Memorandum of Law: Search and Seizure

at
Categories
Tags

 

Kevin Whalling, Chief Counsel for the Whalling Law Group, PLLC must appear in court on behalf of his client, Radical Earth, concerning a recent warrantless City of Phoenix police search of Radical Earth members at a DUI checkpoint in Phoenix, AZ.

Radical Earth believes that governments are not taking enough affirmative steps to combat climate change and has occasionally advocated for the overthrow of fascist government and corporate senators. Police believe the group may be involved in an assassination plot to murder members of the World Bank.

Concerned with their radical beliefs, police set up DUI checkpoints near Radical Earth headquarters under the belief they would have the opportunity to stop and search members of the group under the pretext of a DUI checkpoint. On the third night of the DUI checkpoints, members of Radical Earth are stopped at a DUI checkpoint and asked to exit the vehicle where a pat down search occurred, and inventory of their personal effects were taken. No members of Radical Earth were, in fact, intoxicated at the time of the stop and search.

Following the stop at the DUI checkpoint, several members of Radical Earth were charged with criminal conspiracy and attempted murder.

This is a highly politized case with significant charges. Mr. Whalling is weighing different defense options for his clients, one of which is contesting the warrantless search of Radical Earth members at the DUI checkpoint.

Mr. Whalling has asked you to prepare a memorandum of law concerning search and seizure to determine the validity of the search to make a persuasive argument in court. Mr. Whalling needs you to discuss the following elements:

Define the elements of the Search and Seizure Amendment and explain what they mean.
Determine why the founding fathers included a provision in the Bill of Rights pertaining to search and seizure.
Consider DUI checkpoints. Should DUI checkpoints be legal given the provisions of search and seizure as defined by the Bill of Rights? Defend your rationale.

Sample Solution

MEMORANDUM

To: Kevin Whalling, Chief Counsel, Whalling Law Group, PLLC From: [Your Name] Date: [Date] Re: Search and Seizure Implications of DUI Checkpoints

  1. Introduction

This memorandum addresses the Fourth Amendment implications of DUI checkpoints, specifically as they relate to the warrantless search of Radical Earth members. To provide a foundation for analysis, we will first define the elements of the Fourth Amendment and its historical context. We will then apply these principles to the specific context of DUI checkpoints.

  1. The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, 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.”

  1. edfolsomlaw.com

 

edfolsomlaw.com

 

  1. ca.wikipedia.org

 

ca.wikipedia.org

 

The Amendment guarantees two primary rights:

  1. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures: This protects individuals from arbitrary government intrusion into their lives and property.
  2. Warrant requirement: Generally, searches conducted by law enforcement must be authorized by a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate based on probable cause.

III. The Rationale Behind the Fourth Amendment

The Founding Fathers included the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights to safeguard individual liberty and protect citizens from governmental overreach. They recognized the potential for abuse of power by the government and sought to establish clear limits on law enforcement authority. The warrant requirement, in particular, was designed to prevent general searches and seizures and to ensure that searches are based on specific and articulable facts.

  1. DUI Checkpoints and the Fourth Amendment

DUI checkpoints present a complex issue in the context of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. On the one hand, they are undoubtedly searches, as they involve a government intrusion into an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. On the other hand, they are designed to serve a compelling governmental interest: preventing drunk driving, which causes countless deaths and injuries each year.

The Supreme Court has addressed the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints in several cases, notably Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990). The Court upheld the practice of DUI checkpoints, finding that the government’s interest in preventing drunk driving outweighs the minimal intrusion on individual liberty caused by the brief stop.

However, the Court also imposed several requirements to ensure that checkpoints are conducted in a lawful manner:

  • Fixed checkpoints: Checkpoints must be operated according to a fixed checkpoint plan, rather than on an ad hoc basis.
  • Neutral stops: Vehicles must be stopped on a neutral basis, without targeting specific individuals.
  • Brief encounters: The duration of the stop must be brief and limited to determining whether the driver is impaired.
  • Officer training: Officers must be trained to quickly identify signs of impairment.
  1. Application to the Case

In the case of Radical Earth, several factors must be considered:

  • Was the DUI checkpoint conducted lawfully? Did it comply with the guidelines established in Sitz? Were there indications of targeting Radical Earth members?
  • Did the search exceed the scope of a lawful DUI stop? The pat-down search and inventory of personal effects may have gone beyond the permissible limits of a DUI checkpoint.
  • Was there reasonable suspicion or probable cause to justify the expanded search? If not, the search may be deemed unlawful.

It is crucial to carefully analyze the facts of the case and to build a strong legal argument based on the Fourth Amendment principles outlined above.

  1. Conclusion

While DUI checkpoints are generally considered constitutional, the specific circumstances of this case require a thorough examination of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. A careful analysis of the facts and applicable legal precedent will be essential to developing a persuasive defense strategy.

 

This question has been answered.

Get Answer