PLEASE PLEASE HELP WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST!! - 1. Why did workers in Poland form a special union?

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.

Arthur met rottweiler breeders lynda and george at a dog show in rhode island. the couple, who reside in new york state, later sold several rottweiler dogs to arthur who lived in rhode island. arthur later sued lynda and george, claiming that the dogs were sick and infirm. he filed a complaint in rhode island courts, claiming that even though the dogs were sold in new york, the breeders had attended the dog show and advertised in the rottweiler newsletter which was distributed at the event in rhode island. based on the facts, do you think rhode island courts have personal jurisdiction in this case?

As you drive in to school, you hear a random radio-show caller arguing that sun exposure really has not been shown to cause skin cancer and that some research suggests that skin cancer is completely genetic and not related to sun exposure at all. at the time, you think that this is a silly argument and that the caller does not know what she is talking about. however, two months later, you are outside without wearing sunscreen, and you find yourself remembering that you had read something about how the sun actually does not cause skin cancer. this process is evidence that has influenced your attitude