The likelihood of success for these defenses would depend on various factors, including the specific laws of the jurisdiction in which the lawsuits are filed, the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, and the interpretation of international law.
The first lawsuit accuses the ex-President of ordering the seizure of farms owned by white or Asian individuals, violating the UN Charter on Human Rights. The second lawsuit alleges that forces under the ex-President's direct command committed violent crimes and murders against a specified group of people for political purposes.
The ex-President's counsel might seek the following defenses:
Sovereign Immunity: The ex-President's counsel may argue that the ex-President is immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts based on the principle of sovereign immunity. This defense asserts that as a former head of state, the ex-President should be immune from lawsuits in foreign jurisdictions.Lack of Jurisdiction: The ex-President's counsel may challenge the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts, arguing that the alleged acts did not occur within the territory of the United States and do not fall within the scope of universal jurisdiction. They may contend that the lawsuits should be pursued in the country where the alleged acts took place or before an international tribunal.Lack of Personal Involvement: The ex-President's counsel may argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the ex-President personally ordered the seizure of farms or committed violent crimes. They may assert that the ex-President was not directly involved in the actions mentioned in the lawsuits and therefore should not be held personally liable.Statute of Limitations: The ex-President's counsel may contend that the lawsuits were filed after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, preventing the plaintiffs from seeking legal redress for the alleged acts.know more about jurisdiction here:
https://brainly.com/question/30490316
#SPJ11
According to blackmun’s decision, why did the crèche display violate the establishment clause?.
According to Blackmun's decision, the crèche display violate the establishment clause because it was located inside a county building.
They argued that the presentations violated the primary change's status quo Clause, which says “Congress shall make no law respecting an established order of religion…” The established order Clause changed intended to prevent the government from establishing a national church, or from interfering in the political opinions of church buildings.
The establishment clause prohibits the government from "organizing" a faith. An appropriate definition of "establishment" is doubtful. Historically, it was supposed to prohibit country-backed church buildings, such as the Church of England.
Learn more about the establishment clause here https://brainly.com/question/14225350
#SPJ4
What are strengths and weaknesses for social structure?
what is the example of red lie?
red lie are lies to harm others
Explanation:
example:
Danice: Mr William Jake took your phone and smashed it on the ground
Mr William: What?
* Then Mr William argued with Jake and scolded him so therefore Danice told a red lie*
Hope it helps
A claim made with full knowledge that the opposing person already knows it to be untrue.
What is a red lie?Red lies are just about retaliation and spite. The desire to hurt others, regardless at the cost of one's own harm, drives them. "A brilliant red lie" refers to a complete fabrication or something wholly at variance with the truth. The phrase "a red stranger" is another way we describe an individual who is a complete stranger.
An example of a red lie will is:
Even though you detest the meatloaf, you proclaim to your mother that it is excellent. You do not wish to tell her buddy that she's gained a significant amount of weight and appears heavy, so you respond as she asks saying he doesn't look big in her dress. In this, there is a red lie that is presented.
Learn more about red lie, here:
https://brainly.com/question/25427223
#SPJ2
Which of the following parole requirements might an offender with a seventh-grade education most likely have trouble accomplishing? maintain the ability to hold a job do not carry a weapon avoid drugs and alcohol make no contact with the victim
Dr .Henry lee testimony o.j simpson
Answer:
itz a case...
Explanation:
Renowned forensic scientist Henry Lee said Thursday that the O.J. Simpson double-murder trial in 1995 not only revealed the racial chasm in America but the importance of strictly following established protocols in processing crime scenes.
“There were so many issues with the major crime scene in that case,” said Mr. Lee, who holds a doctorate and who testified for five days as a defense expert for Simpson. “This case set the landmarks for crime scene and laboratory handling of evidence.’
Mr. Lee’s comments came on the first day of the two-day inaugural conference “Pioneers of Forensic Science,” at which he is the first honoree. One of the world’s foremost criminalists, Mr. Lee has been involved in the Laci Peterson, JonBenet Ramsey, Caylee Anthony and Vince Foster cases, among many others.
