Answer to Question 1
a
Answer to Question 2
Court ruled that compulsory self-identification to law enforcement personnel was not unconstitutional and was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures nor was it a violation of the Fifth Amendment's protection from self-incrimination. In a nutshell, the Court ruled that compulsory disclosure of identification did not violate the Fourth Amendment because (1) it served an important government interest; (2) it was immediately relevant to the original purpose of a Terry stop; (3) the threat of criminal sanction was necessary for compliance; and (4) such a request would not alter the nature of the stop itself. In addition, the Court ruled that such compulsion did not violate the Fifth Amendment because the disclosure of identity, in and of itself, did not reasonably pose a danger of the self-incrimination forbidden by the statute. Thus, the Court ruled that in temporary investigative detentions, state statutes that require self-identification by private citizens are constitutional.
The life cycle of Plagiorhynchus cylindraceus, an intestinal parasite of birds.
The places on Tom’s body where touches elicited sensations in his phantom hand. (Based on ...
Life Cycle Nutrition: Toddlers through the Later Years
Animated The one-way flow of energy and cycling of materials in the world of life
First Day of My Life
Vision-based Magnetic Compass in European Robins