<u>Fourth Amendment Law Enforcement explained below: </u>
- The Fourth Amendment permits the right to be free from non-reasonable searches by the government.
- The government should complete an analysis of the commitment of crime that had taken place before the search warrant to be given.
- They also have permission to search the area whether the area has done any illegal things.
- The government is much more careful in protecting the law right to liberty and they are so consciousness in not disturbing the normal people.
Answer:
go to jail
Explanation:
If you refuse a Breathalyzer test, you will most likely face serious consequences. For instance, if an officer stops you and believes you are intoxicated, and you refuse to submit to a test to determine your blood-alcohol concentration (BAC), you may risk having your license suspended or even face jail time.
While you may not be under arrest at this point, refusing a Breathalyzer may not be such a great idea as prosecutors may still base a potential DUI/DWI charge on other evidence collected at the scene, including officer observations, witness testimony, or the results of a field sobriety test. In certain jurisdictions, your refusal may be used against you in any possible trial. And some state laws distinguish between refusing a mobile Breathalyzer (which can carry a small penalty) and refusing a post-arrest blood, urine, or breath test at a police station or hospital (which can result in more severe penalties).
Answer:
The decision of the Supreme Court on Steagald v United States (1981) established that according to the Fourth Amendment, police officers can´t search for a suspect in a third party´s property without getting a search warrant first.
Explanation:
According to the Supreme Court, the search carried in the house of the petitioner, Gary Keith Steagald, which was conducted only with an arrest warrant for Ricky Lyons, and led to Steagald´s arrest, was a violation of the exclusionary rule stated in the Fourth Amendment that protects all citizens from illegal searches and seizures. I do agree with this decision because any effort to apprehend a suspect should never infringe nor his or a third party´s constitutional rights.
Answer:
1) Legality (must be a law) ...
2) Actus reus (Human conduct) ...
3) Causation (human conduct must cause harm) ...
4) Harm (to some other/thing) ...
5) Concurrence (State of Mind and Human Conduct) ...
6) Mens Rea (State of Mind; "guilty mind") ...
7) Punishment.
Explanation:
PLZ brainliest:)
Answer:
Federal court.
Explanation:
From the question, we can see that the competitor of the company -- ABC Inc. is the plaintiff that sues its competitor for trademark infringement. ABC inc. has the right to sue its competitor in both state courts and federal court. ABC Inc. can sue the competitor in the state court if the violations of the registered trademark is only done in one state but if it is more than one states, the it will be be the case of a federal court. Furthermore, the trademark was registered Federally, ABC Inc. are definitely going to sue in a federal court.
