Blog

Solve the problem.Suppose you pay $1.00 to roll a fair die with the understanding that you will get back $3.00 for rolling 3 or 6. What are your expected winnings?

A manufacturing company wants to maximize profits on products A, B, and C. The profit margin is $3 for A, $6 for B, and $15 for C. The production requirements and departmental capacities are as follows: What are the constants in the model?

The password is pax tacum

High-performance organizations such as magnet hospitals recognize the importance of attracting and retaining talented employees.

The nurse has just finished the shift handoff report.  Which patient should the nurse assess first?

Three uniformed police officers after viewing a video showing Bill burglarizing a local coin shop, obtained an arrest warrant for Bill. Late in the afternoon, the uniformed Police knocked on Bill’s door. A woman answered the door and identified herself as Bill’s wife and confirmed she lived at the house. The police asked for Bill, and she stated Bill was at work.  Police asked if they could come in and wait for Bill.  The wife answered, “sure” and she stepped aside and made a motion with her hand to the seats in the living room.   Bill arrived and entered the living room where the police were waiting, and Bill was placed in handcuffs and arrested.  Police asked Bill if they could “look around.” Bill said, “No” Police patted down Bill and found an illegal gun in his pants pocket. They looked around the living room where the arrest was made and on the television found three coins marked with the coin dealer’s business sales tags.  The police then searched the main upstairs bedroom and found 5 more dealer marked coins. Assume No Search Warrant was issued. There was a pre-trial motion to suppress and exclude the evidence found. Was the police entry lawful? Is Bill’s Arrest Valid? Should the gun found on Bill and the three coins found on the television in the living room be excluded? Should the five coins found in the upstairs bedroom be excluded?

Within minutes after hearing gunshots from the neighboring house belonging to Nancy, Randy called the police. When the police arrived, two officers entered the unlocked front door with guns drawn. They observed a man lying on the floor. The victim had been shot in the stomach and was unconscious. While one officer called an ambulance, the other began to search Nancy’s house, looking for the gunman. When the officer opened a closet door in the master bedroom, he observed several small bags containing a white substance. Based on experience and training, the officer had probable cause to believe the contents were cocaine. The officer seized the bags. The officer then entered the kitchen and noticed the back door was open. He observed a gun on the ground a few feet from the doorstep. Subsequent investigation revealed that the gunshot victim was Nancy’s cousin, and that the bags did indeed contain cocaine. Nancy was charged with unlawful possession of cocaine. Nancy filed a motion to suppress the evidence, claiming that the officers’ entry and subsequent search were unlawful. Should the court grant Nancy’s motion?

The police suspected that Luke, a 17-year-old high school student of selling marijuana to his classmates. Luke lived with his mother. The police went to the mother’s house without a search warrant and secured permission from Luke’s mother to search Luke’s bedroom. In his bedroom, they found a locked suitcase under the bed. Luke’s mother said that it was Luke’s suitcase, but that they could search it. The police then broke the suitcase’s lock, opened the suitcase, and found a substantial amount of marijuana. Luke has been charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and brings a pretrial motion to suppress the marijuana as evidence. How should the court rule on the motion?

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?