I have attached 5 pages of description and it has all what you need to do with the case study it's 4 pages what you need to write please answer the questions completely and keep it simple en

What is the value of revenue management?What is Duetto’s product? What is its value proposition?What is the Information System design at the heart of the initiative? How has Duetto architected its technology and business infrastructure in order to deliver its service?Is Duetto a success? What metrics would you use to measure success? Would you invest in it as a spinoff business?If Duetto is successful in getting traction do you think it will be a sustainable business? Could competitors easily imitate it?a.Title page (APA) b.Case overview c.Case Questions d.Alternative analysis (Another point of view?) e.Conclusion f.References (APA) g.headings and sub-headings

Answer the discussion below and put the answers under the bullets to help organization. Also respond to the two peer post below using the guidelines marked with ****.After reviewing Georgia v. Randolph and Fernandez v. California, answer the following questions:What defenses, if any, were asserted in these cases?How did these cases impact law enforcement and prosecutors?Do you agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions?Were these decisions consistent with each other? How does consistency in legal decisions positively and negatively impact law-enforcement officers and attorneys?****Review the posts of your fellow learners and respond to at least two. In your response posts, you must do one or more of the following:Ask an analytical question.Offer a suggestion.Elaborate on a particular point.Provide an alternative opinion supported with research.Be sure to support your initial post and follow-up posts with scholarly examples from the module readings and additional literature where appropriate. You must cite all references according to APA style.Case Review: Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006)This reading will prepare you for the first discussion in this module.Case Review: Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1126 (2014)This reading will prepare you for the first discussion in this module.Peer post 1Both cases did provide a great insight to what capabilities and standards the fourth Amendment has. In the case of Georgia vs. Randolph, the police were able to gain entry into the house because the wife called in a domestic dispute. That automatically turns into a safety concern. While conducting a check up the officers were told about illegal drug use being conducted in the house. The wife told them about the situation and consented to a search. The husband did not consent. Police found evidence of drug use and obtain a search warrant. The husband was then indicted on illegal possession of cocaine. The husband tried to suppress the matter saying that the drugs were found in the result of an illegal search which is violation of his Fourth Amendment. But the wife had common authority to the dwelling, so her say is as good as his. Which in my opinion makes the entire case valid especially the original call to the home. Which was also a domestic disturbance issue. So the welfare of the people in the dwelling are paramount. Then to add to all this the wife told the police what was going on a led them to it. The entire case is valid.With Fernandez v. California the petitioner was arrest/detained and taken away due to safety concerns in regards to other parties involved. But while he was there he denied a search of his home while his woman was there. However, once he was taken away the woman did consent to a search and only denied because the fear of retribution. The court ruled that again she had enough power because she owned the dwelling he was living in. . However, the removal of the intimidator, relinquishes any factor. Therefore allowing the consent to search and making it reasonable.The Fourth Amendments is one of the most trickiest and hardest Amendments law enforcement and prosecutors must deal with. However, if done correctly one of the strongest aids to law enforcement. These cases only emphasize the importance of situational awareness and the need for warrants. If the situations in which these law enforcement officers were not dealing with domestic dispute issues. The issuance of warrants will be needed. But since the protection of people was involved that takes precedence over others.I do agree with their ruling on both cases. First case was a domestic dispute, turns it into a safety concerns and the wife turned the evidence to the police also they gained consent via an equal dwelling party. The second case, the man was removed from the property and the owner of the property gave the police consent and they withdrew illegal firearms.They both were consistent with each other. Both cases had someone of power over the living area give consent to search the living area. Giving law enforcement all the rights to what they find. It positively impacts because it shows one image across the board. Resulting in the inability for people to use this case as an aid to anything else. Also it shows the outreach of the Fourth Amendment. However, it does impact it negatively because there are specific criteria now that has to be fulfilled in order for search to fall underneath the Fourth Amendment.Peer post 2In the case Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), a Motion to Suppress was filed by the Defendant for the seizure of the cocaine in his residence arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. His argument was that he did not give law enforcement consent to search his residence. However, his wife did give consent, and under the Fourth Amendment, “actual common authority over the premises is not required; it is sufficient if the searching officer had a reasonable but mistaken belief that the third party had common authority and could consent to the search” (Justia, (2019), p.1”). Under these circumstances, I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to deny the Motion to Suppress.In the case Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1126 (2014), a Motion to Suppress was filed under lack of consent to search because the Defendant was not present to give consent. However, the other occupant of the premises did give consent. The issue that is different in this case is that Fernandez was under arrest at the time permission from the other party was given, and was not present. However, under the Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights “as long as officers have an objectively reasonable basis to remove the defendant (that is, the officers’ subjective motive for removal is irrelevant), the co-occupant’s later consent is sufficient. In this case, the officers properly removed Fernandez so that they could speak with the alleged assault victim outside of Fernandez’s intimidating presence. Also, there was probable cause to arrest Fernandez for assault” (Farb, B., (2019) p. 1).Every individual is entitled to Fourth Amendment rights, which are unreasonable searches and seizures. Law enforcement and prosecutors need to be careful that they seek warrants when applicable, and do not infringe on someone’s personals rights against unlawful searches and seizures. In both of these cases, consent was given by a third party, which under the fourth amendment, has been deemed lawful. The Fernandez case was a bit different in that the search of the person was not present, and was in fact lawfully under arrest. That is an exception to the co-party, or third-party consent law. The party must not be present for a valid reason, and being under arrest is a lawful and acceptable one.I agree with these Supreme Court decisions as the parties that gave consent, in George v. Randolph, was his spouse and had the legal right to do so as she had ownership over the property. While the person in Fernandez v. California was not the perpetrator’s spouse, she was a legal owner of the property and therefore had the right to provide consent to search. Had they been random visitors, then I do not believe they would have any right to give consent.I think both cases were consistent with each other even though some of the facts were different, especially the fact that Fernandez was not present to give consent. It is extremely important for our Supreme Court judges to rule on cases in a similar and consistent fashion, and to follow the laws handed down by previous cases. If case law is not consistent, the laws that are in place will not be consistent as well, which negates the purpose of having laws in the first place. Laws can be changed, and that is why we have the Supreme Court in place. But consistency must occur so all citizens’ rights are protected fairly.