The Pacific Fur Company and the Hudson's Bay Company, both made forts for fur trading
Answer:
Explanation:
The Carroll v. the United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that upheld the warrantless searches of an automobile, which is known as the automobile exception. The case has also been cited as widening the scope of the warrantless search. The main idea of Carrol v. the United States is that automobiles can be subject to warrantless searches because they constitute an exception to the principles of a search with a warrant since they are mobile and by the time a search warrant can be obtained from a judge they will easily be removed from the territorial jurisdiction of the locality where the warrant was issued, actively rendering it meaningless. This is known as the automobile exception.
In the Kyllo v. United States case, the suspect was thought by the police to be growing marijuana in his home. Therefore, the police decided to use thermal imaging to scan it (since marijuana plants require very hot ultraviolet lights to grow). Their findings gave them probable cause (a reason to believe that a crime is being committed). However, after this case was brought to the Supreme Court of the US, they considered that using such modern technology infringed the right of privacy of the defendant, as such imaging allows for a view of what is happening inside the home. Since a home is not mobile it was perfectly possible for the police officers to get a warrant to perform such thermal search and thus the warrantless search was unlawful.
Is not true that Mali is the richest country in West Africa in fact is one of the poorest countries in the world.
They are more commonly known as the bill of rights.
