OK so I need to write an essay and I will do that but I need your guyses help. this is the question I am given and this is what I chose Rights granted to teenagers. as in what kind of rights do you teenagers want if you have to commit because I cant choose something i want because of my family's strict rules. The question is... For this assignment, you must first do research to find out who your local representatives are, and then you must compose a formal letter to your representative proposing a new bill that you would like to be brought to the house. You may choose from the following options as to what your bill is about. 1. Environmental law 2. Education law 3. Rights granted to teenagers

A. in weeks v. united states (1914), the court established the exclusionary rule, which was incorporated to the states in mapp v. ohio (1961), and the court established the concept of a "good faith exception" to the exclusionary rule in united states v. leon (1984). in their opinion, the supreme court pointed out that compliance with the exclusionary rule can have a cost to society (criminals can go free) that outweighs the benefits (stopping illegal searches by police). ultimately, the court determined that despite the exclusionary rule, evidence can still be admitted in situations where police made genuine "good faith" efforts to act legally, but technically acted illegally, in obtaining the evidence. explain the exclusionary rule good faith exception and explain and support whether you agree or disagree with the concept of a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule? why or why not? use the lesson notes and/or one news source to support your answer.

Ineed because i cannot find the answers anywhere

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.