Answer: there is reason to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest
Explanation: Arizona v. Gant (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to eitherdemonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from being tampered with by the arrestee
in order to justify a vehicular search without a warrant conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.
The defendant in the case was Rodney Gant who was arrested in a friend's yard for driving with a suspended license. His vehicle was searched after he and his friends had been arrested and secured in police cars, upon which the officers found a weapon as well as a bag of cocaine. He was also charged with possession of a narcotic with intent to distribute.
Gant's lawyer, Thomas Jacobs argued and the court agreed that the search was unconstitutional and didn't fulfil either of the two conditions stated above for a warrantless search.
JROTC was founded in 1916
I think the three decisions made by the estates-general are the following:
a. Summoning the Estates wherein the nobles and peasants convened after they were summoned by King Louis XVI
b.The Estates-General convened and created the Edict of 24 January 1789 to tackle the current financial difficulties of France
C. After the convention, the Estate had continued to tackle the issues with proceedings and created various solutions to the ongoing debt of the country.
<span>The House has a Rules Committee to set limits on bill debate while the Senate has no time limits for debate is the selection that makes a true statement.</span>
