Answer:
George Mason
have to add things so it will let me answer
it is
The open field doctrine states that officers are allowed to search and take evidence on private property outside of the immediate vicinity of a dwelling without obtaining a warrant.
- A "warrantless search of the area outside a property owner's curtilage" does not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, according to the open-fields doctrine (also known as the open-field doctrine or open-fields rule) in American criminal procedural law.
- Explains that as long as objects are immediately recognizable as being subject to seizure and are within the sight of an officer who is legally present in the location from where the view is made, they may be properly confiscated without a warrant (illegal).
To know more about doctrine, kindly click on the link below :
brainly.com/question/11271619?referrer=searchResults
#SPJ4
According to the Act, a summary conviction carries a maximum fine of $25,000 and/or a potential sentence of six months in jail if the person commits copyright infringement for the first time.
<h3>
How hard is it to sue for copyright infringement?</h3>
It's a challenging process, especially for independent contractors and small business owners. Even while the copyright violation may be emotionally upsetting, you should also take your financial losses into account.
According to the Copyright Act, criminal proceedings may be brought if the infringement is very severe. According to the Act, a summary conviction has a maximum fine of $25,000 and/or a maximum sentence of six months in jail, whereas an indictment-based conviction carries a maximum fine of $1 million and/or a maximum sentence of five years in jail.
Learn more about Copyright Infringement here:
brainly.com/question/16774161
#SPJ4
Answer:
The court should stick to statutory language. These days common law is being turned into statutory law.
Explanation:
The U.S. legal system were set up based on the common law, which adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle is known as stare decisis. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered the question, the same question in other cases must draw out from the same court or lower court the same response in that jurisdiction.
Stare decisis is a doctrine which has always been a major part of the common law, court should follow precedents when they established clearly, expected under compelling reasons. The doctrine of stare decisis will remain valid even more common law is being turned into statutory law. After all, statutes have to be interpreted by the courts.
There is certainly less common law governing like environmental law than there was 100 years ago. The federal and state governments are increasingly regulating the aspects of commercial transaction between merchants and consumers, when disputes arise may be the courts should stick to statutory language.
Answer:
The Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA), was enacted by Congress on November 27, 2013. Title II of DQSA, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA), outlines steps to achieve interoperable, electronic tracing of products at the package level to identify and trace certain prescription drugs as they are distributed in the United States. This will enhance FDA’s ability to help protect consumers from exposure to drugs that may be counterfeit, stolen, contaminated, or otherwise harmful. These requirements will also improve detection and removal of potentially dangerous drugs from the drug supply chain to protect U.S. consumers.
Additionally, the DSCSA directs FDA to establish national licensure standards for wholesale distributors and third-party logistics providers, and requires these entities report licensure and other information to FDA annually.
Explanation:
