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: It is a proper question
Explanation:
The witness is making a claim about what had transpired between the defendant and the plaintiff and in order for their testimony to stand, they need to have integrity such that a reasonable person can believe their testimony in this case.
In asking about the false claim that the witness had once filed, the defendant is trying to establish that the witness has no integrity and so in proving their untruthfulness, the defendant hopes to convince the court that the witness does not have enough integrity to be a witness.
If I’m not wrong, there’s a table of standard deviations that will tell you the critical value
Answer: A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).
Explanation:
