Respuesta :
There exists the same question that has the following choices.
A The case relied on testimony that incriminated the defendant.
B The Constitution forbids unreasonable search and seizure.
C The Constitution should be interpreted based on the intention of the writers.
D Individuals should be free to disobey laws involving government infringement.
The correct answer is C The Constitution should be interpreted based on the intention of the writers.
A The case relied on testimony that incriminated the defendant.
B The Constitution forbids unreasonable search and seizure.
C The Constitution should be interpreted based on the intention of the writers.
D Individuals should be free to disobey laws involving government infringement.
The correct answer is C The Constitution should be interpreted based on the intention of the writers.
I believe the answer is: The Constitution forbids unreasonable search and seizure.
The case revolve around the Cormstock law, which banned people in Connecticut from having an form of drugs or tools that can be used to prevent pregnancy. At that time, the law department conducted direct search and seizure in people's house to find these objects, and this was regarded as unreasonable search and seizure.