Answer:
review laws, explain laws and then decides if the laws in question go against the constitution
Explanation:
Answer:
The decision of the Supreme Court on Steagald v United States (1981) established that according to the Fourth Amendment, police officers can´t search for a suspect in a third party´s property without getting a search warrant first.
Explanation:
According to the Supreme Court, the search carried in the house of the petitioner, Gary Keith Steagald, which was conducted only with an arrest warrant for Ricky Lyons, and led to Steagald´s arrest, was a violation of the exclusionary rule stated in the Fourth Amendment that protects all citizens from illegal searches and seizures. I do agree with this decision because any effort to apprehend a suspect should never infringe nor his or a third party´s constitutional rights.
Extends the tap-and-trace provisions of existing wiretap statutes to the Internet, and mandates certain technological modifications at ISPs to facilitate electronic wiretaps on the Internet
.
Option A
<u>
Explanation:
</u>
After the fall out of terrorist attacks on September 11 2001 American congress has passed the USA Patriot Act to protect the American society from the attack of terrorism.
This act specifically allows the federal agency officials to have control over the internet communication and they can intercept the local and foreign calls which are called tap and trace.
The purpose of tap and trace of calls is for collecting the information about the terrorist activities and also for foreign intelligence.
Answer:b is the answer I think.....
During a criminal trial where Emerly was found guilty, evidence was presented against her which Emerly and her lawyer feel was unfairly prejudicial. ... If an appeals court finds that the evidence against Emerly should have been excluded, she can receive a new trial.
Hope this helps
