Upload AutoTrain files

raw/legal data.csv

@@ -0,0 +1,800 @@
+Context,Question,answer.text,answers.answer_start
+"Even if an officer has no reason to
+suspect that you have done anything
+wrong, the officer can approach you to ask
+questions and ask to search you or objects
+in your possession (such as a briefcase). So
+long as the officer doesn’t suggest that you
+are legally compelled to talk or agree to a
+search, the officer has done nothing wrong
+(U.S. v. Drayton, U.S. Sup. Ct. 2002). At the
+same time, a person is generally not required
+to answer a police officer’s questions or
+allow a police officer to conduct a search","Can a police officer stop me on
+the street and question me even if
+I have done nothing wrong?",Yes,0
+"Unless a police officer has “probable cause”
+to make an arrest or a “reasonable suspicion” to conduct a “stop and frisk”, a person has the legal right to walk away from a police officer. However, at the time of the encounter, there is no real way to tell what information the officer is using as a basis for her actions. In fact, an officer may have information that gives her a valid legal basis to make an arrest or to conduct
+a stop and frisk, even if the individual is, in
+truth, innocent of any wrongdoing. If that
+is the case, an officer may forcibly detain
+an innocent individual who starts to leave
+the scene of an interview. Common sense
+and self-protection suggest that people who
+intend to walk away from a police officer
+make sure that the officer does not intend to
+arrest or detain them. A good question might
+be, “Officer, I’m in a hurry, and I’d prefer not
+to talk to you right now. You won’t try to stop
+me from leaving, right?” If the officer replies
+that you are not free to leave, you should
+remain at the scene and leave the issue of
+whether the officer had a legal basis for
+detaining you for the courts to determine at
+a later time.","Can I walk away from a police
+officer who is questioning me?",a person has the legal right to walk away from a police officer unless police officer has “probable cause”,0
+"You can halt police questioning at any
+time merely by indicating your desire not to
+talk further.","If I start to answer a police
+officer’s questions, can I change
+my mind and stop the interview?","Yes. You can halt police questioning at any
+time merely by indicating your desire not to
+talk further.",0
+"An officer has the right to conduct a field
+sobriety test of a suspected drunk driver. But
+the driver has the right to refuse to answer
+questions. In such a situation, the validity of
+an arrest would depend solely on the person’s
+driving pattern and performance on the field
+sobriety tests. (See Chapter 24 for more on
+drunk driving and field sobriety tests.)","An officer pulled me over for
+suspicion of drunk driving and
+questioned me about where I’d
+been and what I’d had to drink.
+Can I be arrested for refusing to
+answer these questions?","No. An officer has the right to conduct a field
+sobriety test of a suspected drunk driver. But
+the driver has the right to refuse to answer
+questions. In such a situation, the validity of
+an arrest would depend solely on the person’s
+driving pattern and performance on the field
+sobriety tests. (See Chapter 24 for more on
+drunk driving and field sobriety tests.)",0
+"Even in the complete absence of probable
+cause to arrest or suspicion to conduct a stop
+and frisk, police officers have the same right
+as anyone else to approach people and try to
+talk to them. Of course, if the person refuses
+to talk, the officer must stop.","If I don’t have to answer questions,
+does this mean I can sue a police
+officer for trying to question me?","No. Even in the complete absence of probable
+cause to arrest or suspicion to conduct a stop
+and frisk, police officers have the same right
+as anyone else to approach people and try to
+talk to them. Of course, if the person refuses
+to talk, the officer must stop.",0
+"A “Miranda warning”
+is required only if a suspect is in custody
+and the police intend to interrogate the
+suspect. In other words, both “custody” and
+“interrogation” have to occur for Miranda
+rights to kick in. One upshot is that a
+statement by a person who is not in custody,
+or a statement made voluntarily rather
+than in response to police interrogation, is
+admissible in evidence at trial even though
+no Miranda warning was given.","Doesn’t a police officer always
+have to read me my “Miranda
+rights” before questioning me?","No. A “Miranda warning”is required only if a suspect is in custody
+and the police intend to interrogate the
+suspect. In other words, both “custody” and
+“interrogation” have to occur for Miranda
+rights to kick in. One upshot is that a
+statement by a person who is not in custody,
+or a statement made voluntarily rather
+than in response to police interrogation, is
+admissible in evidence at trial even though
+no Miranda warning was given.",0
+"Police officers may be as interested
+in clearing the innocent as in convicting
+the guilty. People can often clear their
+names as well as help the police find
+the real perpetrators by answering a few
+straightforward questions. For example,
+assume that Wally, a possible suspect,
+can demonstrate that “I was at dinner
+with Andre” at the moment a crime was
+committed. Wally both removes himself
+as a suspect and enables the police to
+concentrate their efforts elsewhere.
+And legal rights aside, the truth on the
+street is that people often can make life
+easier for themselves by cooperating with
+police officers—so long as they don’t have
+a good reason not to. “Contempt of cop”
+has resulted in the arrest and even physical
+injury of more than one innocent person.
+When innocent people who are pulled
+over or questioned by police officers stand
+on their rights too forcefully, events can
+sometimes get out of control rather quickly.","Can it ever help me to answer a
+police officer’s questions?","Yes. Police officers may be as interested
+in clearing the innocent as in convicting
+the guilty. People can often clear their
+names as well as help the police find
+the real perpetrators by answering a few
+straightforward questions. For example,
+assume that Wally, a possible suspect,
+can demonstrate that “I was at dinner
+with Andre” at the moment a crime was
+committed. Wally both removes himself
+as a suspect and enables the police to
+concentrate their efforts elsewhere.
+And legal rights aside, the truth on the
+street is that people often can make life
+easier for themselves by cooperating with
+police officers—so long as they don’t have
+a good reason not to. “Contempt of cop”
+has resulted in the arrest and even physical
+injury of more than one innocent person.
+When innocent people who are pulled
+over or questioned by police officers stand
+on their rights too forcefully, events can
+sometimes get out of control rather quickly.",0
+"When police officers make an arrest, they commonly interrogate (question) the arrestee. Usually they are trying to strengthen the prosecution’s case by getting the arrestee to provide some evidence of guilt. An interrogation may have other purposes as well, such as developing leads to additional suspects. Chapter 1: Talking to the Police 21 By answering police questions after arrest, a suspect gives up two rights granted by the U.S. Constitution: • the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent; and • the Sixth Amendment right to have a lawyer present during the questioning. Although people are entitled to voluntarily give up these and other rights, the courts have long recognized that voluntariness depends on knowledge and free will, and that people questioned by the police while they are in custody frequently have neither. To remedy this situation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) that information obtained by police officers through the questioning of a suspect in police custody may be admitted as evidence at trial only if the questioning was preceded by certain cautions known collectively as a “Miranda warning.” Accordingly, police officers usually begin their questioning of a person in custody by first making the following statements: • You have the right to remain silent. • If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law. • You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have that lawyer present during any questioning. • If you can not afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you so desire. • If you choose to talk to the police officer, you have the right to stop the interview at any time. If a suspect is in police custody, it doesn’t matter whether the interrogation takes place in a jail or at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or in the middle of an open field. Other than routine automobile stops and brief on-the-street detentions, once a police officer deprives a suspect of freedom of action in any way, the suspect is in police custody and Miranda is activated.",What is a “Miranda warning”?,"When police officers make an arrest, they commonly interrogate (question) the arrestee. Usually they are trying to strengthen the prosecution’s case by getting the arrestee to provide some evidence of guilt. An interrogation may have other purposes as well, such as developing leads to additional suspects. Chapter 1: Talking to the Police 21 By answering police questions after arrest, a suspect gives up two rights granted by the U.S. Constitution: • the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent; and • the Sixth Amendment right to have a lawyer present during the questioning. Although people are entitled to voluntarily give up these and other rights, the courts have long recognized that voluntariness depends on knowledge and free will, and that people questioned by the police while they are in custody frequently have neither. To remedy this situation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) that information obtained by police officers through the questioning of a suspect in police custody may be admitted as evidence at trial only if the questioning was preceded by certain cautions known collectively as a “Miranda warning.” Accordingly, police officers usually begin their questioning of a person in custody by first making the following statements: • You have the right to remain silent. • If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law. • You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have that lawyer present during any questioning. • If you can not afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you so desire. • If you choose to talk to the police officer, you have the right to stop the interview at any time. If a suspect is in police custody, it doesn’t matter whether the interrogation takes place in a jail or at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or in the middle of an open field. Other than routine automobile stops and brief on-the-street detentions, once a police officer deprives a suspect of freedom of action in any way, the suspect is in police custody and Miranda is activated.",935
+"If a police officer questions a suspect
+without giving the suspect the Miranda
+warning, nothing the suspect says can be
+used against the suspect at trial. The purpose
+of this “exclusionary rule” is to deter the
+police from violating the Miranda rule,
+which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled is
+required by the Constitution","What happens if a suspect who is
+in custody isn’t given a Miranda
+warning and answers a police
+officer’s questions?","If a police officer questions a suspect
+without giving the suspect the Miranda
+warning, nothing the suspect says can be
+used against the suspect at trial. The purpose
+of this “exclusionary rule” is to deter the
+police from violating the Miranda rule,
+which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled is
+required by the Constitution",87
+"assuming that the only reason that
+a defendant’s statement is inadmissible
+is the police Miranda violation and not
+other police misconduct such as physical
+coercion.
