<u>Answer:</u>
The chief purpose for using informants is to provide probable cause for arrests and search warrants.
Option: (D)
<u>Explanation:</u>
- An informant is the person or group that provides the important information related to the crime.
- So based on these informants information it is easier for the concerned authority to provide the search and investigation warrants.
- So, it is very important for the informant to be genuine and trusted.
- These informants may be eye witness, or criminal informant known as confidential human source.
Answer:
<h2>The right to property, or the right to own property (cf. ownership) is often classified as a human right for natural persons regarding their possessions. A general recognition of a right to private property is found more rarely and is typically heavily constrained insofar as property is owned by legal persons (i.e. corporations) and where it is used for production rather than consumption.[1]</h2><h2 /><h2>A right to property is recognised in Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[2] but it is not recognised in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.[3] The European Convention on Human Rights, in Protocol 1, article 1, acknowledges a right for natural and legal persons to "peaceful enjoyment of his possessions", subject to the "general interest or to secure the payment of taxes."</h2><h2 /><h2>Definition </h2><h2>Relationship to other rights </h2><h2>History </h2><h2>See also </h2><h2>Notes </h2><h2>References </h2>
<h2>External links</h2>
Hi again!
The amendment of free speech is very important to everyone today. Free speech gives everyone a say in society, and etc.. In the 1790's, free speech was passed because a lot of people felt unfair that they could not protest/rally/speech about unfair issues. When it passed in the 1790's, people had felt a bit of fairness and "proudness" because they now had a say in something. In today's world, the first amendment would most probably pass today. If the same problem of unfairness from the 1790's was occurring, this law most probably would be passed. Without freedom of speech, a lot of things from today would be missing. For example, the ability to vote or speak freely on an opinion of an individual. Without free speech, there might also be no media, and it is also a possibility that people would not be able to vote.
Make sure you reword this, and add some of your own detail, otherwise it might/will be considered plagiarism :) have a wonderful day/night :)
