Fourth Amendment Precedent

Match each case with the precedent it established.

Horton v. California

Officers can legally carry out a stop and

frisk

Mapp v. Ohio

Officers can gather evidence that is in

plain view

Terry v. Ohio

Convictions cannot be based on

evidence from an illegal search.

Please see below for answer.

Explanation: Matching each case with the precedent it established we have ,

Terry v. Ohioofficers can legally carry out a stop and frisk

Horton v. CaliforniaOfficers can gather evidence that is in plain view

Mapp v. Ohioconvictions cannot be based on evidence from an illegal search.

The Fourth Amendment ensures only  a fair process for  searches and  for seizures and it  states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon Probable cause."

Terry v. Ohio

s the president shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the united states, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the united states; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments. sooo yeahhh

explanation:

the virginia plan called for three branches of government and two houses of congress. representation in each house would be determined by population. the new jersey plan called for three branches of government and a single house of congress. each state would have an equal vote.