If no consequences exist for breaking the rules, the rule-breaker ...

[erika]

If no consequences exist for breaking the rules, the rule-breaker may be inspired to continue along the path of inappropriate behavior.
 
  a. True
  b. False

Question 2

How does Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) relate to the Terry doctrine?
 
  What will be an ideal response?

[CAPTAINAMERICA]

Answer to Question 1

a

Answer to Question 2

Terry stops are legal authority for a law enforcement official to conduct a patdown or search of a person's outer clothing or visual search of a vehicle for contraband. Although the Terry stop is not an arrest, the person is not free to leave; also called a stop-and-frisk. In Minnesota v. Dickerson, the Court held that protective searches are limited in scope to those areas, places, and objects that reasonably may conceal items dangerous to the police. Searches are further limited to those objects, revealed through exterior searches and the sense of touch, that are immediately identifiable as weapons. Items may not be seized (or even revealed) in the absence of specific information leading to a reasonable belief that the suspect object was an identifiable weapon.

[erika]

Excellent

[cassie_ragen]

Great answer, keep it coming