+If the defendant gives testimony at trial
+that conflicts with the statement made to
+the police, the prosecutor can offer the
+statement into evidence to impeach (attack)
+the defendant’s credibility. Similarly, rules
+in many jurisdictions allow prosecutors to
+offer statements obtained in violation against
+defendants in sentencing hearings (U.S.
+v. Nichols, 4th Cir., 2006). For example,
+assume that in an improperly-obtained
+statement, a defendant admits to the police
+that he was armed with a weapon when
+he committed a crime. The defendant’s
+confession may not be admissible at trial
+to prove the defendant’s guilt, but the
+prosecutor may offer it into evidence
+during sentencing to try to obtain a harsher
+sentence.
+Also, the government may be able to use
+the “fruits” of statements taken in violation
+of Miranda. If police officers learn about
+evidence by taking a defendant’s statement
+in violation of Miranda, that evidence might
+be admissible against the defendant.","Can the government ever use
+statements against defendants if
+they were obtained in violation
+of Miranda?","Yes, assuming that the only reason that
+a defendant’s statement is inadmissible
+is the police Miranda violation and not
+other police misconduct such as physical
+coercion.
+If the defendant gives testimony at trial
+that conflicts with the statement made to
+the police, the prosecutor can offer the
+statement into evidence to impeach (attack)
+the defendant’s credibility. Similarly, rules
+in many jurisdictions allow prosecutors to
+offer statements obtained in violation against
+defendants in sentencing hearings (U.S.
+v. Nichols, 4th Cir., 2006). For example,
+assume that in an improperly-obtained
+statement, a defendant admits to the police
+that he was armed with a weapon when
+he committed a crime. The defendant’s
+confession may not be admissible at trial
+to prove the defendant’s guilt, but the
+prosecutor may offer it into evidence
+during sentencing to try to obtain a harsher
+sentence.
+Also, the government may be able to use
+the “fruits” of statements taken in violation
+of Miranda. If police officers learn about
+evidence by taking a defendant’s statement
+in violation of Miranda, that evidence might
+be admissible against the defendant.",0
+"Talking
+to the police is almost always hazardous to
+the health of a defense case, and defense
+attorneys almost universally advise their
+clients to remain silent until the attorney
+has assessed the charges and counseled the
+client about case strategy.","After I’m arrested, is it ever a
+good idea to talk to the police?","Not without talking to a lawyer first. Talking
+to the police is almost always hazardous to
+the health of a defense case, and defense
+attorneys almost universally advise their
+clients to remain silent until the attorney
+has assessed the charges and counseled the
+client about case strategy.",0
+"Suspects do not need to use any magic words to indicate that they want to remain silent. Indeed, they don’t have to use any words at all. Arrestees may invoke their Miranda rights by saying things like the following: • “I want to talk to an attorney.” • “I refuse to speak with you.” • “Please leave me alone.” • “I don’t have anything to say.” • “I claim my Miranda rights.” If the police continue to question an arrestee who says anything like the above, the police have violated Miranda. As a result, nothing the arrestee says after that point is admissible in evidence.","How do I assert my right to
+remain silent if I am being
+questioned by the police?","Suspects do not need to use any magic words to indicate that they want to remain silent. Indeed, they don’t have to use any words at all. Arrestees may invoke their Miranda rights by saying things like the following: • “I want to talk to an attorney.” • “I refuse to speak with you.” • “Please leave me alone.” • “I don’t have anything to say.” • “I claim my Miranda rights.” If the police continue to question an arrestee who says anything like the above, the police have violated Miranda. As a result, nothing the arrestee says after that point is admissible in evidence.",0
+"Miranda only applies to questioning by
+the police or other governmental officials.","If my boss questions me about drug
+use or my landlord asks me about
+illegal activities in my apartment,
+can my responses be used as
+evidence against me if they didn’t
+first give me a Miranda warning?","Yes. Miranda only applies to questioning by
+the police or other governmental officials.",0
+"Most people
+instinctively understand the concept of
+privacy. It is the freedom to decide which
+details of your life shall be revealed to the
+public and which shall be revealed only
+to those you care to share them with. To
+honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment
+protects against “unreasonable” searches
+and seizures by state or federal law
+enforcement authorities. However, the
+Fourth Amendment does not protect against
+searches initiated by nongovernmental
+people, such as employers, landlords, and
