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.

First, it's important to say the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution demands the use of a warrant that specifies what the police is looking for and where. It also prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures because that would violate the individual rights.  

Horton v. California (1990) was a case where Terry Brice Horton accused the police for violating the Fourth Amendment for looking through his belongings without the proper warrant, but the Court decided that the police didn't violate the Fourth Amendment, because it was possible to search and seizure if there was possible evidence in plain view.

Likewise, Terry v. Ohio (1967) case decided that a police officer could search and seizure any person in the street without a warrant, if the policeman had a reasonable suspicion that the person is committing a crime, has committed a crime, will commit a crime or that is armed.

Thus, the right answer is the option "both held that the police may, in certain cases, search individuals or seize their property without a warrant".

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the use of a warrant that explains what and where the authorities are looking for.

To know the correct answer we first need to know the decision of the Supreme Court.

In Horton v. California (1990), Terry Brice Horton accused the police of breaching the Fourth Amendment by searching his things without a warrant.

However, the Court ruled that the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment since it was possible to conduct a search and seizure if possible evidence was in plain view.

The decision of Terry v. Ohio (1967) determined that a police officer could search and seize anyone on the street without a warrant.

if the officer had a reasonable suspicion that the individual is committing a crime, has committed a crime, will commit a crime, or is armed.

Thus, the right response is Option A, as stated in the Supreme Court decisions Terry v. Ohio (1967) and Horton v. California (1967). (1990).

For more information about Supreme, court Decisions refer to the link:

link

not really a history or a question at all.

explanation:

maybe this isn't the best place to ask this, maybe a social media platform like twitter or instagram? -austin