1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
77julia77 [94]
2 years ago
9

What happens if the police illegally seize evidence in violation of the fourth amendment?

History
1 answer:
Tom [10]2 years ago
6 0

In case that the police or any other authority proceeds against the right granted in the Fourth Ammendment, their findings, having been illegally obtained, can not be presented before any court as evidence against any individual, nor a judge could allow to have them as evidence in a trial, because this would ignore the Sixth Ammendment by violating the right to an impartial trial.

You might be interested in
How did the issue of states' rights contribute to the outbreak of the Civil War?
elixir [45]

Answer:

One of the answers

Explanation:

States' Rights refers To the struggle between the federal government and individual states over political power. In the Civil War era, this struggle focused heavily on the institution of slavery and whether the federal government had the right to regulate or even abolish slavery within an individual state.

3 0
3 years ago
7. Imagine a correspondence between Thomas Hobbes and John Locke . First, write a letter from Hobbes to Locke in which Hobbes ar
Leto [7]

Answer:

In this letter, you should:

1 - talk about the concept of State (or Power), considering the point of view of each philosopher;

2 - the idea behind the social contract, once again understanding the perspective of Hobbes and Locke;

3 - the State limitations, and the benefits of it, once again putting the ideas of each philosopher in perspective

Now, when it comes to the 18th-century despots, I think the better approach you have in hand is using the Divine Right of the Kings, a theory first stated in the 17th century.

Explanation:

Thomas Hobbes understand the idea that human being needs a strong state, and centralized power to maintain peace. They were living in a natural state, but with constant conflicts. To create a sense of "peace", humans offer their liberty to strong power and creates a state. Because of that, absolute monarchies is the better idea. Hobbes compares the political power of the state to a Leviatan, a mythological monster with several tentacles. And to control a monster such as this, a strong hand was necessary. An absolutist government, according to him, would maintain peace.  

On the other hand, Jonh Locke stated that a limited power was a better idea because once you put limits in a power, you can control it. The theory of the limited state is understood as an attempt to maintaining the order and the power on the hands of the people. Even with a king or emperor, it was necessary that people had control of the situation to obtain prosperity.

5 0
3 years ago
What did the indus valley people relied on and used the indus to help create their civilization?
Aleksandr-060686 [28]
<span> standardized weights and measures, seal carving, and metallurgy with copper, bronze, lead, and tin.the Indus script, and as a result. Indus River Valley Civilization’s institutions and systems of governance.</span>
7 0
3 years ago
Which aspect of the march are n Washington sent a powerful statement to the united states and the world
tekilochka [14]

On 28 August 1963, more than 200,000 demonstrators took part in the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in the nation's capital. The march was successful in pressuring the administration of John F. Kennedy to initiate a strong federal civil rights bill in Congress.

7 0
3 years ago
‘The Treaty of Versailles was unfair on Germany.' How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer”
Paraphin [41]

Answer:

It can be viewed in opposite opinions, so I'll do both, and you can choose which one you use- you could use both, which would detail your answer more, and ensure you get top marks.

Explanation:

On one hand, I disagree that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair on Germany. After majorly contributing to the start of World War I, causing mass destruction to numerous countries, they deserved a severe punishment to face their consequences, which included reparations, loss of their territory, and regulations on the size of their army. It was right for them to be punished so harshly, so they could learn not to cross the Allies again.

On the other hand, I agree that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair on Germany. Despite contributing to a war, every country was involved, so it is not right Germany are the ones getting severely punished. The punishments are too harsh and majorly damaged the country's economy, and I feel this is too hard on Germany.

Hope this helps!

3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • The Tuskegee Institute was...
    9·1 answer
  • WILL GIVE BRAINIEST HELP FAST.
    15·2 answers
  • Who did southern states vote for
    5·2 answers
  • The Ku Klux Klan?
    5·1 answer
  • What is the British government’s point of view toward the Palestinian Arabs in this declaration? It supports the creation of an
    14·2 answers
  • BRAINLIESTTTT ASAP!!!
    14·2 answers
  • Why was it an advantage to rome to have a professional army?
    6·1 answer
  • Which of the following describes one of the major economic benefits of free
    14·1 answer
  • 11. Explain how the issues of states' rights and slavery increased
    7·1 answer
  • The Wilmot Proviso called for
    5·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!