Have fun passing that class I currently have three hours to do 25 assignments at the end of that three hours I will have my finals grade for all of my classes ahhh
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
What the officers did was unconstitutional and violated the 4th amendment. Weeks v. United States established the Exclusionary Rule in 1914. At the time the exclusionary rule was only applied for federal courts instead of all courts. In 1949, Wolf v. Colorado, the High Court ruled that the Exclusionary Rule did not apply to the State but the Fourth Amendment did. In 1961, Mapp v. Ohio, the High Court ruled that the exclusionary rule applies to the state level as well as the federal. Justice Clark said this perfectly, "Thus the State, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, serves to encourage disobedience to the Federal Constitution which it is bound to uphold....... Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
Answer:
The correct answer is: the type of interference which was most likely the basis for this suit is interference with a contacting relationship, and it is occurring here.
Explanation:
Hughes had a contract with Medtronic where they specifically mention he can't work for a competitor for one year after leaving the company because of protection of the company, after Hughes accepted and broke that clause he is making an interference with a contacting relationship with Medtronic.
Legal protection mechanisms would be prove useful in product invention.
<h3>What is the product invention about?</h3>
Note that any product invention is one that often needs Legal protection mechanisms if one do not want your intellectual property to be stolen.
Note that the use of Legal protection mechanisms for one's product will make it so that it cannot be easily reverse-engineered.
Learn more about legal protection from
brainly.com/question/14479936
#SPJ12
Courts decide the law applicable to a case by interpreting statutes and applying precedence which Record how and why prior cases have been decided
