Answer:
Ang sagot po True po sagot diyan
Answer:
Arizona v. Gant
Explanation:
Arizona v. Gant (2009), was a USA Supreme Court choice stating that the 4th Amendment to the USA Constitution requires law implementation officials to exhibit a real and proceeding with danger to their wellbeing presented by an arrestee, or a need to protect proof identified with the wrongdoing of capture from altering by the arrestee, so as to legitimize a warrantless vehicular pursuit episode to capture directed after the vehicle's ongoing tenants have been captured and made sure about.
Answer:
The United States first amendment carried more protection and less restriction in its implementation and here is why.
The edict of the United States does not qualify the application of the clause granting freedom of expression. That of the United Kingdom does. In doing so, it ensures that Freedom of Expression is used appropriately in that it must be targeted at the common good and the well being of the state.
It states, for instance, that
<em>"Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:
</em>
- <em>
protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety
</em>
- <em>prevent disorder or crime
</em>
- <em>protect health or morals
</em>
- <em>protect the rights and reputations of other people
</em>
- <em>prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence
</em>
- <em>maintain the authority and impartiality of judges"</em>
Cheers!
Answer:
I think it might be A but not sure
Explanation:
Answer:
If a court finds a contract to be unconscionable, they can amend the unconscionable clause, but may not remove it completely.
I hope this helped at all.
