Answer:
intimate terrorism
Explanation:
An intimate terrorism can be referred to as the presence of physical assault by a relationship partner; the partners could be a current partner or an ex partner.
The physical assault is in such a way that varieties of tactics are used to maintain control over the other person in the relationship
As mentioned earlier, intimate terrorism involved physical assaults and it can assume any of the following forms; it could be physical, verbal, emotional, economic and sexual abuse.
Answer:
The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona established that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, the rule does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza.
I think it’s the first one
B
I am studying law right now and I know this is B
Answer: Allowing a child to interpret in an emergency.
Explanation: I found the answer on Quizlet. :)
