Can United be convicted of a crime in these circumstances? Can Susan be held criminally liable?

IRAC method
Susan is the president of United Food Corporation, a wholesale grocery company. An inspection by Tim, a government agent, uncovers unsanitary conditions caused by Val, a United employee, in the United warehouse. Will, a United vice president, assures Tim that the situation will be corrected, but nothing is done, which a later inspection reveals. Susan knows nothing about any of this. Can United be convicted of a crime in these circumstances? Can Susan be held criminally liable?
Hardcore Cop arrests Randy for alleged bank robbery. Before he says anything else, Hardcore says, “You might as well admit it now and save us both a lot of time.” Randy looks at him and replies, “All right, I did it—are you happy?” Is Randy’s confession admissible? Why/ why not?
Hardcore Cop enters a house with a valid search warrant that states he can search for and seize any firearms such as guns, pistols. However, Hardcore sees a large bag of cocaine lying on the coffee table and seizes that as well. Cocaine owner claims Cop had no right to take cocaine. Who wins and why?
must address each issue, rule, application, and conclusion.
**ANSWER**
**Issue:** Can United Food Corporation be convicted of a crime in the circumstances described? Can Susan be held criminally liable?
**Rule:** A corporation can be held criminally liable for the acts of its employees if the employee is acting within the scope of their employment. The president of a corporation can also be held criminally liable for the acts of their employees if the president knew about the acts and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent them.
**Application:** In this case, Val, a United employee, caused unsanitary conditions in the United warehouse. Will, a United vice president, assured a government agent that the situation would be corrected, but nothing was done. Susan, the president of United, knew nothing about any of this.
It is possible that United could be held criminally liable for the unsanitary conditions in the warehouse, even though Susan did not know about them. This is because Will, a vice president, assured a government agent that the situation would be corrected. This suggests that Will was acting within the scope of his employment, and that United should be held liable for his actions.
However, it is unlikely that Susan could be held criminally liable for the unsanitary conditions in the warehouse. This is because Susan had no knowledge of the situation and did not fail to take reasonable steps to prevent it.
**Conclusion:** United Food Corporation could be held criminally liable for the unsanitary conditions in the warehouse, even though Susan did not know about them. However, it is unlikely that Susan could be held criminally liable for the unsanitary conditions in the warehouse.
**Issue:** Is Randy’s confession admissible?
**Rule:** A confession is admissible in court if it is voluntary. A confession is not voluntary if it is the result of coercion or duress.
**Application:** In this case, Hardcore Cop told Randy that he might as well admit it now and save them both a lot of time. This statement could be construed as coercion or duress. As a result, Randy’s confession may not be admissible in court.
**Conclusion:** Randy’s confession may not be admissible in court because it was the result of coercion or duress.
**Issue:** Who wins in the case of Hardcore Cop seizing cocaine from a house with a search warrant for firearms?
**Rule:** Police are only allowed to seize items that are covered by the search warrant.
**Application:** In this case, Hardcore Cop had a search warrant for firearms. However, he also seized cocaine, which was not covered by the search warrant.
The cocaine owner is likely to win this case because Hardcore Cop did not have the right to seize the cocaine.
**Conclusion:** The cocaine owner is likely to win this case because Hardcore Cop did not have the right to seize the cocaine.