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!
Answer:
D. Head of the executive branch
Explanation:
Answer:
- The mugging of the police officer: purposeful
- The theft/disappearance of the fingerprints: knowing or negligent
- The arson: purposeful or reckless
Explanation:
Mens rea means "a guilty mind" as is required to prove a crime, along with actus reus (the criminal act). A purposeful mens rea means a crime was intentionally commited. A negligent mens rea is the failure to do what a reasonable person would do. A knowing mens rea means the potential result of a criminal act (such as lending a gun to someone who intends to shoot another person). A reckless mens rea increases risk to others, like driving under the influence.
Together, actus reus and mens rea form the corpus delicti or, both the criminal act and guilty mind.
Answer:
Yes <em>and</em> no.
Patrick <em>would</em> be liable for negligence in <em>allowing</em> the hail damage, as he <em>failed</em> to fulfill his duty of taking reasonable care of the vehicle.
However, he would<em> not</em> be responsible for the hot oil and gravel nicks.
Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case. ... Simply put, it binds courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions. Stare decisis is a Latin term meaning "to stand by that which is decided."
