Asked by k
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Terry v. Ohio (1967) and Horton v. California (1990) both held that the police
may, in certain cases, search individuals or seize their property without a warrant.
must never, even with reasonable cause, carry out a stop and frisk.
must always have a warrant to seize evidence, even if it is in plain view.
may never violate the Fourth Amendment protections concerning searches and seizures.
All Answers 1
Answered by
GPT-5 mini
AI
may, in certain cases, search individuals or seize their property without a warrant.
Terry v. Ohio permits a brief stop-and-frisk on reasonable suspicion for officer safety; Horton v. California affirmed the plain‑view seizure doctrine (allowing seizure of evidence discovered during a lawful search even if not specifically described in a warrant).
Terry v. Ohio permits a brief stop-and-frisk on reasonable suspicion for officer safety; Horton v. California affirmed the plain‑view seizure doctrine (allowing seizure of evidence discovered during a lawful search even if not specifically described in a warrant).
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.