+private security personnel, unless the search
+is made at the behest of a law enforcement
+authority.","What are the search and seizure
+provisions of the Fourth Amendment
+all about?",They are about privacy.,0
+"American judges have written
+thousands of opinions interpreting the
+Fourth Amendment and explaining what a
+“reasonable” search is. But before getting
+to that question, another question must be
+answered first. Did the search in question
+violate the defendant’s privacy in the first
+place? Or more precisely, as framed by the
+U.S. Supreme Court, did the defendant have
+a “legitimate expectation of privacy” in
+the place or thing searched? (Katz v. U.S.,
+1967). If not, then no search occurred for the
+purpose of Fourth Amendment protection. If,
+however, a defendant did have a reasonable
+expectation of privacy, then a search did
+occur, and the search must have been a
+reasonable one.","Are all searches subject to Fourth
+Amendment protection?",No,0
+"In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Supreme
+Court established what has come to be
+known as the “exclusionary rule.” This rule
+states that evidence seized in violation of
+the Fourth Amendment cannot be used as
+evidence against defendants in a criminal
+prosecution, state or federal. To this day,
+some commentators continue to criticize the Mapp case on the ground that it unfairly
+“lets the criminal go free because the
+constable has erred.” But supporters of
+Mapp argue that excluding illegally-seized
+evidence is necessary to deter police from
+conducting illegal searches. According to
+this deterrence argument, the police won’t
+conduct improper searches if the resulting
+evidence is barred from the trial.","How can an illegal search affect
+my criminal case?","This rule states that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used as
+evidence against defendants in a criminal
+prosecution, state or federal.",23
+"A judge will exclude evidence that the
+police seized or learned about as the result of an illegal search. But if a prosecutor
+has enough other evidence to prove the
+defendant guilty, the case can continue","If the police conduct an illegal
+search, does the case against me
+have to be dismissed?","No. A judge will exclude evidence that the
+police seized or learned about as the result of an illegal search. But if a prosecutor
+has enough other evidence to prove the
+defendant guilty, the case can continue",0
+"A well established rule is that a search
+can’t be justified by what it turns up. If a
+search is illegal to begin with, the products
+of that search, no matter how incriminating,
+are inadmissible in evidence.","If a police officer finds contraband
+or evidence of crime in the course
+of a search, does that make the
+search valid even if it was initially
+illegal?","No. A well established rule is that a search
+can’t be justified by what it turns up. If a
+search is illegal to begin with, the products
+of that search, no matter how incriminating,
+are inadmissible in evidence.",0
+"Cases decided after Mapp have
+established that the Fourth Amendment is
+not a complete bar to the use of illegally seized
+evidence. For example, a judge
+may consider illegally-seized evidence
+when deciding on an appropriate sentence
+following conviction, and illegally seized
+evidence is admissible in civil
+cases and deportation cases. Also, in
+some circumstances a prosecutor can use
+improperly-seized evidence to impeach
+(attack the credibility of) a witness who
+testifies during a court proceeding.","Can illegally-seized evidence be
+used in court for any purpose?","Yes. Cases decided after Mapp have
+established that the Fourth Amendment is
+not a complete bar to the use of illegallyseized
+evidence. For example, a judge
+may consider illegally-seized evidence
+when deciding on an appropriate sentence
+following conviction, and illegallyseized
+evidence is admissible in civil
+cases and deportation cases. Also, in
+some circumstances a prosecutor can use
+improperly-seized evidence to impeach
+(attack the credibility of) a witness who
+testifies during a court proceeding.",0
+" The Fourth Amendment
+provides rights for defendants that are binding
+on every state. In addition, many state
+constitutions contain language similar to that
+in the Fourth Amendment, and a state can
+validly interpret its own constitution to provide defendants with greater protection—but not
+less—than the Fourth Amendment requires.","Do Fourth Amendment
+protections apply in every state?","Basically, yes. The Fourth Amendment
+provides rights for defendants that are binding
+on every state. In addition, many state
+constitutions contain language similar to that
+in the Fourth Amendment, and a state can
+validly interpret its own constitution to provide defendants with greater protection—but not
+less—than the Fourth Amendment requires.",12
+"the fruit of the poisonous tree
+doctrine makes inadmissible
+any evidence that police officers seize or
+any information that police officers obtain
+as a direct result of an improper search.
