Legal Analysis Memo Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Legal Analysis Memo - Case Study ExampleDid patrol officers uphold the 4th amendment of the united States constitution, when they entered Mr. smiths home without a warrant, simply after investigate an noise complaint and observing what were thought to be illegal activities through the window, then seizing Marijuana, cocaine and unregistered firearms? Do police shake up enough evidence to convict him of distribution? The state should be eachowed to use the evidence gained, because Mr. Blake does non have a reasonable expectation for concealment within Mr. Smiths home. They do not have enough evidence to convict Mr. Blake with possession of firearms because the firearms could have belonged to anyone. They also do not have enough evidence to convict him with distribution of cocaine, because the act of him transferring a livid bag to someone else is ambiguous, and there is not enough evidence to corroborate the crime. Rule The 4th amendment of the United States Constitution pr ovides The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, sh whole not be violated, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (US Constitution). However, the owner of the property may consent to the search. Also the person must have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In Minnesota Vs. Carter, the courts ruled that a guest at some other persons residence does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy (unless they argon spending the night), and thus are not protected to a lower place the forth amendment (Minnesota vs. Carter). Also, officers are allowed to seize anything in plain view during lawful observation. Analysis On the grounds that police officers made observations through the window before Mr. Smith authorized a search of his property, Mr. Blake could f ile a motion to have all evidence stemming from those observations to be discarded under the 4th amendment. However, if the court grants that motion the evidence will stand, because as seen in Minnesota Vs. Carter, if you are a guest in another persons home, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy and you are not protected under the fourth amendment (Minnesota vs. Carter). Even though Mr. Blake runs a business with Mr. Smith in the basement of the home, it still is not technically his home, and according to Minnesota vs. Carter, you are given a significantly less expectation of privacy in the commercial arena anyhow (Minnesota vs. Carter). Thus the evidence observed from the window as fountainhead as the evidence found after Mr. Smith consented for the officers to enter the home can be utilise in court. The firearms were in plain view when the police entered the home, so those can be used as well. Even though the evidence must stand, there is not enough evidence to conv ict Mr. Blake of all of the crimes he is being charged with. The police report states they observed Mr. Blake hand a baggie of white demolish to someone standing near the couch. They then found a large amount of cocaine in Blakes possession, cash, and a small amount of cocaine in a strangers possessions. magical spell the law states that the government need not prove he received anything of value in return, the detail that they didnt see him receive anything makes it tough to prove he was actually distributing the cocaine. While not the closely intuitive explanation, it