Section 2

CCP Exams

Arrest authority, warrants, search & seizure doctrine, Miranda / Art. 38.22 statements, magistration, bail, the Texas exclusionary rule (Art. 38.23), and Michael Morton Act discovery.

Mode
Immediate feedback after each question with statute and elements.
Topic
Length
Definitions Browse the full statutory definitions.
Question 1 of 20 Study mode
Category Statute

0 / 0
0%
PASS

Review

What the Code of Criminal Procedure section covers

This Code of Criminal Procedure practice test draws on 75 questions across 58 topics. Every question carries the statute it comes from and an explanation of why the answer is right, so a missed question points straight at the law to review.

Question categories

Topics in this section

Sample questions

Under CCP Art. 2.13, the primary duty of every peace officer is to:

  1. Issue as many citations as possible
  2. Preserve the peace within the officer's jurisdiction; in addition, to use all lawful means to interfere with crime, prevent it, arrest offenders, and execute lawful process (correct)
  3. Investigate only felony offenses
  4. Provide community outreach

Why: Art. 2.13 lays out the foundational duties: preserve the peace, interfere with and prevent crime, arrest offenders within the officer's jurisdiction, execute lawful process, give notice of every offense, and arrest without warrant where authorized.

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 2.13

SCENARIO. During a lawful traffic stop, an officer asks the driver: 'Do you mind if I look in your trunk?' The driver shrugs and says 'Yeah, whatever.' The officer searches and finds drugs. Was the search likely lawful?

  1. No — consent must always be in writing
  2. Likely yes, if the State proves the consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances; ambiguous responses can be valid but invite challenge (correct)
  3. No — traffic stops can never include trunk searches
  4. Only if the driver is under 21

Why: Consent need not be in writing, but the State carries the burden of proving voluntariness by clear and convincing evidence in Texas. Ambiguous responses are risky — a clearer affirmative consent and a body-camera record are best practices.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

SCENARIO. Without prompting, while sitting in the back of a patrol car post-arrest, a suspect says to no one in particular: 'I shouldn't have hit her so hard.' Officer ignored him. Admissible?

  1. No — Miranda not given
  2. Yes — spontaneous, unprompted statements are not the product of interrogation; admissible under Miranda doctrine and Art. 38.22 §5 (correct)
  3. Yes only with consent
  4. Only if recorded

Why: Volunteered, spontaneous statements are not the product of interrogation. Miranda is not required, and Art. 38.22 §5 expressly allows such statements to come in.

Rhode Island v. Innis; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22 §5