'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."

Which of the following possible court cases could be argued under the terms of the quote above?

Question

'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."

Which of the following possible court cases could be argued under the terms of the quote above?

anonymous · Answer

a. A person sues the state for building an armory on nearby property.
b. A person refuses to serve the military when called up through a draft.
c. A person shoots and kills someone who broke into the family's home.
d. A person rejects police requests to unlock the car doors and windows.

anonymous · Answer

I would say d.

anonymous · Answer

I was in debate of d or c, but I think ur right, why though... what was ur thought process?

anonymous · Answer

Because I think it is the only court case that could be argued that deals with searches and seizures. A person can reject police requests to unlock the car doors UNLESS their is probable cause.

anonymous · Answer

And that can be argued.

anonymous · Answer

I understand. Thanks for your help. :)

anonymous · Answer

anytime