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.
Answer:
The electoral college is working the way it is supposed to.
Explanation:
The president of the United States is the President of all the lands owned by the US, not the president of only the major cities. The Electoral College was created to balance out the population with the land. For example, if we take into account and allow the Democrats to get what they want (i.e., popular vote), it will lead to large segments of the population being cut off from the political realm. With the popular vote only, candidates will only reach out to large population areas, as they have the higher chances of receiving the message and to vote for them. In the end, the electoral college is in place to ensure that all groups of the US, no matter where they live, are reached out too. The Popular vote is not the way to go, and if the Democrats want to get rid of the Electoral College, they must put in a system that is better than it. Remember, the Electoral College, while it does has it's faults, solves a gruesome problem of keeping the president from being the president of the major cities, to being the president of the land.
~
Paolo Zacchia is the father of legal medicine in the Philippines
Answer:
Sitting in the sun everyday makes my skin feel good after being in the house for so long.
Explanation:
It is better to sit or play outside when it sunny and not when it is cold and dark.
Answer: both of them will have the fault.
Explanation:well, if I were to be the Judge of this case, I will hold both to be at fault. On Sutton's part, she leased the house out and she should have kept it in a good shape. Though the house was not in good shape, Laws had lodge series of complaints concerning the disrepair, which means that Sutton should have had it repaired.
Sutton promised Laws that he was going to repair the stairs, so, I would say, Laws would have assumed that Sutton would have repaired the stairs before he(laws) returned back from his business trip.
However, we should not forget that whenever we assess a situation according to the law there must have been a legal contract but in this case, Laws never entered into a contract with Sutton to make the repairs. Which means that Laws cannot fully blame Sutton. Therefore, i will hold both responsible.
