Legal Analysis Memorandum
Pretend you are a new associate at a criminal defense firm in Washington DC. Write a three-page internal memorandum to your supervising attorney regarding the legal issues of this particular fact pattern (see the memorandum from your supervisor below). Structure your paper as follows: Focus your analysis on the Fourth Amendment and its right-to-privacy aspects. Using the criminal statute provided, compare the two legal cases indicated below using only the links supplied below with the facts to determine whether the rules from those cases apply to the facts. It is a given that the criminal statutes provided apply. In addition, use your textbook, include at least once (one citation) as secondary source material to support your explanation of the issues of this fact pattern or to support your legal opinion. No other material should be used for this assignment. Structure the body of your memo to the supervising attorney using the IRAC method: I. Issue: Explain the material facts presented in the memo from the supervising attorney, and clearly state whether the drugs and/or guns found should be admissible or not. II. Rule: Address the relevant criminal procedure issues, the applicable fundamental rights established by the Fourth Amendment, and the issues and rules clarified in the case law given that are relevant to whether the drugs found on Mr. Blake should be admissible or not. (e.g., stop and frisk, plain view) III. Analysis: Using the relevant facts presented, determine whether or not they meet the requirements set out in the DC Code, the amendments, or Mapp v. Ohio and Minnesota v. Carter regarding the admissibility of evidence (drugs and guns) in the criminal prosecution against Mr. Blake. IV. Conclusion: Restate your legal opinion. Case Law Supplied by the Firm's Law Librarian Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961) http://www(dot)law(dot)cornell(dot)edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0367_0643_ZO.html Minnesota v. Carter 525 U.S. 83 (1998) http://www(dot)law(dot)cornell(dot)edu/supct/html/97-1147.ZO.html Criminal Statutes provided by the Firm's Law Librarian (Use ONLY the elements of the crime as described below.) Possession of a Controlled Substance Type of Offense: Misdemeanor. DC Code Citation: §48-904.01, §48-904.08 Charge Elements: The elements of this offense are as follows: 1. The defendant possessed a controlled substance. 2. The defendant did so knowingly and intentionally. This means consciously, voluntarily, and on purpose, not mistakenly, accidentally, or inadvertently. Possession of a Controlled Substance Type of Offense: Felony. DC Code Citation: §48-904.01 Charge Elements: The elements of this offense are as follows: 1. The defendant distributed a controlled substance. To distribute means to transfer or to attempt to transfer an item to another person. The government need not prove that the defendant received or expected to receive anything of value in return. 2. The defendant distributed the controlled substance knowingly and intentionally. This means consciously, voluntarily, and on purpose, not mistakenly, accidentally, or inadvertently. 3. When the defendant distributed the controlled substance, he was at least 21 years of age. 4. When he distributed the controlled substance, the person to whom the substance was distributed was under 18 years old. 5. The amount or quantity of the controlled substance distributed was ____ grams or more. In the District of Columbia, if the controlled substance is marijuana and this is the offender's first conviction for distribution and/or possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, then the maximum exposure of incarceration is 180 days. Unregistered Firearm Type of Offense: Felony/Misdemeanor. DC Code Citation: §7-2502.01, §7-2507.06 Charge Elements: The elements of this offense are as follows: 1. The defendant knowingly possessed a firearm. 2. The defendant did so knowingly and intentionally. 3. The defendant had not registered the firearm as required by District of Columbia law, or the defendant possessed a pistol or firearm in his dwelling place or place of business or on other land possessed by the defendant that could have been registered. 4. The defendant knowingly distributed a firearm to a person under 18 years of age, or the defendant had a prior conviction for a violation of this section, in which cases, the offense is a felony. Fact Pattern supplied by your Supervisor Memorandum To: Junior Associate From: Supervising Attorney Re: DC v. Blake Mr. Jonathan Blake, a new client of the firm, recently requested our legal services in a criminal matter. Mr. Blake was recently arrested for possession of a controlled substance by the Metropolitan Police Department. According to Mr. Blake, the facts are as follows: Jessie Smith and his wife are the co-owners of a residence at 3630 16th St. NW, Washington DC, 20015. Jessie Smith and Jonathan Blake run a catering business in the Smiths' basement. Jonathan Blake was at the Smiths' house on Sunday, February 6, 2011, watching the Super Bowl. Mr. Blake and two other guests were sitting on the couch watching television and smoking marijuana. The Smiths' home has a very large living room window. Police officers responded to a call from a neighbor about noise emanating from the Smith household. Officers observed Mr. Blake and his friends smoking marijuana through the large living room window. Officers also observed Mr. Blake hand a baggie of white powder to someone standing near the couch. Officers then knocked on the door. After hiding the drugs, Mr. Smith opened the door and granted the officers access. When the officers came inside, they informed Mr. Blake and his friends that they had witnessed the transfer of a baggie of white powder between Mr. Blake and another gentleman and that everyone in the room had been observed smoking marijuana through the living room window. Police then observed what looked like a shotgun sandwiched between the cushions of the couch near Mr. Blake. Upon further inspection, the officers discovered three other guns underneath the same couch. The ownership of all four confiscated firearms is in dispute. The officers then conducted a pat-down search of Mr. Blake and everyone else in the room. The officers found that Mr. Blake had on his person a large amount of suspected marijuana, suspected cocaine, and money ($400). Another occupant of the room had a baggie of suspected cocaine (white powder). Mr. Blake was then charged with possession of a controlled substance, distribution of a controlled substance, and possession of an unregistered firearm. Format Requirements Paper should be three pages (750 words) Double space 12 pt. font 1" margins Use APA citations for all sources Include APA reference page (not included in word count)
Legal Analysis
Name:
Institution:
To: Supervising Attorney
From: Junior Associate
Re: DC v. Blake
In the case between District of Columbia and Blake, there are a few pointers that stand out. One of the aspects about the case that stands out regards the material facts that have been presented. When Blake and his friends were arrested after being searched and contraband recovered through body and property search, they were in the living room. The officers are said to have come to the scene after receiving a call from one of the neighbors complaining about the noise. Looking through the window, the officers made out what looked like, the occupants of the house at the time smoking marijuana and passing around a baggie that contained white powder (Law.cornell.edu, 1998). At the time of the incidence, the occupants were seated in the living room and the officers got access to their private space through the window. When the officers knocked at the door, the occupants of the house had hidden the marijuana. According to fourth amendment, the police officers have the right to confiscate any contraband or suspected material in the plain site without a warrant and use it as evidence in a court of law to convict those found in possession for a crime (Law.cornell.edu, 2014). In this case, the police entered the residence and started searching Blake and his friends to recover the evidence. It is crucial to note that, by the time the officers came to the door to knock they did not have any evidence (Law.cornell.edu, 1998).
At the same time, while the prosecution may claim that the officers had probable cause, Blake and his friends did not act suspicious. If indeed Blake and his friends say the officers peeping through the window, and rushed away from the officers’ view in a way to indicate that they wanted to discard evidence, then the officers would have had probable cause. At the same time, with reference to the guns; the officers looked at the seat cushions and suspected that there was something suspicious underneath. Like in the first case, the officers did not have a warranty to such the house and violate the privacy of the occupants without probable cause. If the guns had been lying in plain site, they would have been admissible in court. However, the officers had to move other objects in this case the cushions to access the evidence. This makes both the drugs and the guns as evidence inadmissible in court, as they were acquired wrongfully against the law. The defendants can claim the fourth amendment for the violations of the privacy without due cause (Law.cornell.edu, 2014).
According to the procedure recognized by the law, searchi...