"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Which of the following possible court cases could be argued under the terms of the quote above? (4 points) a person sues the state for building an armory on nearby property a person refuses to serve the military when called up through a draft a person shoots and kills someone who broke into the family's home a person rejects police requests to unlock the car doors and windows
A person rejects police requests to unlock the car doors and windows.
Explanation:
If a person rejected police requests to unlock the car doors and windows, he could argue his case by using this quote. The quote states that people have a right to their own person and their own things. This means that the government cannot force them to undergo unreasonable searches.
The best option would be that by the fall of 1940 Germany controlled "almost all" of western Europe, since this was after they had made significant gains in both France and Poland.
