To ensure that the driver understands that the offense that they have broke, meanwhile the officer is trying to maintain a safe situation.
So keep everyone safe, inform the offender, take action via. Verbal Warning, Written Warning, Ticket, or Arrest.
Answer:
Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures.
Explanation:
Answer:
The doctrine of stare decisis is a legal doctrine that mandates the courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case.
The doctrine has a lot in common with the american legal system because the American legal system follows a case step by step before making conclusions.
Explanation:
Stare decisis ensures that cases with similar scenarios and facts are approached in the same way. it binds the courts to follow legal steps set by previous decisions.
Answer:
(A) Yes, because the attorney formed a partnership with a certified financial planner and some of the activities of this partnership consisted of the practice of law.
Explanation:
Rule 5.4: Professional Independence of a Lawyer
(b) A lawyer shall not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law.
Courts applying the Davis exception most often summarize it with phrases such as "ongoing emergency" or "emergency situation." When police are responding to an ongoing emergency, their motive is to ensure the safety of all concerned, not to collect evidence. The Supreme Court ruled in Davis that statements elicited by police while responding to an ongoing emergency are not testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause.
Testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:
-ITlooks like the kind of testimony that would be offered at trial in aid of prosecution;
-It is made when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no ongoing emergency; and
-The primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution.
The Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution protects the right of a criminal defendant to be confronted by his or her accusers in Court and to cross-examine any testimony that they may offer. The admission of hearsay (an out-of-court statement) – even if admissible under an exception to the rule against hearsay – can be in direct conflict with the right of Confrontation.
On the other hand, “non-testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:
-It is made primarily for the purpose of assisting police to meet an ongoing emergency; or
-It was made primarily for a purpose other than discovering, establishing or proving past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.
To learn more about Testimony visit here ; brainly.com/question/29244222?referrer=searchResultssearchResults
#SPJ4
