If the police had no warrant saying they could go in or search Joe's house then the police could be in a certain amount of trouble as well seeing as Joe did not willingly let them in and they never had a warrant but Joe could be in a lot more trouble for being in the possession of drugs.
And smart homes should be more advanced to these kinds of things because they could have been fake cops, plus they had no warrant which leaves everyone in this situation at fault especially Joe for being in the possession of drugs and the possible false 911 call influenced on drugs either making him see things or think things, maybe even both.
First off answer D is logical but is expected however just by remaining calm doesn’t mean you’ll handle the situation so in order to actually handle a situation you call 911 obviously. Trick question, completely unspecified.
Answer: Strict liability
Explanation:
Strict liability basically responsible for holding the someone liable for the damages and loss without any mistake. Basically , it is the legal concept which the person are responsible for their consequences and action.
It is also known as absolute liability that basically caused by the damages and the defective products. The strict liability are basically reorganize as criminal law and possession crime is one of the example of the strict liability.
Answer:
d. Whether the statute has a secular legislative purpose and whether the statute's principal or primary effect either advances or inhibits religion; and also whether the statute fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion
Explanation:
The establishment clause is related to the first amendment of the US constitution. This clause refers to the freedom of religion that should be allowed in the country, as it states that the government is prohibited from establishing and imposing a single religion on all citizens of the country, as well as preventing citizens from following the religion they desire. .
Accordingly, whether the statute has a secular legislative objective and whether the primary or primary effect of the statute promotes or inhibits religion; and also if the statute promotes excessive government involvement with religion means that the government statute is violating the Establishment Clause.