+The tree is the evidence that the police
+illegally seize in the first place; the fruit
+is the second-generation product of the
+illegally-seized evidence. Both tree and
+fruit are inadmissible at trial. The fruit of the
+poisonous tree doctrine removes what would
+otherwise be a big incentive for police
+officers to conduct illegal searches.","If the police illegally seize
+evidence, can they use the
+illegally-seized information to
+find other evidence to use against
+the defendant?","No, because of a legal rule colorfully
+known as the fruit of the poisonous tree
+doctrine. This doctrine makes inadmissible
+any evidence that police officers seize or
+any information that police officers obtain
+as a direct result of an improper search.
+The tree is the evidence that the police
+illegally seize in the first place; the fruit
+is the second-generation product of the
+illegally-seized evidence. Both tree and
+fruit are inadmissible at trial. The fruit of the
+poisonous tree doctrine removes what would
+otherwise be a big incentive for police
+officers to conduct illegal searches.",0
+"A search warrant is an order signed by a
+judge that authorizes police officers to
+search for specific objects or materials at
+a definite location at a specified time. For
+example, a warrant may authorize the search
+of “the premises at 11359 Happy Glade
+Avenue between the hours of 8 A.M. to 6
+P.M.,” and direct the police to search for
+and seize “cash, betting slips, record books,
+and every other means used in connection
+with placing bets on horses.” Police officers
+can take reasonable steps to protect themselves
+when conducting a search, such as handcuffing occupants while searching a
+house for weapons",What is a search warrant?,"an order signed by a
+judge that authorizes police officers to
+search for specific objects or materials at
+a definite location at a specified time",0
+"The police can only search the place
+described in a warrant, and usually can
+only seize whatever property the warrant
+describes. The police cannot search a house
+if the warrant specifies the backyard, nor
+can they search for weapons if the warrant
+specifies marijuana plants. However, this
+does not mean that police officers can only
+seize items listed in the warrant. Should
+police officers come across contraband or
+evidence of a crime that is not listed in the
+warrant in the course of searching for stuff
+that is listed, they can lawfully seize the
+unlisted items.","If the police have a warrant to
+search my backyard for marijuana
+plants, can they legally search
+the inside of my house as well?","No. The police can only search the place
+described in a warrant, and usually can
+only seize whatever property the warrant
+describes. The police cannot search a house
+if the warrant specifies the backyard, nor
+can they search for weapons if the warrant
+specifies marijuana plants. However, this
+does not mean that police officers can only
+seize items listed in the warrant. Should
+police officers come across contraband or
+evidence of a crime that is not listed in the
+warrant in the course of searching for stuff
+that is listed, they can lawfully seize the
+unlisted items.",0
+"Normally, the police can only search the
+person named in a warrant. Without probable
+cause, a police officer cannot search other
+persons who happen to be present at the scene of a search. However, if an officer has
+reason to suspect that an onlooker is also
+engaged in criminal activity, the officer might
+be able to “frisk” the onlooker for weapons","The police had a warrant to
+search a friend I was visiting, and
+they searched me as well. Is this
+legal?","No. Normally, the police can only search the
+person named in a warrant. Without probable
+cause, a police officer cannot search other
+persons who happen to be present at the scene of a search. However, if an officer has
+reason to suspect that an onlooker is also
+engaged in criminal activity, the officer might
+be able to “frisk” the onlooker for weapons",0
+"You should ask to see a search (or arrest)
+warrant. The officer may have no right to
+enter your home without a warrant. If the
+officer displays a warrant, allow the officer
+to enter. While the officer is inside your
+dwelling, observe the officer’s activities and
+if possible make notes about them. The notes
+can help you testify fully and accurately in
+the event that you later want to challenge
+the officer’s actions in court.
