers 100%.
1. (7.1.7) Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108(1964) correct answers The Supreme Court established
that an informant's tip must be accompanied by (1) some of the underlying circumstances on
which the informant based conclusions and (2) some basis for concluding either that the
informant was generally credible or that the information was in this particular instance reliable.
This process is often referred to as the "two-pronged Aguilar test", and both steps are necessary
to analyze the sufficiency of probable cause.
2. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) correct answers The U.S. Supreme Court said "that
absent a knowing an intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether
classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by appointed or retained
counsel at his trial." (This is interpreted to mean that an indigent defendant has a right to be
represented by counsel at the expense of the state in any case, including misdemeanors, where
the penalty may be incarceration.)
3. (7.1.13) Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009) correct answers Police are authorized to
search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to arrest of an occupant or recent
occupant only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger
compartment at the time of the search. Additionally, officers may search the passenger
compartment following the arrest of a recent occupant when it is reasonable to believe that
evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.
4. (18.2.4) Baskin v. Smith, 50 FED App, 731 (6thCir. 2002) correct answers Handcuffing too
tightly and failing to double-lock the handcuffs may lead to an excessive force claim, particularly
when the officers have been placed on notice after a suspect's complaints.
5. (7.1.7) Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85S.Ct. 223 (1964) correct answers "If subjective good
faith alone 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. The probable cause test, then, is an objective one; for there to be probable cause, the
facts must be such as would warrant a belief by a reasonable man."
6. (7.1.8) Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47(1979) correct answers A person cannot be required to
identify himself, even when stop is lawful. You may orally command the person to remain for a
, reasonable length of time that can be satisfactorily accounted for, while actively involved in the
investigation at hand. You may take the person with you to check out a possible crime scene.
7. (7.1.13) Carroll v. U.S., U.S 132 (1925) correct answers In this case the U.S. Supreme Court
created the so called "Carroll Doctrine" that held that a warrantless search of a readily mobile
motor vehicle by a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that the vehicle
contains items subject to seizure is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
8. (7.1.13) Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752(1969) correct answers The Supreme Court
described the scope of a search incidental to a lawful arrest as being restricted to the arrested
individual's "person and the area within his immediate control." This phrase is interpreted as the
area within which the person could possibly gain possession of a weapon or destructible
evidence. The Chimel doctrine has been called the "wing-span rule." The "wing span", "arm's
length area", basically includes the space in which the arrested person can reach or lunge for a
weapon or to destroy evidence.
9. (4.1.4) Duran v. City of Douglas AZ, 904 F.2d1A372(CA9) correct answers (Freedom of
speech case, Amendment 1) A person cannot be punished for simply failing to obey the
command of an officer if that command violates the federal Constitution. In the same vein,
speech is generally protected by the First Amendment—even if it is intended to interfere with the
performance of an officer's duty—provided no physical interference results. With that in mind,
the arrest of a person who refuses to desist from verbally "chipping" at an officer (even if the
chipping is intended to interfere with the officer's duties) is probably a "bad" arrest that will
subject the officer and the department to civil liability.
10. (4.1.5) (17.1.3) (17.4.2) Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) correct answers the use of
deadly force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable
cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to
the officer others. In this case, an unarmed teenager, climbing a fence while fleeing the
commission of a non violent burglary, did not pose such a risk to the officer or others. Absent
circumstances, such as exhibition of weapons or the commission of a violent felony suggesting
that the suspect is likely to pose a threat of death or injury if not immediately apprehended, the
4th Amendment prohibits seizure of the suspect by the use of deadly force......Whenever an
officer restrains the freedom of a person to walk away he has seized that person...there can be no
question that application of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of
the Fourth Amendment." Thus, the ultimate test to be applied to a claim of excessive force is
1. (7.1.7) Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108(1964) correct answers The Supreme Court established
that an informant's tip must be accompanied by (1) some of the underlying circumstances on
which the informant based conclusions and (2) some basis for concluding either that the
informant was generally credible or that the information was in this particular instance reliable.
This process is often referred to as the "two-pronged Aguilar test", and both steps are necessary
to analyze the sufficiency of probable cause.
2. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) correct answers The U.S. Supreme Court said "that
absent a knowing an intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether
classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by appointed or retained
counsel at his trial." (This is interpreted to mean that an indigent defendant has a right to be
represented by counsel at the expense of the state in any case, including misdemeanors, where
the penalty may be incarceration.)
3. (7.1.13) Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009) correct answers Police are authorized to
search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to arrest of an occupant or recent
occupant only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger
compartment at the time of the search. Additionally, officers may search the passenger
compartment following the arrest of a recent occupant when it is reasonable to believe that
evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.
4. (18.2.4) Baskin v. Smith, 50 FED App, 731 (6thCir. 2002) correct answers Handcuffing too
tightly and failing to double-lock the handcuffs may lead to an excessive force claim, particularly
when the officers have been placed on notice after a suspect's complaints.
5. (7.1.7) Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85S.Ct. 223 (1964) correct answers "If subjective good
faith alone 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. The probable cause test, then, is an objective one; for there to be probable cause, the
facts must be such as would warrant a belief by a reasonable man."
6. (7.1.8) Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47(1979) correct answers A person cannot be required to
identify himself, even when stop is lawful. You may orally command the person to remain for a
, reasonable length of time that can be satisfactorily accounted for, while actively involved in the
investigation at hand. You may take the person with you to check out a possible crime scene.
7. (7.1.13) Carroll v. U.S., U.S 132 (1925) correct answers In this case the U.S. Supreme Court
created the so called "Carroll Doctrine" that held that a warrantless search of a readily mobile
motor vehicle by a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that the vehicle
contains items subject to seizure is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
8. (7.1.13) Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752(1969) correct answers The Supreme Court
described the scope of a search incidental to a lawful arrest as being restricted to the arrested
individual's "person and the area within his immediate control." This phrase is interpreted as the
area within which the person could possibly gain possession of a weapon or destructible
evidence. The Chimel doctrine has been called the "wing-span rule." The "wing span", "arm's
length area", basically includes the space in which the arrested person can reach or lunge for a
weapon or to destroy evidence.
9. (4.1.4) Duran v. City of Douglas AZ, 904 F.2d1A372(CA9) correct answers (Freedom of
speech case, Amendment 1) A person cannot be punished for simply failing to obey the
command of an officer if that command violates the federal Constitution. In the same vein,
speech is generally protected by the First Amendment—even if it is intended to interfere with the
performance of an officer's duty—provided no physical interference results. With that in mind,
the arrest of a person who refuses to desist from verbally "chipping" at an officer (even if the
chipping is intended to interfere with the officer's duties) is probably a "bad" arrest that will
subject the officer and the department to civil liability.
10. (4.1.5) (17.1.3) (17.4.2) Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) correct answers the use of
deadly force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable
cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to
the officer others. In this case, an unarmed teenager, climbing a fence while fleeing the
commission of a non violent burglary, did not pose such a risk to the officer or others. Absent
circumstances, such as exhibition of weapons or the commission of a violent felony suggesting
that the suspect is likely to pose a threat of death or injury if not immediately apprehended, the
4th Amendment prohibits seizure of the suspect by the use of deadly force......Whenever an
officer restrains the freedom of a person to walk away he has seized that person...there can be no
question that application of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of
the Fourth Amendment." Thus, the ultimate test to be applied to a claim of excessive force is
