the supreme courts decisions in terry v. ohio (1967) and horton v. california (1990) both held that the…

the supreme courts decisions in terry v. ohio (1967) and horton v. california (1990) both held that the police\no may, in certain cases, search individuals or seize their property without a warrant.\no must never, even with reasonable cause, carry out a stop and frisk.\no must always have a warrant to seize evidence, even if it is in plain view.\no may never violate the fourth amendment protections concerning searches and seizures.

the supreme courts decisions in terry v. ohio (1967) and horton v. california (1990) both held that the police\no may, in certain cases, search individuals or seize their property without a warrant.\no must never, even with reasonable cause, carry out a stop and frisk.\no must always have a warrant to seize evidence, even if it is in plain view.\no may never violate the fourth amendment protections concerning searches and seizures.

Answer

Brief Explanations:

In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme - Court established the "stop - and - frisk" exception allowing police to search individuals for weapons without a warrant under certain circumstances. In Horton v. California, the Court held that evidence in plain view can be seized without a warrant under proper conditions. These decisions show that in certain cases, police can search individuals or seize property without a warrant.

Answer:

A. may, in certain cases, search individuals or seize their property without a warrant.