+If the police officer does not have a
+warrant, you may decide to allow the officer
+to enter your dwelling anyway. You will
+then have “consented” to the entry and you
+will probably have no right to challenge the
+search later in court.","If a police officer knocks on
+my door and asks to enter my
+dwelling, what should I do?",You should ask to see a search (or arrest) warrant,0
+"If a defendant freely and voluntarily
+agrees to a search, the search is valid and
+whatever the officers find is admissible in
+evidence.","If I agree to a search, is the
+search legal even if a police
+officer doesn’t have a warrant or
+probable cause to search?","Yes. If a defendant freely and voluntarily
+agrees to a search, the search is valid and
+whatever the officers find is admissible in
+evidence.",0
+"Police officers do not have to
+warn people that they have a right to refuse
+consent to a search","Does a police officer have to
+warn me that I have a right to
+refuse to consent to a search?",No,0
+" To constitute a valid consent to search,
+the consent must be given “freely and
+voluntarily.” If a police officer wrangles a
+consent through trickery or coercion, the
+consent does not validate the search. Often, a
+defendant challenges a search on the grounds
+that consent was not voluntary, only to have
+a police officer testify to a conflicting version
+of events that establishes a valid consent. In
+these conflict situations, judges tend to believe
+police officers unless defendants can support
+their claims through the testimony of other
+witnesses.","If a police officer tricks or coerces
+me into consenting to a search,
+does my consent make the search
+legal?","No. To constitute a valid consent to search,
+the consent must be given “freely and
+voluntarily.” If a police officer wrangles a
+consent through trickery or coercion, the
+consent does not validate the search. Often, a
+defendant challenges a search on the grounds
+that consent was not voluntary, only to have
+a police officer testify to a conflicting version
+of events that establishes a valid consent. In
+these conflict situations, judges tend to believe
+police officers unless defendants can support
+their claims through the testimony of other
+witnesses.",0
+"Merely opening the door to a police
+officer does not constitute consent to entry and
+search. Thus, whatever such a search turns
+up would be inadmissible in evidence. Of
+course, if contraband or evidence of a crime is
+in “plain view” from the doorway, the officer
+may seize it.","If I agree to open my door to talk
+to a police officer, and the officer
+enters without my permission
+and searches, is the search valid?","No. Merely opening the door to a police
+officer does not constitute consent to entry and
+search. Thus, whatever such a search turns
+up would be inadmissible in evidence. Of
+course, if contraband or evidence of a crime is
+in “plain view” from the doorway, the officer
+may seize it. (See Section IV, below.)",0
+"Many people are intimidated by police
+officers, and may even perceive a request
+to search as a command. However, so long
+as an officer does not engage in threatening
+behavior, judges will not set aside otherwise
+genuine consents.","Is a search valid if the reason I
+consent to it was because I felt
+intimidated by the presence of
+the police officer?","Yes. Many people are intimidated by police
+officers, and may even perceive a request
+to search as a command. However, so long
+as an officer does not engage in threatening
+behavior, judges will not set aside otherwise
+genuine consents.",0
+"The landlord is not considered to be
+in possession of an apartment leased to
+a tenant, and therefore lacks authority to
+consent to a search of leased premises. The
+same is true for hotel operators.","While I’m out, the landlord of the
+apartment building where I live
+gives a police officer permission
+to search my apartment. Does
+the landlord’s consent make the
+search legal?","No. The landlord is not considered to be
+in possession of an apartment leased to
+a tenant, and therefore lacks authority to
+consent to a search of leased premises. The
+same is true for hotel operators.",0
+"Police officers do not need a warrant to
+seize contraband or evidence that is in plain
+view if the officer is where he or she has a
+right to be. An officer’s seizure of an object
+in plain view does not violate the Fourth
+Amendment because the officer technically
+(and legally) has not conducted a search.","I agreed to talk to a police officer
+in my house. The officer saw
+some drugs on a kitchen counter,
+seized them, and arrested me. Is
+this legal?","Yes. Police officers do not need a warrant to
+seize contraband or evidence that is in plain
+view if the officer is where he or she has a
+right to be. An officer’s seizure of an object
+in plain view does not violate the Fourth
+Amendment because the officer technically
+(and legally) has not conducted a search.",0
+"A police officer can seize objects in
+plain view only if the officer has a legal right
+to be in the place from which the objects
+can be seen or smelled. If an officer has no
+legal right to be where he or she is when the
+evidence or contraband is spotted, the plain
+view doctrine doesn’t apply.","If a police officer illegally enters
