The statement is true as the court reversed itself as the New Jersey court did regarding automobile search being the right decision to prevent crimes.
Stare decisis is Latin for "to hold fast to what has been decided." If a prior court has made a ruling on the same or a closely comparable matter when a court is faced with a legal argument, the court will follow that precedent when making its conclusion.
On September 24, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld a decision that allowed police to search cars without first obtaining a warrant. No state rule or subjectivity is present in this situation, negating the need for such state-specific judgments. The court made the correct judgment to go in the opposite direction as the New Jersey court did with regard to car searches.
However, as in-state v. Witt, a new jersey supreme court case discussed in class, where a court will reverse itself as the new jersey court did regarding automobile searches stands TRUE.
To know more about the rule of stare decisis, refer to this link:
brainly.com/question/4997437
#SPJ4
Answer:
The right to privacy is the act of restraining the threat of others invading personal privacy. This right gives freedom to people from the government interfering with people's personal privacy. This right also protects people's privacy from other people
Hope this helps! (Did not use a website)
I’m not sure that you’d win the argument as you could possibly face repercussions of the act you did that was illegal...two wrongs won’t make a right basically.
Answer:
No, because a school official can claim a search is warranted when in reality the official could search you because of a hunch and search personal property causing potential property damage and causing the student much distress.
Answer:
c. O blurred vision is the answer.
