Answer:
The decision of the Supreme Court on Steagald v United States (1981) established that according to the Fourth Amendment, police officers can´t search for a suspect in a third party´s property without getting a search warrant first.
Explanation:
According to the Supreme Court, the search carried in the house of the petitioner, Gary Keith Steagald, which was conducted only with an arrest warrant for Ricky Lyons, and led to Steagald´s arrest, was a violation of the exclusionary rule stated in the Fourth Amendment that protects all citizens from illegal searches and seizures. I do agree with this decision because any effort to apprehend a suspect should never infringe nor his or a third party´s constitutional rights.
Answer:
The rule of law. The mechanism, institution practice etc
Explanation:
As citizens we should respect these laws above
Yes. they will take charge because they are police and that is a crime. Please mark brainliest
It would be the last choice.
Anti-Federalists feared a strong federal government and were worried about their rights therefore, they thought that a Bill of Rights was necessary.
The attorney-client privilege protects most communications between clients and their lawyers. But, according to the crime-fraud exception to the privilege, a client's communication to her attorney isn't privileged if she made it with the intention of committing or covering up a crime or fraud.
The attorney-client privilege protects from disclosure to third parties: (a) confidential communications; (b) between an attorney and client; (c) made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. Unless all three of these prongs are met, the communication is not privileged.