+a house and observes evidence in
+plain view, can the officer seize
+the evidence?","No. A police officer can seize objects in
+plain view only if the officer has a legal right
+to be in the place from which the objects
+can be seen or smelled. If an officer has no
+legal right to be where he or she is when the
+evidence or contraband is spotted, the plain
+view doctrine doesn’t apply.",0
+"Police officers do not need a warrant to
+make a search “incident to an arrest.” After
+an arrest, police officers have the right to
+protect themselves by searching for weapons
+and to protect the legal case against the
+suspect by searching for evidence that the
+suspect might try to destroy. Assuming that
+the officer has probable cause to make
+the arrest in the first place, a search of
+the person and the person’s surroundings
+following the arrest is valid, and any
+evidence uncovered is admissible at trial.","Can an officer legally search me
+after arresting me?","Yes. Police officers do not need a warrant to
+make a search “incident to an arrest.” After
+an arrest, police officers have the right to
+protect themselves by searching for weapons
+and to protect the legal case against the
+suspect by searching for evidence that the
+suspect might try to destroy. Assuming that
+the officer has probable cause to make
+the arrest in the first place, a search of
+the person and the person’s surroundings
+following the arrest is valid, and any
+evidence uncovered is admissible at trial.",0
+"To justify a search as incident to an
+arrest, a spatial relationship must exist
+between the arrest and the search. The
+general rule is that after arrest the police
+may search a defendant and the area within
+a defendant’s immediate control. To conduct a search broader in scope
+than a defendant and the area within the
+defendant’s immediate control, an officer
+would have to obtain a warrant.","If I’m arrested on the street
+or in a shopping mall, can the
+arresting officer search my
+dwelling or car?","No. To justify a search as incident to an
+arrest, a spatial relationship must exist
+between the arrest and the search. The
+general rule is that after arrest the police
+may search a defendant and the area within
+a defendant’s immediate control . For example,
+an arresting officer may search not only a suspect’s clothes, but also a suspect’s wallet
+or purse. If an arrest takes place in a kitchen,
+the arresting officer can probably search
+the kitchen, but not the rest of the house. If
+an arrest takes place outside a house, the
+arresting officer cannot search the house at
+all. To conduct a search broader in scope
+than a defendant and the area within the
+defendant’s immediate control, an officer
+would have to obtain a warrant.",0
+"If the police arrest a suspect in or
+around a car, they don’t need a warrant to
+search its interior. They probably would need a
+warrant to search the trunk, however.","If I’m arrested in my car, or
+shortly after leaving it, do the
+police need a warrant to search
+the interior of the car?","No. If the police arrest a suspect in or
+around a car, they don’t need a warrant to
+search its interior. They probably would need a
+warrant to search the trunk, however.",0
+"If an officer lacks probable cause to
+make an arrest, the invalid arrest cannot
+validate a search. Any evidence found
+during a search following an improper arrest
+is inadmissible in evidence.","Is a search following an illegal
+arrest valid? following an illegal
+arrest valid?",No,0
+"An officer can seize whatever evidence
+a proper search incident to an arrest turns
+up. So long as the search is valid, it doesn’t
+matter if a seized object has nothing to do
+with the crime for which the defendant was
+arrested.","If an officer searches me after a
+valid arrest and finds evidence
+for an entirely different crime, is
+the evidence admissible?",Yes,0
+"A search is more extensive. An officer
+conducting a full search can probe
+extensively for any type of contraband or
+evidence. A frisk allows officers only to
+conduct a cursory pat-down and to seize
+weapons, such as guns and knives or objects
+that the officer can tell from a plain feel are
+contraband","What’s the difference between a
+search and a frisk?","A search is more extensive. An officer
+conducting a full search can probe
+extensively for any type of contraband or
+evidence. A frisk allows officers only to
+conduct a cursory pat-down and to seize
+weapons, such as guns and knives or objects
+that the officer can tell from a plain feel are
+contraband",0
+"The officer neither detained the defendant
+nor conducted a search. The officer had the
+right to pick up whatever the defendant tossed
+away and make an arrest when the object
+turned out to be illegal drugs","Seeing a police officer walking
+in my direction, I tossed away a
+packet of illegal drugs. Can the
+officer pick it up and use it as
+evidence against me?",Yes,0
+"The courts generally don’t look at a
+police officer’s private motivations. If the
+police have valid reason to stop a vehicle,
+even a nit-picky one like a broken rear
+taillight, the stop is legitimate no matter
+what a police officer’s “real” reasons. And, if the
+initial stop is valid, any lawful search or
