Who was the governor in 1834

Two police officers stopped a car for a minor traffic violation. while one of the officers dealt with the driver and the traffic violation, the other officer talked with the passenger. seeking to question the passenger about gang involvement, but lacking reasonable suspicions of criminal activity, the officer ordered the passenger out of the car. as the passenger exited the car, the officer saw a bulge in the passenger's coat which the officer suspected might be a gun. upon patting down the passenger, the officer felt the handle of a revolver and removed the gun. the passenger, who was a convicted felon, was charged with the possession of a gun by a prohibited possessor. prior to trial, the defendant sought to suppress the gun as evidence, contending that its seizure was unconstitutional. should the court suppress the gun as evidence? ayes, because, since the car had been stopped for a traffic violation, the officer could not order the passenger, who had not committed the violation, to exit the car. byes, because, since the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that the passenger was engaged in criminal activity, the officer could not pat down the passenger. cno, because a valid traffic stop gives an officer the right to pat down a passenger. dno, because the gun was discovered as a consequence of a valid terry stop and frisk.

Alexander hamilton was one of the most important of the founding fathers. which of the following is he responsible for? select all that apply.

Ahusband who believed that his wife was having an affair with his brother hired an arsonist to burn down the brother's house. they planned for the husband to take his brother to a ballgame so that the arsonist would be able to set the house on fire without detection. after the husband and brother left for the ballgame, however, the arsonist decided to abandon the plan and immediately left town without doing anything further. when the husband returned from the ballgame with the brother, he saw the house still standing and blurted out what was supposed to have happened. the husband and the arsonist were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit arson. at the arsonist's trial, his attorney argued that he was innocent of the conspiracy because he decided not to go ahead with the plan, and nothing criminal had in fact occurred. at common law, how should a jury find the arsonist? a not guilty of conspiracy, because going to a ballgame is not a criminal overt act. b not guilty of conspiracy, because the husband, not the arsonist, committed the overt act. c guilty, because the husband executed his part of the plan. d guilty, because the arsonist agreed to set the brother's house on fire.