a legal only if the police had a warrant
b.acceptable under international law
c. a violation of diplomatic immunity
2007-07-14 15:02:54 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I'll guess C.
2007-07-14 15:06:52 · answer #1 · answered by vladoviking 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1
2016-06-10 15:50:27 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I considered letter A- legal only if the police had a warrant, what embassy you have in mind here? Czech republic?
We all know that the embassy is the extension of their respective country in another country, it is like a home away from home, so even the host country cannot invade that privacy either diplomatically or otherwise.
And no judge would rendered a warrant invading a foreign embassy because of immunity from any kind of suit.
2007-07-15 00:29:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
A violation of diplomatic immunity, if not an outright act of war. Police have no jurisdiction outside the US, and emassies are the sovereign territory of the country in question, not of the US.
2007-07-14 15:09:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
not one of the above. it is lined via the distant places Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. often, a distant places embassy has jurisdictional immunity. interior sight courts haven't any jurisdiction over those embassies different than in 7 situations. finding the distant places embassy isn't certainly one of those. And it is extra of sovereign immunity extremely than diplomatic immunity.
2016-11-09 08:36:07 · answer #5 · answered by kujala 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
B or C, depending on the context.
There are specific exceptions to the general diplomatic immunity provisions that allow for searches in some rare cases.
2007-07-14 15:10:19 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
C and grounds for a declaration of war against the United States of America. What are you waiting for?
2007-07-14 15:07:03 · answer #7 · answered by St N 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
c...watch 24 or james bond
2007-07-14 15:08:32 · answer #8 · answered by Hector 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