Answer: He has provided an advanced order of moving.
Explanation:
The SCOTUS did not rule that T.L.O’s 4th amendment (searches and seizures) rights had been violated. They ruled that the school administrations search of the bag was reasonable under the circumstances (i.e T.L.O. Being a minor and on school property, meaning that while at school, administration is responsible for the well-being and safety of all students, thus allowing them to search T.L.O’s bag for marijuana). A good way to think of it is that while you’re at school, the administration acts as your parents. Your parents don’t need a warrant to search through your room and neither does the administration if you are on school property. The 4th amendment applies to this case because it protects against unlawful searches and seizures (i.e. searches and seizures that are without a warrant). The constitutional question was whether or not T.L.O. Could be charged with a crime/punished or not because the school administration did not have a warrant. However, because the school administration was acting as a loco parentis (latin term for “in place of the parent”) they did not need a warrant to search her bag. Hope this helped!
Answer:
if I were juror in murder case, the I would conduct all the scientific evidence, and if it still conflicts with ALL the witnesses I would not believe the witnesses. but I still would not announce my decision. I would want more evidences and proofs to announce my decision because I just can't rely only on scientific evidence, (what if the person who murdered changed the fingerprints and other scientific evidence, you never know)
Answer:
If at least 12 jurors find the individual guilty, the grand jury returns an indictment. At that point the individual is deemed guilty with the crime(s).
Explanation:
Hi there! I have taken a number of law classes, and I belive that this is the correct answer.
I hope this helps! Good luck! :)
Answer:
a. financial statement disclosure requirements
d. requirement of monitoring contracts with foreign agents
Explanation:
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was an act that was passed in 1977 and received two amendments in 1988 and 1998. The act aims to prohibit companies and their officers from influencing foreign officials with payments and rewards - bribery. The act also has a series of accounting requirements that are designed to ensure that shareholders have an accurate view of the company’s finances.
