The SCOTUS did not rule that T.L.O’s 4th amendment (searches and seizures) rights had been violated. They ruled that the school administrations search of the bag was reasonable under the circumstances (i.e T.L.O. Being a minor and on school property, meaning that while at school, administration is responsible for the well-being and safety of all students, thus allowing them to search T.L.O’s bag for marijuana). A good way to think of it is that while you’re at school, the administration acts as your parents. Your parents don’t need a warrant to search through your room and neither does the administration if you are on school property. The 4th amendment applies to this case because it protects against unlawful searches and seizures (i.e. searches and seizures that are without a warrant). The constitutional question was whether or not T.L.O. Could be charged with a crime/punished or not because the school administration did not have a warrant. However, because the school administration was acting as a loco parentis (latin term for “in place of the parent”) they did not need a warrant to search her bag. Hope this helped!
Nick Cannon is 40 years old and Mariah is 50
Answer:
dont
Explanation:
You dont want to do that for something very important
Answer:
<h3>the government gives entrepreneurs the right to purchase capital i.e.,land which can be used to sustain economic growth.</h3>
Explanation:
If governments can relax property rights and change the laws and policies of property rights in order to give individuals and firms more freedom, it will have a great impact in the economic growth of the country.
This is because if individuals or firms can purchase capital such as land, it will induce the entrepreneurs to take more risks to create new products, ideas, and more technology. Land can be used as an asset to mortgage or to avail loans to enhance productivity of the firms.
