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

2 answers:

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 changes to the definition of homeland security were manifested in the 2010 qhsr?

Vesnalui [34]

Basically, two important changes were introduced to the definition of homeland security in 2010. First one was about Nation’s homeland security missions. These missions are enterprise-wide, and not limited to the Department of Homeland Security. Federal Government, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, the private sector, and other non-governmental organizations are responsible for executing these missions. The homeland security professionals must have a clear sense of what it takes to achieve this vision. The second change was about three key and essential concepts for a comprehensive approach to homeland security: Security, Resilience and Customs and Exchange.

3 0

2 years ago

Why was great britain an ideal place for the start of the industrial revolution?

zavuch27 [327]

Now that we have looked at how and why the Industrial Revolution occurred, it’s time to consider its effects on people. We learned that industrial production increased tremendously, bringing wealth and power to Great Britain throughout the 19th century. But we have yet to explore the effects of industrialization on society, on the daily living and the working conditions of common people. What was life like for the average industrial worker? Was living in a new industrial city and working in a factory an improvement over life in the countryside? Did the new factory life change for the better the roles of family members, including women and children? Were people healthier? In general, did the Industrial Revolution improve life for most people? To answer these questions, we’ll look at various primary source accounts to gather evidence from the people that actually lived through this time period.

8 0

3 years ago

Why we should learn about Erik Thorvaldsson (Erik the red ) now? What is his significance to modern day society?

statuscvo [17]

Answer:

he is a good guy

Explanation:

he is so cool

4 0

3 years ago

What were the benefits of domesticating animals? Choose four answers. (A) to communicate with the gods(B)to help with farming(C)

Shtirlitz [24]

Answer:

can the answer be more than one? id say both b and d.

Explanation:

by domesticating them, they were able to easily get milk and such from the animal without killing it yet or it foghting back. and also the example of domesticated dogs used to herd sheep. Maybe its just d if it can only be one but id say both b and d

8 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

why do members of the House of Representatives from California outnumber the representatives from Wyoming?

Katyanochek1 [597]

There are more people living in California then in Wyoming, therefore, there are more representatives for the Californian people

6 0

3 years ago