Either A 1 or B 2 most likely i believe A.1
Answer:
D
Explanation:
All of the above they sue for breach
Answer:
The decision of the Supreme Court on Steagald v United States (1981) established that according to the Fourth Amendment, police officers can´t search for a suspect in a third party´s property without getting a search warrant first.
Explanation:
According to the Supreme Court, the search carried in the house of the petitioner, Gary Keith Steagald, which was conducted only with an arrest warrant for Ricky Lyons, and led to Steagald´s arrest, was a violation of the exclusionary rule stated in the Fourth Amendment that protects all citizens from illegal searches and seizures. I do agree with this decision because any effort to apprehend a suspect should never infringe nor his or a third party´s constitutional rights.
Yes, a crime was committed as Anthony used drugs and sometimes took other people's things and sold them to get money to buy cocaine. This was a crime of theft.
The crime of receiving a stolen property is defined as knowingly receiving the stolen property with the sole intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property stolen. So, receiving of stolen property is a crime.
So, this tends to prevent concealing of a property by a particular person who thus know that such property is thus obtained by an illegal way. Suppose if an item is sold by at a very low price so the item can be stolen. Thus, this is an act of crime which is called theft.
Hence, handling stolen goods is a crime.
To learn more about theft here:
brainly.com/question/17224809
#SPJ1
Answer:
Isnt it logical? Just let them cross the street (The last option)
Explanation: