I’m pretty sure this is a capital crime, I’m not sure why it’s not an option
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!
If the police had no warrant saying they could go in or search Joe's house then the police could be in a certain amount of trouble as well seeing as Joe did not willingly let them in and they never had a warrant but Joe could be in a lot more trouble for being in the possession of drugs.
And smart homes should be more advanced to these kinds of things because they could have been fake cops, plus they had no warrant which leaves everyone in this situation at fault especially Joe for being in the possession of drugs and the possible false 911 call influenced on drugs either making him see things or think things, maybe even both.
Answer:
A
Explanation:
These laws promote vigorous competition and protect consumers from anticompetitive mergers and business practices.
Answer:
I not able to understand question.
