Answer:
Explanation:
In two 1989 decisions the Court held that no warrant, probable cause, or even individualized suspicion is required for mandatory drug testing of certain classes of railroad and public employees. In each case, “special needs beyond the normal need for law enforcement” were identified as justifying the drug testing. In Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ ,381 the Court upheld regulations requiring railroads to administer blood, urine, and breath tests to employees involved in certain train accidents or violating certain safety rules; in National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab382 the Court upheld a Customs Service screening program requiring urine testing of employees seeking transfer or promotion to positions having direct involvement with drug interdiction, or to positions requiring the incumbent to carry firearms.
Answer:
ill let you know ive me an hour to write one
Explanation:
My claim is that wearing seatbelts should be a law. Wearing seatbelts can not only keep you safe, but safe another person’s life. For example, if you were to be driving down the road, and someone were to hit the break, you’d go flying. The car could let out the airbag and possibly suffocate someone in the car. Also careful driving should need a seat belt, not only does it ensure safety, but it keeps to in place so that you don’t slip, and hurt the others around.
In conclusion, seatbelts should have a place in the law because not only could it save your life, it could save a lot more.
The body because that's where you have to put all your details supporting your evidence.
Answer:
The answer is
C. The repetition of the beginning sounds of nearby words.
