1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Nikitich [7]
3 years ago
10

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Terry v. Ohio (1967) and Horton v. California (1990) both held that the police

History
2 answers:
diamong [38]3 years ago
6 0

The Supreme Court decisions in both cases held that the police may, in certain cases, search individuals or seize their property without a warrant. The Supreme court ruled that the police could conduct searches if they had probable cause and that the constitution does not prohibit that

gizmo_the_mogwai [7]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:  The correct answer is : They argued that the police can in some cases register individuals or confiscate their property without the need for a court order.

Explanation:  In the Terry v Ohio case, it was argued that when an officer suspects that a person may have a weapon, it is logical that he seek the weapons because of the danger he poses to himself and others. In the case Horton v California argues that when evidence is discovered it should not go unnoticed.

You might be interested in
What was the main reason Theodore Roosevelt built the Panama Canal?
inna [77]

Answer:

A)To connect the Atlantic and Pacific for military and merchant reasons

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Describe the fortress in the Indus Valley Cities.
Ipatiy [6.2K]

Answer: A fortress was built to keep guard over the residents. There were wide main streets, and small streets and walls surrounded each neighborhood.

Explanation: I hoped this helped :)

5 0
3 years ago
The author's argument is that the armed forces...
Irina18 [472]
What is the answers to the question 
8 0
3 years ago
Why did the constitution making process face crisis of acceptance in the United Pakistan?
NNADVOKAT [17]

Answer:

Explanation:

By the end of World War II, the British imperial government granted independence to its Indian colony and for that matter the British Parliament enacted the Indian Independence Act, 1947. Under the Act, the British Crown relinquished its sovereign powers over India and transferred those powers to the newly established dominions of India and Pakistan on 14 August 1947. The Government of India Act, 1935, hitherto the constitution of British India, was amended to bring it in consonance with the aims and objectives of independence as laid down in the 1947 Act. The combination of these two constitutional instruments served as an interim constitutional order for both countries until their respective constituent assemblies adopted their own constitutions.

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which is true of the southern colonies during the 1700s
oksano4ka [1.4K]
I think that the first one is correct.
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What is an organization, founded in 1945, that acts as a channel for negotiations and a means of settling international disputes
    7·1 answer
  • What's are some open-ended questions concerning Alexander Hamilton?
    14·1 answer
  • What did the pan African congress accomplish
    9·2 answers
  • This tribe migrated across Africa, bringing iron technology with it.
    5·2 answers
  • Rapid growth in population and domestication created what new cultural changes?
    10·1 answer
  • One reason we need to stay informed is because we will be called upon to _______.
    10·2 answers
  • 1 Ano ang tawag sa mga taong gumagamit ng iisang wika lamang?​
    11·1 answer
  • Why were many Georgians angered by the Proclamation of 1763?
    10·1 answer
  • Read the original and improved research questions.
    12·2 answers
  • What divides British territory from Spanish territory?
    9·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!