MN POST Test Latest Questions Detailed

MN POST Test / Latest Questions & Detailed Answers (A+ Guided Solutions) 2025 / 2026.Terms in this set (249) Weeks v. US (1914) Exclusionary rule

• warrantless seizure of items from private residence

violates 4th Amendment Terry v. Ohio (1968) "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 a suspicion based on specific facts, training, and experience; less than probable cause Probable cause to arrest 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 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 an over-the-clothes pat-down or minimal search by police to discover weapons Chimel v. California (1969)

• "Chimel Rule"

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) Extended the Exclusionary Rule to the states 1 / 4

Carroll v. U.S. (1925) - "Carroll Doctrine" 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)

Right to counsel

• extended right to counsel during criminal trial to the states

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)Right to counsel

• criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police

interrogations Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - "Miranda Warning" law enforcement required to give formal warning advising criminal suspects in custody of their rights, before interrogation In re Gault (1967) Due process

• 14th Amendment Due Process Clause applies to juveniles

In re Winship (1970) 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) unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under 18 Atkins v. Virginia (2002) unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on people with intellectual disabilities Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 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 2 / 4

• / 4

Graham v. Connor (1989) Use of Force "Objective Reasonableness" standard - judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene -

factors:

• severity of crime at issue
• suspect poses immediate threat to safety of officersor

others

• actively resisting arrest or attempting to evadearrest

by fleeing (other factors may be considered) Scales v Minnesota (1994) 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 placeof

detention Herring v. US (2009) 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) any traffic offense committed by a driver is a legitimate legal basis for a stop Pena v Leombruni, US 7th Circuit (1999) 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) 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

• / 4