Answer:
The Reich Fundamental Security Office was an association subordinate to Heinrich Himmler in his double limit as Culinary expert der Deutschen Polizei and Reichsführer-SS, the top of the Nazi Party's Schutzstaffel (SS). The association's expressed obligation was to battle all "adversaries of the Reich" inside and outside the lines of Nazi Germany.
In <em>Mapp v. Ohio</em>, the Supreme Court ruled <u>B. If the police</u> violate the law to obtain evidence, they cannot use that evidence against an accused person in court.
<h3>What was the place of evidence in the case of Mapp v. Ohio?</h3>
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the state in a 5-3 vote, favoring Mapp, from whom evidence was obtained without due process.
The implication is that evidence seized unlawfully from a suspect or an accused, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts.
Thus, in <em>Mapp v. Ohio</em>, the Supreme Court ruled <u>B. If the police</u> violate the law to obtain evidence, they cannot use that evidence against an accused person in court.
Learn more about the importance of evidence in criminal prosecutions at brainly.com/question/7802791
#SPJ1
Answer:
Its B.The Model T would meet a buyers every need
Explanation:
I just answered the question and got it right
It would be good to know the context of your question. When you say "based on the passage," perhaps you could attach a screen shot of the passage you're looking at.
Nevertheless, even without such context, I would lean toward saying the answer is that "the Soviet government would do whatever it could to stay in power." I'm guessing you're talking about events as the Soviet Union was nearing its dissolution and Boris Yeltsin was leading Russia in a move to declare its own sovereignty separate from the USSR. The Soviet leadership did not give in to that movement willingly.
The correct answer is actually A. He freed Venezuelans from Spanish rule.
