Ayuda para la tarea de derecho
Esta es una herramienta de asistencia legal basada en tecnología de procesamiento de lenguaje natural que puede ayudar a los usuarios a encontrar rápidamente textos legales y explicaciones relevantes ingresando preguntas o palabras clave. La ayuda para la asignación de leyes utiliza los modelos GPT de OpenAI para analizar de manera inteligente las dudas del usuario y brindar respuestas relacionadas con esas preguntas legales. Al mismo tiempo, el proyecto puede aprender y optimizarse continuamente en función de los comentarios de los usuarios.
La ayuda con la tarea de derecho es un asistente legal de IA basado en la API OpenAI y la base de datos pgvector que puede ayudar a los usuarios a consultar y comprender rápidamente las leyes y regulaciones de los estados de EE. UU. y los principales países del mundo. Vale la pena ayudar a la gente corriente a comprender y aplicar mejor la ley y mejorar los conocimientos jurídicos.
- In Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on whether police could tap a public phone without a warrant.Identify the test that resulted from this case. A. The imminent harmful action test B. The warrantless action test C. The clear and present danger test D. The expectation of privacy test
- In Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that tapping a public phone without a warrant violated the defendant's: A. right to avoid self-incrimination. B. freedom of assembly. C. protection against double jeopardy. D. protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
- Administrators at a high school are concerned that there may be drugs on campus. They decide to institute random backpack checks , although they do not have search warrants. According to the precedent established by New Jersey v. T.L.O., would the administrators' actions be legal? A. No, because backpack checks are an ineffective way to prevent students from bringing drugs to school. B. No, because schools may search students' belongings only if there is a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. C. Yes, because students are under 18 and therefore not protected by the Bill of Rights. D. Yes, because preventing drug use on high school campuses is an important part of creating a safe school environment.
- Which statement would most likely be made by an opponent of the Supreme Court's decision in Engel v. Vitale? A. Public institutions need to avoid any involvement with religious activity, even if it seems minor or harmless. B. People should not have to restrict their free exercise of religion just because they happen to be in a school. C. Religious activity in public schools is a dangerous violation of the separation of church and state. D. Students who do not practice a religion need to feel comfortable in and supported by their public schools.
- How did the Supreme Court's decision in Schenck v. United States affect free speech? A. It expanded it by saying that burning draft cards was a permitted form of symbolic speech. B. It expanded it by saying that speech intended to cause people to break the law was permitted. C. It limited it by saying that people could not dishonor the U.S. flag. D. It limited it by saying that opposition to the draft was a danger to the country during wartime.
