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.

Explanation:

may, in certain cases, search individuals or seize their property without a warrant – this is the correct answer. The fourth Amendment says that unreasonable searches are prohibited, and that police have to have a warrant to carry them out. However, these two cases ended up with the landmark decision by the Supreme court. Terry v. Ohio concluded that officers can stop the suspect and frisk with a reasonable suspicion that they have committed or planned to commit the crime. Horton v. California similarly concluded that police can collect evidence in plain view and that this is no violation of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, these cases were not against the Fourth Amendment, and the Supreme court held that if the police have a reasonable doubt that a person is suspicious they can frisk and size property in plain view.

must never, even with reasonable cause, carry out a stop and frisk – is not the right answer. Supreme Court decided that, if the cause is reasonable, police can carry the search without the warrant.

must always have a warrant to seize evidence, even if it is in plain view – is not the correct answer. The conclusion was that police don’t always have to have a warrant.

may never violate the Fourth Amendment protections concerning searches and seizures – this is not the right answer. These cases concluded that the Fourth Amendment can be omitted in reasonable cases.

elie wiesel is a holocaust survivor

explanation: