Author: Anonymous

On March 15, a police officer submitted an application for a warrant to search 342 Main Street for cocaine. In the application, the officer stated under oath that he believed there was cocaine at that location because of information supplied to him on the morning of March 15 by an informant. He described the informant as a cocaine user who had previously supplied accurate information concerning the use of cocaine in the community and summarized what the informant had told him as follows: the previous night, March 14, she was in the house at 342 Main Street. The occupant gave her cocaine. She also saw three cellophane bags containing cocaine in his bedroom. The warrant was issued and a search of 342 Main Street was conducted on March 15. The search turned up a quantity of marijuana but no cocaine. The occupant was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana. The occupant moved to suppress the use of the marijuana as evidence, contending that the informant was not in 342 Main Street on March 14 or at any other time. If, after hearing evidence, the judge concludes that the statement in the application attributed to the informant is incorrect, the judge should grant the motion to suppress:

The police had accumulated reliable information that Tom, a drug dealer, was operating a large cocaine distribution network, that he and his accomplices often resorted to violence, and that they kept a small arsenal of weapons in Tom’s home. One day, the police received reliable information that a large blue suitcase with leather straps containing a supply of cocaine had been delivered to Tom’s home and that it was to be moved to a distribution point the next morning. The police obtained a valid search warrant to search for and seize the blue suitcase. When the police arrived at Tom’s house, they knocked on the door and called out, “Police. Open up. We have a search warrant.” After a few seconds with no response, the police forced open the door and entered. Hearing noises in the basement, they ran down there and found the dealer with a large blue suitcase with leather straps. They seized the suitcase and put handcuffs on Tom. A search of Tom’s person revealed a switchblade knife and a .45-caliber pistol. The police then fanned out through the house, looking in every room and closet. They found no one else, but one officer found an automatic weapon in a box on a closet shelf in Tom’s bedroom. In addition to charges relating to the cocaine in the suitcase, Tom has been charged with unlawful possession of weapons. Tom moved pretrial to suppress the weapons seized by the police. Should Tom’s motion to suppress the automatic weapon be granted?

After being convicted of possession of cocaine, Manny was on parole. Police suspected that Manny was selling cocaine out of his home. Richard, Manny’s parole officer, went to Manny’s house and rang the bell. As soon as Manny opened the door, and despite Manny’s protests, Richard entered the home. Richard searched the home and discovered several bags of heroin in a closet. Police arrested Manny and charged him with possession of heroin with intent to sell. A statute in that jurisdiction provides that, as a condition of parole, a parole officer may conduct a search of the parolee’s person or home, without probable cause, at any time of the day or night. Manny moved to have evidence of the heroin suppressed by the court, claiming that the state statute that authorized the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Will Manny prevail?

In Adora Svitak’s TED talk, she calls upon adults to do more of the following:

Your firm represents an individual who was injured in a car accident that occurred in Dallas County between your client, a resident of Harris County, and Defendant, a resident of Dallas County.  The damages are expected to be well under $100,000.  Your firm filed a lawsuit in Harris County District Court.  Defendant filed a motion to transfer venue, a general denial, and removed the case to federal court.  Defendant claims that the request for punitive damages in the lawsuit violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and gives rise to a federal claim. Is the removal proper?  Why or why not?

Your firm represents an individual who was injured in a car accident that occurred in Dallas County between your client, a resident of Harris County, and Defendant, a resident of Dallas County.  The damages are expected to be well under $100,000.  Your firm filed a lawsuit in Harris County District Court.  Defendant filed a motion to transfer venue, a general denial, and removed the case to federal court. Assuming that the motion to remand was successful and that you pleaded level 2 discovery in your petition, when does discovery begin and how long will the discovery period last?

The two main personality attitudes proposed by Jung were _______.

In this image, what is the name of the area of the brain that the tamping iron has gone through?

______ is the loss of self-awareness and self-restraint in a group situation that fosters arousal and anonymity.

Which of the following has been called the “common cold of disorders?”