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 history of T cells
The life cycle of Plagiorhynchus cylindraceus, an intestinal parasite of birds.
Ernst Haeckel's Tree of Life (1879)
Romanian Adoptees’ Cognitive Abilities, by Age of Adoption The later the age of adoption, the lower
RNA polymerase subunit structures in the three domains of life
The science-based DRIs serve as the basis for information