Explanation:
1. No they don't have to announce it if it's obvious to the people or no an officer don't need to announce it
And
2. The body-worn camera should be worn when there's an important issue going on to preserve an evidence and a clue of what really happened and for more reality and caution ⚠
Answer:
I thank the best one would be to prevent others from using it dishonestly
Explanation:
if someone uses your information it not just hurt you but the people around you its safe to keep your personal information personal
Answer:
amigo no hablo español pero si me mandas la tarea en español con gusto te ayudaría ok
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
What the officers did was unconstitutional and violated the 4th amendment. Weeks v. United States established the Exclusionary Rule in 1914. At the time the exclusionary rule was only applied for federal courts instead of all courts. In 1949, Wolf v. Colorado, the High Court ruled that the Exclusionary Rule did not apply to the State but the Fourth Amendment did. In 1961, Mapp v. Ohio, the High Court ruled that the exclusionary rule applies to the state level as well as the federal. Justice Clark said this perfectly, "Thus the State, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, serves to encourage disobedience to the Federal Constitution which it is bound to uphold....... Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
