The correct answer is B; They allow multiple law enforcement agencies to combine their intelligence, resources, and personnel to target a specific problem.
Further Explanation:
Task forces are put together and used by numerous local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. There are many reasons this is done such as combining all the resources into one unit, having more personnel to work on the cases, and having more resources to get the cases solved. Task forces are put together for missing persons, murder cases, unsolved crimes, and drug cases.
When there is more than one jurisdiction involved the task force is more likely to be started. This is also beneficial for long term cases so that they don't have to work short staffed and have just the one case to focus on. Tasks forces will always have experts for different things so that the expertise is used to their advantage.
Learn more about task forces at brainly.com/question/12394318
#LearnwithBrainly
Surveillance and investigatory actions taken by strictly private persons, such as private investigators, suspicious spouses, or nosey neighbors, aren't governed by the Fourth Amendment.
In several Supreme Court decisions this decade, the question of whether a constitutional attack on a statute should be considered “as applied” to the actual facts of the case before the Court or “on the face” of the statute has been a difficult preliminary issue for the Court. The issue has prompted abundant academic discussion. Recently, scholars have noted a preference within the Roberts Court for as-applied constitutional challenges. However, the cases cited as evidence for the Roberts Court’s preference for as-applied challenges all involve constitutional challenges which concede the legislative power to enact the provision but nevertheless argue for unconstitutionality because the statute intrudes upon rights or liberties protected by the Constitution. Of course, this is not the only type of constitutional challenge to a statute; some constitutional challenges attack the underlying power of the legislative branch to pass the statute in question. Modern scholarship, however, as well as the Supreme Court, has mostly ignored the difference between these two different types of constitutional challenges to statutes when discussing facial and as-applied constitutional challenges. In glossing over this difference, considerations which fundamentally affect whether a facial or as-applied challenge is appropriate have gone unnoticed. By clearly distinguishing between these two very different types of constitutional challenges, and the respective role of a federal court in adjudicating each of these challenges, a new perspective can be gained on the exceedingly difficult question of when a facial or as-applied challenge to a statute is appropriate. In this Article, I argue that federal courts are constitutionally compelled to consider the constitutionality of a statute on its face when the power of Congress to pass the law has been challenged. Under the separation of powers principles enunciated in I.N.S. v. Chadha and Clinton v. New York, federal courts are not free to ignore the “finely wrought” procedures described in the Constitution for the creation of federal law by “picking and choosing” constitutional applications from unconstitutional applications of the federal statute, at least when the statute has been challenged as exceeding Congress’s enumerated powers in the Constitution. The separation of powers principles of I.N.S. and Clinton, which preclude a “legislative veto” or an executive “line item veto,” should similarly preclude a “judicial application veto” of a law that has been challenged as exceeding Congress’s Constitutional authority.
It should be noted that in contract law, a discharge will take place when the parties that are involved have fully performed their duties. Therefore, it's <u>true.</u>
Discharge of a contract simply takes place when the main obligations of a contract end. It should be noted that the ending of the contract entails the termination of the contractual relationship.
Both parties to a contract are discharged when they have completely performed their contractual obligations. Therefore, the operation of law releases the parties from performance.
Learn more about contracts on:
brainly.com/question/25820002
