In katz v. united states, the supreme court ruled on whether police could tap a public phone without a warrant. identify one way in which the case is legally significant.

a. it determined the legal status of phone booths.
b. it established the idea of a reasonable expectation of privacy.
c. it led to new laws on who could issue warrants.
d. it increased the power of the supreme court.

Read this passage: the president has asked congress to consider a new antiterrorism law. the law would give law enforcement agencies more freedom to monitor suspected terrorists' phone calls, text messages, and internet usage. the law's supporters claim that it is an essential tool to keep americans safe from terrorism. its opponents claim that it infringes on their civil liberties by stripping them of the right to privacy. which action would the party opposing the president most likely take to resolve this issue? a. encourage its members to publicly attack the law to sway public opinion against it b. begin a campaign to have the president removed from office because of his proposal c. take the matter to federal court to prevent the party from having to support it d. demand that public safety issues be left to the states rather than the federal government (apex)