Answer:
if it is minimal levels they will let you go buy they will ask if someone can pick you up.
Explanation:
i could be wrong but that is what i have been told
Answer:Enlighten him
Explanation:
All Jeff need to do is to get some information about hard drugs....its risk and consequences.... Including facts that he might be caught and tried and charged to jail......for a long period of time
ANSWER: The exclusionary rule states that any evidence that is obtain illegally, (i.e without a warrant) and any statements obtained through an illegal interrogation, which violate the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, will not be an acceptable evidence at a criminal trial in the court.
This exclutionary rule applies only to criminal case and not to civil case. Because John Bratton has a murder case charge, which are the dead bodies found in his properties. John Bratton's case is a civil case, and all evidence filed with his case should be admissible in the court of law.
Sara Sutton will not be charged for illegally selling gun, but will be charged for being a sole sponsor of a civil crime case charged against Bratton. This will make Sara Sutton to be prosecuted along side with Bratton, in the case.
If Sara Sutton is charged for illegally selling of guns, it will be a criminal case which will not be admissible by the court, due to exclusionary rule, because the police got their evidence without a search warrant.
John Bratton will not be charged for drug abuse offense, which is a criminal case, because all evidence provided will not be accepted due to exclusionary rule. Stankowitcz has busted into Bratton's apartment without a search warrant.
When improvements or buildings are added to real estate, the real estate tax assessment is usually increased to reflect the increased value of the property. Frank Partipilo and Elmer Hallman owned neighboring tracts of land. Hallman made improvements to his land, constructing a new building and driveway on the tract. The tax assessor made a mistake about the location of the boundary line between
Partipilo's and Hallman's land and thought the improvements were made on Partipilo' Instead of increasing the taxes on Hallman's assessor wrongly increased the taxes on Partipilo's
land. Partipilo paid the increased taxes for three years. When he learned why his taxes had been increased, he sued Hallman for the amount of the increase that Partipilo had been paying. Hallman raised the defense that he had not done anything wrong and that the mistake has been the fault of the tax assessor. Decide.