Mr. Lee, Connecticut’s chief emeritus of scientific services, has served as that state’s commissioner of public safety, forensic science laboratory director and chief criminalist. He is the founder of the University of New Haven’s Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science and is the namesake of its Henry C. Lee College of Criminal Justice and Forensic Sciences.
He spoke on a panel “People v. O.J. Simpson: An Interdisciplinary Retrospective on the Case that Brought Forensic Science to the World.”
Other panelists included F. Lee Bailey, a member of Simpson’s “Dream Team” of defense attorneys; Dr. Michael Baden, former chief medical examiner for New York City who also was a Simpson defense expert; and Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, Pittsburgh’s renowned forensic pathologist who was an expert commentator on the Simpson case on national television programs. He also is the namesake of Duquesne University’s Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law, the conference sponsor. University President Kenneth G. Gormley, who holds law degree, moderated the two-hour panel discussion.
A native of China, Mr. Lee said he had no idea who Mr. Simpson was when he was asked to be an expert for him at trial. He reconstructed the crime scene and examined every piece of evidence collected.
“I knew there was something wrong with the case by the physical evidence. There were lots of problems.”
He discovered that notes taken by Los Angeles Police Department criminalists at the scene were later substituted with other documents. “We found this out because the notes are stapled, but we found extra staple holes,” meaning they had been re-stapled.
Mr. Lee recounted his testimony about a crucial piece of the prosecution’s evidence—a bloodstain found on the walkway outside the Bundy Drive home where Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman were killed in June 1994.
DNA tests indicated O.J. Simpson was the likely source of the blood, but Mr. Lee testified he was suspicious because he discovered four small patches of blood on the paper packet wrapped around the Bundy evidence. That would indicate the blood swatches were wet and leaked onto the paper, yet LAPD technicians had testified that they left the swatches to dry overnight.
Asked by defense attorney Barry Scheck to account for the stains, Mr. Lee famously answered, “The only explanation I can give under these circumstances is, something’s wrong.”
As a scientist, Mr. Lee wouldn’t speculate either at the trial or at Thursday’s conference about how that could have occurred, but Mr. Bailey isn’t a scientist, so he wasn’t so circumspect. That evidence and the infamous glove and the bloody sock and anything else indicating Simpson’s guilt was planted, he said.
Which branch of the military requires their law enforcement officers to complete a Single Source Background Investigation (SSBI)?
OA. Navy
OB. Coast Guard
OC. Army
OD. Air Force
the ucc requires that the mirror image rule be followed for all acceptances. T/F
False. The statement is not entirely accurate. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) does not explicitly require the mirror image rule to be followed for all acceptances.
The mirror image rule states that an acceptance must mirror the terms of the offer exactly for a valid contract to be formed.
However, the UCC provides certain exceptions and modifications to the mirror image rule in commercial transactions. Under the UCC, an acceptance with additional or different terms can still create a valid contract, unless the acceptance is expressly made conditional on the offeror's assent to the additional or different terms. Therefore, the UCC allows for some flexibility in the acceptance process beyond the strict application of the mirror image rule.
To know more about the Uniform Commercial Code visit:
brainly.com/question/30869012
#SPJ11
The Magna Carta would put England in the long road to establishing a lawmaking body. What is this lawmaking body or legislature called?
Answer:
The answer is Parliament
How do you understand the concept of measurement, including measurement validity and reliability in criminal justice research?
Answer:
Realibilty and validity both depend on how well they measure something: Honesty refers to the consistency of a measure (even if the results can be reproduced under the same conditions). Performance means the accuracy of the measure (even if the results represent what they have to measure).
hope it helps!
define the term advocacy and mention three reasons why protestors in an advocacy campaigns should avoid using violence during their protest.
Advocacy refers to the act of publicly supporting a particular cause or issue, and protestors in advocacy campaigns should avoid using violence during their protests due to safety concerns, legal repercussions, and negative public perception.
Any action that promotes, urges, justifies, defends, or pleads on behalf of another person is referred to as advocacy.
What is Advocacy?Getting support from another individual to help you communicate your opinions and wishes and help you stand up for your rights is referred to as advocacy.
Your advocate is a person who supports you in this way. There are a number of reasons why protestors participating in an advocacy campaign should refrain from using violence. The three are security, legitimacy, and legality. By supplying policymakers with the data they need to make decisions and, in turn, influence legislation, advocates can have significant positive effects on the puiblic's health. Effective advocacy does not necessarily require protracted or complicated legislative procedure.
Therefore, we can conclude that advocacy is when person pleads on behalf of another.
Learn more about Advocacy here:
https://brainly.com/question/29639066
#SPJ5
Greg invites his supervisor (Leslie) and two other colleagues (Wanda and Eileen) to go fishing on his boat. While fishing, they have some beers. Eileen gets so drunk that she falls overboard. Greg, Leslie and Wanda rescue Eileen with the help of the harbor police. Leslie reports the incident to the management of the company, which opens an investigation. Greg refuses to cooperate and is disciplined.
a. Greg has a privacy right to keep silent because the incident happened at a social occasion and away from the work place.
b. Greg has a 5thAmendment right not to cooperate because the information that he provides might be used against him by the company in a disciplinary proceeding.
c. Greg's rights have not been violated because the company has legitimate business reasons for seeking information about the fishing incident.
d. Although Greg's right to privacy has been violated, the company can discipline him based on the information that it gets from Leslie, Wanda and Eileen.
When you see the "holding " in a legal case, it means what
Generally, people think of democracy as only one type of government system, in which the people exercise ultimate political control. However, three primary types of democracy exist. A participatory democracy seeks the greatest degree of participation from the greatest number of people. In a pluralist democracy, interest groups compete for the power to create public policy. Finally, in an elite democracy, only a small number of people—generally the wealthy, educated, or connected—control politics. Select one of the three systems and create an evidence-based claim as to why it is the best, or most effective, form of democracy. Include and defend at least two arguments. Include and rebut at least one counterargument.
Answer: elite democracy
Explanation: fewer peeople means fewer problems and since they are wealthy they can hire more people to outsmart the law and have more control money equals control
Answer:
Democracy is a governance system in which voters select their policies through elected officials, direct voting, or, in most situations, a mix of the two. Some of us have been taught that democracy is divided into two types: direct and representative democracy. As stated in the question statement above, there are several varieties of democracy in democratic politics. Participatory democracy, in my opinion, is the finest or most successful of the three.
Participatory democracy is a democratic concept in which citizens have the ability to make political decisions. Participatory democracy promotes extensive public engagement in politics.
This is not, however, a direct democracy in which voters are actively accountable for political decisions. Citizens in a participatory democracy can influence but not carry out political choices. Politicians are still in charge of making these policy decisions. There is no participatory democracy in the United States, but we may see examples of it evolving at all levels of government.
According to Julia Keugten, Senior Advisor at the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, in her online essay published on June 8, 2021, participatory democracy is the best fit out of the three since it allows individuals to be politically active. Furthermore, participatory democracy is concerned with giving individuals the ability to directly engage in, or otherwise be involved in, choices that impact their lives.
She also stated that participatory democracies may supplement, if not sustain, representational democracies, but that in order for them to coexist, the circumstances and cultural developments occurring in their democratic institutions must be considered. We advocate for transparency and openness, and we value democracy.
Furthermore, research currently provides several success examples of participatory democracy across the world. Many cities, such as Paris, have embraced participatory budgeting, in which individuals may vote on how sections of the city's budget are spent. Over the last three years, the UK has witnessed more than 30 supposed democratic procedures around the country, including asking randomly selected residents to engage in conversations and provide comments on themes ranging from the transition to climate change to the recovery of Covid19. In general, democratic processes and institutions are changing toward increased public engagement, with civil society's role becoming increasingly important.
Furthermore, it is apparent that younger generations desire to be involved. One example is the Youth for Climate movement. Participatory democratic systems that allow generations to speak up can answer to this appeal. People want to participate; we just need to assist them locate a venue where they can.
As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that participatory democracy provides two compelling reasons why it is regarded as the best and most efficient type of democracy: (1) it is a model of democracy in which citizens have the right to directly determine policies and politicians are held accountable for carrying out those political decisions; and (2) participatory democracy is about empowering citizens to take direct part in, or participate in, decisions that affect their lives.
Finally, there is no question that the existence and electoral success of a party that believes in the participation process considerably enhances its viability and legitimacy, but there are circumstances that subtract from the benefits of the participatory system. According to the New York Times, "Political junkies demand simple ways to register their feelings. Democrats, in particular, make advantage of platforms such as Resistbot, which allow quick and beneficial interaction. Aside from the current political atmosphere, Democrats desire mass engagement more than Republicans and feel that it will boost their group." Actually, our institutions were ruined not by manipulation, Citizens United, Cable News, or any other frequent scapegoat, but by ordinary people practicing politics incorrectly.
Nonetheless, if participatory democracy becomes popular, representational institutions of government may lose some authority to a new sector of involvement; however, as we have shown, their power is already under jeopardy. As a result, democratic legitimacy and authority are at stake.
This is what I put for that question on Edge 2022
Hope this helps ~ :3
Which of the following is not a purpose of government?
1.protection
2.exploration
3.conflict resolution
4.order
A government that earns the respect of its citizens is said to have which of the following?
1.legitimacy
2.command
3.fear
4.power
Among the following, is not the purpose of government is exploration. Thus the correct option is 2.
A government that earns the respect of its citizens is said to have legitimacy. Thus the correct option is 1.
What is government?A government refers to an administrative system developed to mnaintian the functioning of any country by maintaining peace and order by implementing laws and legislation of the constitution and providing better facilities to its citizens.
An authority's ability to exist and accept is referred to as legitimacy. The concept that a law, institution, or leader has the authority to rule is known as legitimacy in political science and sociology.
Learn more about Government, here:
https://brainly.com/question/16940043
#SPJ1
You are driving on a two-lane highway and are passing a large truck. If the driver of the truck blinks his lights, it means
A: The truck is speeding up, and you need to speed up too.
B: It is clear for you to pull back in.
C: You must not pull back in yet.
Answer:
B. It's clear for you to pull back in
Explanation:
People agree about how the government
should spend its money.
true or false ?
Answer:
False
Explanation:
Tons of people have different opinions and thats why we have different polictical parties.
 is a spouse responsible for the other spouses credit card debt when they die
which of these ideologies focuses most directly on minimizing government intrusion into people's personal decisions? group of answer choices libertarianism social liberalism neoconservatism religious conservatism
The ideology that focuses most directly on minimizing government intrusion into people's personal decisions is Libertarianism.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that advocates for minimal government intervention in the personal and economic affairs of individuals. It values individual liberty and personal responsibility, and believes that the government should only be involved in protecting individuals from harm and enforcing contracts.
Social liberalism, neoconservatism, and religious conservatism are all ideologies that advocate for varying levels of government intervention in different aspects of people's lives. However, none of them focus as directly on minimizing government intrusion into personal decisions as libertarianism does.
To know more about ideologies
https://brainly.com/question/24353091
#SPJ11
Less than _____% of all bills introduced become law
Betty takes a listing on Sylvia's home. Without Sylvia's permission, Betty tells a prospective buyer at an open house that Sylvia is desperate to sell within the next 30 days. Betty Broker is
Betty takes a listing on Sylvia's home. Without Sylvia's permission, Betty tells a prospective buyer at an open house that Sylvia is desperate to sell within the next 30 days. Betty Broker is a/an implied agent of the buyer.
Why is Betty Broker is implied agent?In this scenario, Betty is a real estate agent who has taken a listing on Sylvia's home. By making such a statement, Betty has implied that Sylvia may be willing to accept a lower price for her property, which could potentially harm Sylvia's interests as the seller.
Moreover, in making this statement to the prospective buyer, Betty has created an agency relationship with the buyer. Specifically, Betty is acting as an implied agent of the buyer, which means that the buyer may believe that Betty is representing their interests in the transaction. This creates a conflict of interest for Betty, as she has a duty to act in the best interests of her client, Sylvia, but is also potentially representing the buyer's interests as an implied agent.
In summary, Betty's actions in this scenario are a breach of her duty of loyalty to Sylvia, and she has potentially created a conflict of interest by acting as an implied agent of the buyer without Sylvia's permission.
Learn more about implied agent here:https://brainly.com/question/30772046
#SPJ1
I just entered my card information on your site but I am getting continuous pop ups etc asking for more payment.
The pop-up advertisements that claim you've won are frequently only a cover for viruses and con artists.
What are advertisements?Advertising sometimes referred to as an advert or ad, is typically seen as a form of public discourse that supports a good, service, organization, or event. Some others consider the concept to be far broader than that, including any sort of sponsored advertisement intended to inform or influence
On occasion, pop-up advertisements congratulating you on winning a reward may have interrupted your smartphone browsing on other websites. Navigate to Settings while in Safe mode, then swipe to and tap Apps. From here, you can uninstall the most recent app(s) that have been installed or updated and may be the source of the pop-up ads.
Therefore, advertisements that claim you've won are frequently
Learn more about advertisements here:
https://brainly.com/question/3163475
#SPJ1
At the heart of the police subculture is the obligation of support and loyalty to other police officers.
True
False
Answer:
The answer is True!
Explanation:
Because, A police officer have to gain trust! just like everyday people.
Answer:
True
"Once accepted into the ranks of the police, an individual is introduced to the police subculture, which is a set of norms and values governing police behavior. One of the reasons why this subculture exists is due to the danger, stress, and isolation that are common in police work. Recruits learn these values and norms starting in the training that they receive at police academies. They learn not only the formal rules about policing but also the informal ones that are expected by others in this subculture. At the heart of the police subculture is the obligation of support and loyalty to other police officers. Other aspects that also play a role are group solidarity, honor, and respect for police authority."
At least 200 words per question. Just start me off with 100 words and ill finish the rest! THANKS GUYS!!
1. What common problems have existed throughout the centuries for people in law enforcement?
2. Why was there no law enforcement during the daytime for many centuries?
3. What are some of the challenges law enforcement will face with intelligence-led policing as it emerges in the new era of policing?
Answer:
uhhhhh how am i supposed to know this??? u can look it up on the internet lol
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Are an explanation of?
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution safeguards citizens from arbitrary government searches and seizures.
What is the Fourth Amendment?The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution declares that no one's right against unjustified searches and seizures of their person, property, papers, and possessions shall be violated. No warrants may also be issued without probable cause that is established via an oath or affirmation and that explicitly identifies the area to be searched as well as the individuals or items that will be taken. The fundamental goal of this clause is to safeguard people's rights to privacy and freedom from unjustified government intrusions. The Fourth Amendment only ensures protection from government searches and seizures that are considered to be reasonable and legal, not from all searches and seizures.
To know more about Fourth Amendment visit: brainly.com/question/7955252
#SPJ4
amnesty international, human rights watch, and world vision are examples of:
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and World Vision are examples of human rights organizations. These organizations are dedicated to promoting and defending human rights around the world.
Human rights are basic rights and freedoms that are entitled to every person, regardless of their race, gender, nationality, religion, or other status. They are recognized and protected by international law and set standards for how people should be treated and how they should live their lives. Examples of human rights include the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom of expression, and the right to education.
Amnesty International: Amnesty International is a global human rights organization that works to protect and promote human rights around the world. The organization was founded in 1961 and has more than 10 million members and supporters in over 150 countries. They work to investigate and expose human rights abuses, advocate for change, and support victims of human rights violations.
Human Rights Watch: Human Rights Watch is an international non-governmental organization that works to protect and promote human rights around the world. The organization was founded in 1978 and has offices in over 90 countries. They work to investigate and expose human rights abuses, advocate for change, and support victims of human rights violations.
World Vision: World Vision is a global Christian humanitarian organization that works to improve the lives of children and families in need around the world. The organization was founded in 1950 and has programs in more than 100 countries. They work to provide food, shelter, healthcare, and education to those in need and also advocate for policy changes that can help improve the lives of vulnerable communities.
To learn more about human rights here
https://brainly.com/question/28392863
#SPJ11
In the end of the court case it was decided by the court that Sally was just over-reacting and should not receive any retribution for the stolen boyfriend. She decides she wants a second opinion and therefore appeals. The court is known as: *
Answer:
Appellate Court.Explanation:
The Appellate Court, also known as the Court of Appeals, is a judicial court that hears cases which have been already heard in other courts. The duty of an appellate court is to review the processes and verdicts givens by the trial courts.
Here, since Sally is not satisfied with the judgement made by the trial court, she can apply for a hearing in the Appellate Court. The appellate court would review hear case and make the final decision.
Which is not true of STRs?
a. STRs are found in all parts of DNA.
b.STRs are often about 2-5 base pairs long.
c. DNA contains hundreds of STRs.
d.CODIS uses STRs.
An individual wants to sue an agency in a federal court to stop its action. Rank the actions they can take from first to last, placing the first action at the top of the list the top of the list. Top label: null
Answer:
Our government places a high priority on the public being allowed to speak their minds about elected officials as well as other public figures. People in the public eye get less protection from defamatory statements and face a higher burden when attempting to win a defamation lawsuit.
When an official is criticized in a false and injurious way for something that relates to their behavior in office, the official must prove all of the above elements associated with normal defamation, and must also show that the statement was made with "actual malice."
"Actual malice" was defined in a U.S. Supreme Court case decided in 1988, Hustler v. Falwell. In that case, the court held that certain statements that would otherwise be defamatory were protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
This meant that public officials could only win a defamation suit when the statement that was made wasn't an honest mistake and was in fact published with the actual intent to harm the public figure. Actual malice only occurs when the person making the statement knew the statement was not true at the time the statement was made or had a reckless disregard for whether it was true or not.
For other people that are in the public eye, such as celebrities, they too must prove that the defamatory statements were made with actual malice.
hope it helps
A cryptocurrency trader wants to open a bank account in your bank in Italy. What documents would you require him to do it? Imagine that the trader explains his business in detail, and he says that he buys cryptocurrency online and sells them for more money to make a profit. He has financial statements; ha pays taxes and has all of this in the rule. Do you think his economic activity is risky for AML purposes? Would you open the account to him?
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options attached we can say the following.
If a cryptocurrency trader wants to open a bank account in my bank in Italy, I would be very strict in order to proceed with his request. I would double-check the present legislation in Italy regarding Anti-money Laundering and all the laws regarding international finance and banking transactions. And do not want to have any problems with the law.
The documents I would require him to provide are the legal constitution of his company in a real country, not in the so-called "fiscal paradises" such as Andorra. He would have to provide me with all the documents that prove he runs a legal business and I would take these documents to the legal department of the bank to prove and certify them.
I would also ask my assistant to personally check on the web or public criminal records to know if the ma's company has had any problems in the past that had affected his reputation.
I would ask him to explain his business in detail, with the presence of an expert in the cryptocurrency business. I would require a copy of the company's financial statements, his taxes, and proof that he has no debt. He needs to prove that all the documents are in perfect rule.
Yes, I think his economic activity is risky for AML purposes because that is the nature of the cryptocurrency business. It has not been regulated by any government in the world. That is the reason why almost no bank in the world or country accepts cryptocurrency as normal currency. It is so volatile. Indeed, nobody regulates cryptocurrency. And the proof is the thew bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies change their value on a daily basis.
I would think twice about accepting opening the account to hi, It is risky to the first degree.
Which aspect of the Fourth Amendment has made government surveillance programs controversial?
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The aspect of the Fourth Amendment that has made government surveillance programs controversial is the requirement for probable cause and a warrant issued by a judge.
In other words, the government must have a valid reason and obtain permission from a court before conducting any searches or surveillance on individuals. However, in recent years, government surveillance programs such as the National Security Agency's (NSA) collection of phone records have been criticized for potentially violating the Fourth Amendment. Many argue that the broad and indiscriminate nature of these programs, which collect data on millions of individuals without a warrant or probable cause, constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.
Critics also argue that these programs have a chilling effect on free speech and privacy rights. Individuals may be hesitant to exercise their right to free speech or associate with certain groups if they know the government is collecting data on their activities.
In summary, the controversy surrounding government surveillance programs lies in their potential violation of the Fourth Amendment's requirement for probable cause and a warrant, as well as their impact on free speech and privacy rights.
Know more about Fourth Amendment here:
https://brainly.com/question/29619437
#SPJ11