Criminal Law Chapter 11 Quiz

Name:

True/False
Indicate whether the statement is true or false.

A prostitute’s “client” can also be charged with a crime.

People who engage in the crime of indecent exposure often do so because of some mental
compulsion.

There is no difference between pornography and obscenity.

Obscenity only deals with sex.

It is not a crime to possess obscene materials.

Since animals are considered to be property, it is not a crime to mistreat them.

The First Amendment does not protect lewd or harassing phone calls.

John, who lives in New York, calls his friend Bob, who lives in Japan. During the telephone
conversation, Bob becomes upset and says, “I’m going to punch you in the nose the next
time that I see you.” Once they hang up, John goes to a local magistrate, asking for a warrant based on the threat. The judge should issue this warrant.

Possession of child pornography is not a crime.

10.

Alice can carry a handgun in her purse, without a handgun permit, so long as she holds the
purse close to her body.

Multiple Choice
Identify the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question.

11.

The constitutional amendment that often restricts the enforcement of obscenity laws is the

a.	First Amendment.
b.	Second Amendment.
c.	Third Amendment.
d.	Fourth Amendment.

12.

The “test” formulated by the U.S. Supreme Court to help determine when a particular
display is obscene or not and named after the case in which it was first announced is called
the

a.	Gideon test.
b.	Miller test.
c.	Miranda test.
d.	Jackson v. Denno test.

13.

When a person deliberately falsifies the amount of tax due by underreporting his or her
income, it is called a

a.	tax evasion.
b.	tax lien.
c.	tax assessment.
d.	tax fraud.

14.

Carl is pulled over for driving with a broken headlight. The officer asks Carl for his driver’s license and registration and when Carl opens his glove compartment, the officer sees a
handgun lying there. Carl is placed under arrest for carrying a concealed weapon. Before
trial, Carl’s attorney files a motion to dismiss the charge. What will result?

a.	The charge should be dismissed because the officer had no right to pull Carl over in the first place.
b.	The charge should be dismissed because in most states there is an exception to the handgun permit laws that allows you to carry a handgun in the glove compartment.
c.	The charge should remain because Carl has no right to possess a handgun.
d.	The charge should remain because Carl put the officer’s life in danger.

15.

John has been charged with murder and shortly before the trial begins, he approaches one of the state’s witnesses at her home and tells her that she should remember that “bad” things
could happen to people. Can he be charged with a crime?

a.	No.
b.	Yes, issuing threats.
c.	Yes, simple assault.
d.	Yes, witness tampering.

16.

One night, Carl is pulled over for suspected drunk driving. After he fails his roadside
sobriety tests, Carl asks the officer if they have a local September 11 fund. When the officer
replies that they do, Carl says, “I’d be happy to make a sizable donation to it.” The officer
arrests Carl for attempted bribery. Can the government succeed on these facts?

a.	Yes, because Carl offered money to a public official.
b.	Yes, because Carl was already under arrest when he made the statement.
c.	No, because Carl did not request that the officer do anything.
d.	No, because a donation can never be considered a bribe.

17.

John is called to the stand and is sworn in. The case involves a charge of running a red light
and John is the state’s main witness against the defendant. When the prosecutor asks John
what color the light was when the defendant went through it, John says, “I’m not sure.” The
prosecutor refers to John’s statement at the time, where John told police that the light was
red. John says that he doesn’t remember giving a statement to the police. Can John be
prosecuted?

a.	Yes, for obstruction of justice.
b.	Yes, for resisting arrest.
c.	No, because his testimony does not amount to perjury.
d.	No, because his testimony does not amount to witness tampering.

18.

Darrell is a narcotics detective and while reading an electronics catalog comes across an ad
for a device that promises that it can descramble any mobile phone signal. Darrell orders the
device and on his off-duty hours uses it to listen in on a suspected drug dealer’s telephone
conversations. Later, he seeks a warrant based on these conversations. Are Darrell’s actions constitutional?

a.	Yes, because he used his own funds to buy the device.
b.	Yes, because he only listened in on his off-duty hours.
c.	No, because the device was regular police issue.
d.	No, because he did not have a warrant to use the device.

19.

John is out driving one night and is pulled over when he fails to stay within his own lane of
traffic. The officer asks John if he has had anything to drink and John says, “No.” The
officer has John perform some roadside sobriety tests, and John fails them all. The officer
tells John that he wants him to take a breath test and John refuses. Can John be charged with driving under the influence?

a.	No, because there was no breath test to confirm alcohol in his system.
b.	No, because the officer has to arrest John before asking for the test.
c.	Yes, because John failed the roadside sobriety tests and the officer believes that John is intoxicated.
d.	Yes, because John has admitted to the crime.

20.

Carl is stopped at a local airport when an item in his bag triggers the metal detector. A local
DEA agent is present and asks Carl to come with him to a nearby office. The officer
explains that all airports are under heightened security following terrorist attacks and the
officer asks if he can look inside Carl’s bag. Carl asks what will happen if he refuses and the
officer says that they will bring in a drug/explosive dog to sniff the bag and “see what happens.” Carl shrugs and says, “Search it then.” The officer finds half a kilo of cocaine and
arrests Carl. What is the most likely outcome of this case?

a.	The evidence of the drugs will be suppressed because it was an unconstitutional search.
b.	The evidence of the drugs will be suppressed because Carl should never have been stopped in the first place.
c.	The evidence of the drugs will be suppressed because the DEA agent had no authority to ask Carl to go to the office to answer questions.
d.	The evidence of the drugs will be admissible because Carl consented to the search.