Answer:
Arizona v. Gant
Explanation:
Arizona v. Gant (2009), was a USA Supreme Court choice stating that the 4th Amendment to the USA Constitution requires law implementation officials to exhibit a real and proceeding with danger to their wellbeing presented by an arrestee, or a need to protect proof identified with the wrongdoing of capture from altering by the arrestee, so as to legitimize a warrantless vehicular pursuit episode to capture directed after the vehicle's ongoing tenants have been captured and made sure about.
Answer:
All of the above
Explanation:
All of the sites create a citation for the legal information they provide
Answer:
Generally, in every democratic state, governments promote their public policies based on the needs of their inhabitants. Therefore, public opinion and the facts that affect the population turn out to be decisive factors when the government determines which issues deserve to be addressed and resolved.
Thus, for example, demonstrations, protests or social problems are those that highlight the government regarding an unfavorable situation, so that it passes through Congress the necessary laws destined to improve said situation.
In short, the government is nothing other than the representation of the will of the people. Therefore, its main objective is to solve people's problems and guarantee a better quality of life, with which the daily events that affect them have an enormous weight in determining the public policies to be carried out.
That is true, think about actions and consequences; everyone has the free will to choose to do what is right.
Answer:
The doctrine of contributory negligence is followed in most states is false.
Explanation:
Contributory negligence is a doctrine of common law that if a person was injured in part due to his/her own negligence, that is his/her negligence contributed to the accident, the injured party would not be entitled to collect any damages (money) from another party who supposedly caused the accident.
And historically, contributory negligence was the rule in all states, leading to harsh results. Many states now developed and adopted comparative negligence laws. Today, the jurisdictions that still use contributory negligence are few.
