Knowingly causing the death of a child under the age of 12 by one in a position of trust with respect to the victim is expressly designated as - Answer-
... [Show More] Murder in the first degree
Selling/ exchanging/ bartering/ leasing of children is the crime of - Answer- Trafficiking in children
Concerning sexual activity with children, if a victim is 15 years old but younger than 18 years old, it is an affirmative defense that the actor, who is at least four years older than the victim "reasonably believed the child to be 18 years or older. - Answer- True
The crime of domestic violence may encompass which of the following crimes - Answer- assault
sex offense
harassment
A defendant cannot plead to a non-domestic violence crime unless the prosecuting attorney, on the record, represents that an intimate relationship cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt - Answer- true
Evidence of prior acts of domestic violence between the same parties is in a domestic violence crime prosecution - Answer- admissible
At risk adult means any person who is: - Answer- 70 years of age or older
any person over the age of 18 with a disability
"at risk juvenile" means - Answer- under the age of 18 with a disability
Courts are to hear any case involoving an at risk person - Answer- as soon as possible
Phil takes $5,000 from his grandfather who is 75 years old, and puts the money into his account to qualify for a new auto loan. He then puts it back. Phil would most likely be charged with - Answer- criminal exploitation of an at-risk elder
Colorado law requires a defendant of a mandatory protection order to relinquish any firearm or ammunition not more than hours after being served with the order. - Answer- 24 hours
Party A arranges a meeting of persons for the purposes of prostitution and accepts $100.00 for doing so. Party A commits the crime of - Answer- Pandering for prostitution
Hilde, a street prostitute, tells Eddie that she will pay him $20.00 for every "john" he sends to her motel room . Eddie does so. Eddie commits the crime of - Answer- pandering
The difference between pimping and pandering is: - Answer- pandering requires actual involvement in arranging the act of prostitution, pimping doesn't
For purposes of the indecent exposure statue, the term genitals includes - Answer- reproductive organs
Florida V. Royer - Answer- Determined that officers do not violate the 4th Amendment when officers approach and engaging them in voluntary conversation.
People vs. Begay - Answer- When a trial court is trying to make a determination as to whether a person is in custody or not they are to look at the following non-exclusive factors.
People Vs. Thomas - Answer- The test for determining if the encounter was consensual would be whether a reasonable person would believe he or she is free to leave and disregard the officials request for information.
People vs. Johnson - Answer- The test really amounts to an examination of whether the police officer, even if making inquiries a private citizen would not, has otherwise behaved in a manner which would be perceived as an inoffensive contact if it occurred between two ordinary citizens.
Terry Vs. Ohio - Answer- Gave definition to the term Reasonable suspicion in these cases which authorizes and investigative detention and separately authorized the "frisk" of a person lawfully detained when the officer believe the subject is in possession of a weapon.
Draper v US - Answer- The use of reliable and accurate information from an informant was sufficient to establish probable cause despite the fact it was hearsay.
Brinegar vs. US - Answer- Defined probable cause as: "Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information.
United States v. Meade - Answer- Fellow Officer Rule , Under the fellow officer rule, law enforcement officials cooperating in an investigation are entitled to rely upon each other's knowledge of facts when forming the conclusion that a suspect has committed or committing a crime.
Illinois vs. Gates - Answer- Where an anonymous tip is corroborated with actual police findings, a "totality of the circumstances' approach is an appropriate way of determining probable case instead of using the two pronged test of "veracity/reliability"
Katz v US - Answer- No longer legal to tap phones
Katz took bets in a phone booth
Listening device put in phone booth
4th Amendment protects against electronic monitoring of phone convos
Illegal is person has reasonable expectation of privacy that's violated
-Expectation of privacy is greatest at home and limited in other settings
U.S. v. Drayton (2002) - Answer- police officers are not required to inform a person of their right to say "no" when they are asked to consent to a search
Georgia v. Randolph - Answer- The police may not reasonably rely on the consent by a co-tenant who is physically present where the other co-tenant who also is physically present refuses to consent to the search.
Fernandez v California - Answer- only difference from Randolph was physical presence
guy who said no was arrested in relation to a robbery
court that the Randolph standard is right - if objector is not present and someone else with authority consents its ok
People v. Sotelo - Answer- An unauthorized driver of a rental car, and the passenger, have standing to contest a search of packages in the car. The Fourth amendment gives standing to the owners of the packages separate from standing to contest a search of the vehicle itself.
Carroll v. U.S. - Answer- First significant case concerning warrant less search of a vehicle if reasonable belief that contraband is present is valid. Because warrant wouldnt be practicle since the vehicle can be moved quickly
U.S. v ROSS - Answer- if probable cause of another offense arises during a routine
vehicle/traffic stop, every occupant and every part of the vehicle and its contents, including closed and locked containers in the vehicle, may be searched
People v. Zuniga - Answer- In this interlocutory appeal, the supreme court reverses the trial court and holds
15 that the odor of marijuana is relevant to the totality of the circumstances test and can
16 contribute to a probable cause determination. Even though possession of one ounce or
17 less of marijuana is allowed under Colorado law, many marijuana-related activities
18 remain unlawful, meaning the odor of marijuana can support an inference that a crime
19 is ongoing. Under the facts of this case, the court concludes that there was probable
20 cause to search the vehicle for illegal drugs in light of the two occupants' divergent
21 stories about their time visiting Colorado, their "extreme" nervousness, the strong odor
22 of raw marijuana coming from the vehicle, and a drug-sniffing dog's alert.
Chimel v. California - Answer- Wing Span
Officers can only search a residence outside of the arrestee's immediate control if there is reason to believe that evidence may be destroyed or that there is an imminent threat of harm to arresting officer
New York v. Belton - Answer- Officer may search passenger compartment of vehicle if the arrestee is the occupant of a motor vehicle
Contents of any container in compartment are subject to seizure
Arizona v Grant - Answer- Grant had a warrant for his arrest. Police showed up at his house when he pulled up they recognized his car and saw him. They arrested him after he got out of his car and searched his car. They found a gun and drugs. The search was unreasonable because he was not in reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search because he was in the police car at the time of the search.
Riley v. California (2014) - Answer- unanimous opinion of S Ct. holding that warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional. chief justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court and commented that cell phones for many Americans hold the privacies of life and is no therefore they are protected under the 4th amendment. No saying you cant get data, you just need a warrant first.
Arizona v. Hicks - Answer- Moving stereo equipment to see and record serial numbers was an unlawful search
Police may not further disturb or investigate to determine the evidentiary value of the item [Show Less]