Following up on a tip that there is drug trafficking going on in a particular apartment, you knock on the door and ask if it is okay to enter. The person who answers the door gives you permission and even says it's okay to look around. Under the couch cushions in the living room you discover a baggie containing illegal drugs. You arrest all residents of the apartment for possession. At the trial, the defense attorney argues that the person who answered the door was only a roommate and did not have the authority to give permission for the search without all other residents being present. This argument is dismissed on what principle?

Explanation:

He is not the only decision maker of that room, and he never had the right to give permission to search the room, even thou u had the warrant to search the room. It is also possible he planted the drug on purpose to implicate his room mate, we don't know his motive. So the argument was dismissed because no tangible fact is given about the room mate permission to search the room.

50% because no one is smart enough to relize that money makes the world go round and 99% of the earth hates donald trump the other 1% is the republicans go figure right

the question deals with financial planning and the answer is that dan did not stay on budget due to the fact that this guy needs to start decreasing his discretionary spending. according to the financial plan, he needed to balance his expenses and resources.