+arrest that follows the stop is also valid.","Is it legal for the police to pull
+a car over for a traffic violation
+when the real purpose of the
+stop is to find evidence of
+criminal activity?",Yes,0
+"People do not have a reasonable
+expectation of privacy in garbage that
+they leave out for collection, allowing police officers to search trashcans.","Do the police need a warrant to
+search my trash?",No,0
+"School
+officials do not need probable cause or
+search warrants; they can search students
+and their possessions as long as they have a
+reasonable basis for conducting a search and
+as long as the search is appropriate based
+on the age of the student and what’s being
+sought.","Can public school officials search
+students without a warrant?","School
+officials do not need probable cause or
+search warrants; they can search students
+and their possessions as long as they have a
+reasonable basis for conducting a search and
+as long as the search is appropriate based
+on the age of the student and what’s being
+sought.",0
+"An arrest occurs when a police officer takes
+a person into custody. However, “arrest” is
+not synonymous with being taken to jail.","When exactly is a person
+under arrest?","An arrest occurs when a police officer takes
+a person into custody. However, “arrest” is
+not synonymous with being taken to jail.",0
+"An alternative procedure—called “citation”—
+exists in most states. In lieu of arresting
+people for traffic offenses (like speeding) and
+minor misdemeanors (such as shoplifting),
+officers can issue citations. A citation is a
+notice to appear in court. By signing the citation,
+a person promises to appear in court on
+or before the date specified in the notice in
+exchange for remaining at liberty.","Can I be charged with a crime
+without being arrested?","Yes, An alternative procedure—called “citation”—
+exists in most states. In lieu of arresting
+people for traffic offenses (like speeding) and
+minor misdemeanors (such as shoplifting),
+officers can issue citations. A citation is a
+notice to appear in court. By signing the citation,
+a person promises to appear in court on
+or before the date specified in the notice in
+exchange for remaining at liberty.",0
+"To establish probable cause, officers must be able to point to objective factual circumstances that lead them to believe that a suspect committed a crime. Put differently, an arrest is valid so long as it is based on probable cause, even if the arrested person is innocent. In this situation, probable cause protects the police against a civil suit for false arrest if the charges are later dismissed or the defendant is acquitted at trial.","What exactly does “probable
+cause” mean?","To establish probable cause, officers must be able to point to objective factual circumstances that lead them to believe that a suspect committed a crime. Put differently, an arrest is valid so long as it is based on probable cause, even if the arrested person is innocent. In this situation, probable cause protects the police against a civil suit for false arrest if the charges are later dismissed or the defendant is acquitted at trial.",0
+"An arrest warrant is an official document,
+signed by a judge (or magistrate), authorizing
+a police officer to arrest the person or
+persons named in the warrant. Warrants typically
+identify the crime for which an arrest
+has been authorized, and may restrict the
+manner in which an arrest may be made","What exactly is contained in an
+arrest warrant?","An arrest warrant is an official document,
+signed by a judge (or magistrate), authorizing
+a police officer to arrest the person or
+persons named in the warrant.",0
+"a warrantless arrest is
+simply an arrest without a warrant. When
+police officers make a warrantless arrest, a
+judge does not have a chance to determine
+ahead of time whether the police have
+probable cause to make the arrest.",What is a warrantless arrest?,"As the name implies, a warrantless arrest is
+simply an arrest without a warrant",21
+"A police officer may use deadly
+force to capture a suspect only if a suspect
+threatens an officer with a weapon or an
+officer has probable cause to believe that
+the suspect has committed a violent felony. The police can also use deadly force to
+protect the life of a third person. The police can also use deadly force to
+protect the life of a third person. But police
+officers cannot routinely use deadly force
+whenever they seek to arrest a suspect for
+committing a felony. The police should allow
+some felony suspects to escape rather than
+kill them.","Can the police legally use deadly
+force to make an arrest?","A police officer may use deadly
+force to capture a suspect only if a suspect
+threatens an officer with a weapon or an
+officer has probable cause to believe that
+the suspect has committed a violent felony. ",0
+"Motorists who drive off at high speed
+instead of stopping in response to a police
+officer’s blinking lights and siren often place
+the lives of other drivers and pedestrians at
+risk. To prevent harm to innocent bystanders,
+police officers have the right to use deadly
+force to put an end to the car chase and
+arrest fleeing motorists.","Can police officers use deadly
+force to terminate high-speed
+car chases?",Yes,0