BORDER PATROL EXAM LATEST 2026 ACTUAL EXAM 100 QUESTIONS AND CORRECT DETAILED ANSWERS (VERIFIED ANSWERS) |ALREADY GRADED A+

BORDER PATROL EXAM LATEST 2026 ACTUAL EXAM 100 QUESTIONS AND CORRECT DETAILED ANSWERS (VERIFIED ANSWERS) |ALREADY GRADED A+

BORDER PATROL EXAM LATEST 2026 ACTUAL

EXAM 100 QUESTIONS AND CORRECT

DETAILED ANSWERS (VERIFIED ANSWERS)

|ALREADY GRADED A+

Often, crimes are characterized as either malum in se-inherently

evil-or malum prohibitum-criminal because they are declared as

offenses by a legislature. Murder is an example of the former.

Failing to file a tax return illustrates the later. Some jurisdictions

no longer distinguish between crimes malum in se and malum

prohibitum, although many still do.

What is a Validly Conclusion?

A) Many jurisdictions no longer distinguish between crimes

malum in se and malum prohibitum

B) Some jurisdictions still distinguish between crimes malum in

se and malum prohibitum

C) Some crimes characterized as malum in se are not inherently

evil

D) Some crimes characterized as malum prohibitum are not

declared by a legislature to be an offense

E) Sometimes failing to file a tax return is characterized as

malum in se - ANSWER- B

A trucking company can act as a common carrier-for hire to the

general public at published rates. As a common carrier, it is

liable for any cargo damage, unless the company can show that

it was not negligent. If the company can demonstrate that it was

not negligent, then it is not liable for cargo damage. In contrast,

a contract carrier (a trucking company hired by a shipper under a

specific contract) is only responsible for cargo damage as

spelled out in the contract. A Claus Inc. tractor-trailer, acting

under contract carrier authority, was involved in the same

accident, and its cargo was also damaged.

What is a Validly Conclusion?

A) If Claus Inc. is liable, then it can show that it was not

negligent

B) If Claus Inc. cannot show that it was not negligent, then it is

not liable

C) If Claus Inc. can show that it was not negligent, then it is not

liable

D) If Nichols Inc. is liable, then it cannot show that it -

ANSWER- C

A rapidly changing technical environment in government is

promoting greater reliance on electronic mail (email) systems.

As this usage grows, there are increasing chances of conflict

between the users' expectations of privacy and public access

rights. In some investigations, access to all e-mail, including

those messages stored in archival files and messages outside the

scope of the investigation, has been sought and granted. In spite

of this, some people send messages through e-mail that would

never be said face-to-face or written formally.

What cannot be a Validly Conclusion?

A) Some e-mail messages that have been requested as part of

investigations have contained messages that would never be said

face-to-face

B) Some messages that people would never say face-to-face are

sent in e-mail messages

C) Some e-mail messages have been requested as part of

investigations

D) E-mail messages have not been exempted f - ANSWER- A

Phyllis T. is a former Federal employee who was entitled to

benefits under the Federal Employee

Compensation Act because of a job-related, disabling injury.

When an eligible Federal employee has such an injury, the

benefit is determined by this test: If the beneficiary is married or

has dependents, benefits are 3/4 of the person's salary at the time

of the injury; otherwise, benefits are set at 2/3 of the salary.

Phyllis T.'s benefits were 2/3 of her salary when she was injured.

What is a Validly Conclusion?

A) Was married but without dependents

B) Was not married and had no dependents

C) Was not married but had dependents

D) Was married and had dependents