Answer:
The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona established that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, the rule does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza.
Answer:
Elections centered on candidates and not on political parties have characteristics that make them particular and give them their own imprint. Thus, these elections are based not on general political platforms but on particular ideologies, which develop personalisms and political positions that are dangerous at times, given that they do not have the support (or responsibility) of organized groups such as political parties behind them.
In other cases, these types of elections have political parties actively participating and supporting each of the candidates, as was the case in the 2016 elections in the United States between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, but even so, the candidates end having a greater predominance than that of the political parties.
I think d but I may be wrong I have a strong feeling it is not c
