Memorandum of the Law - Case Study Example

Memorandum of Law Introduction This memorandum of law is presented in assistance of the prosecution against Sam Mark, and in supportof earlier trial against Sam for child molestation. The protocol is aimed at invoking the law to take its due course against Sam Mark. The latest evidence followed an invalid warrant because the search was reasonable within the fourth amendment exception of search in good faith, which resulted in the confiscation of the evidence. Statement of Fact On April 13, 2015 at about 8:00 A.M, approximately four detectives that work with Tom Murray executed a search warrant to do a sex sweep at Sam Marks residence. The detectives arrested Sam for violating parole and for possession of child pornography. The warrant was issued on application of affidavit by Detective Tom Murray, who used false information that Sam was not living he had agreed to his release on parole. Tom had lied that the residence was vacant and that Sam had violated parole, although he knew that Sam was living in the same apartment as he had declared during his release. The detectives who made the arrested were not aware that Tom Murray had gotten the arrest warrant after presenting false information on Sam in his affidavit. The investigators seized evidence on child pornography as there were hundreds of child pornography images in Sams bedroom, and there was some evidence that Sam was communicating with children over the internet. However, the issuance of the execution of the search was valid under the Fourth Amendment of criminal justice. Following the exception that the search was in good faith, and the search was reasonable enough to warrant a recovery of sufficient evidence against Sam Mark criminal behavior. From the exception named above, the detectives had the right to go access Sams residence to confirm that Sam was not indeed living in the declared home (Beatson, 2006). The search led to the discovery of the evidence that incriminated him as a child sex predator. The agents took the time to go through the Sams computer as well in search of more evidence against Sam. Sam is not guilty of violating parole under the evidence provided by Tom in the affidavit, but is according to the evidence gathered as a result of the warrant that Tom acquired. Legal Arguments The search warrant was reasonable and in good faith. Tom applied for the search warrant under a suspicion that Sam was involved in child abuse in his house as is demonstrated below. Rule 41 (a) of 18 United States Constitution states that search warrants shall only be issued ‘upon the request of a federal law enforcement officer; and Tom is a federal law officer (Parsons, 2005). Tom is covered by the Fourth Amendment, exception of invalid arrest, as a search of Sams premises was executed in good faith from Sams point of view. The detectives executing the warrant were without the knowledge of the validity of the order. Though he lied in the application of the affidavit, Tom held the good faith of uncovering Sam criminal activities in his house. Tom presented the false information because he had heard several people in the community talking about his regular behavior of watching children playing the hula-hoop from across the balcony, in the street. Based on the assured suspicion from the people in the community, Tom had enough will to find out what Sam was upto. Tom hoped to find enough evidence to incriminate Sam, who has been known to have a history of child molestation behavior. The other reason Sam had lied in the affidavit was because of Sams suspiciously innocent appearance during Toms five minutes visit at Sams house. Tom had a strong feeling that Sam was hiding something. The information gotten from the search proved Toms suspicion right, including what the people in the community were suspecting about Sam. The feared that Sam was planning an attack on the children. As can be seen from the information, Sam was arrested for possession of child pornography and communication with children over the internet. The seizure confirmed Toms fear. Discussion Sam has a history of child molestation charges, and previous arrests have been made at his places of residence where at one time he was reported molesting a 10-year-old neighbors girl. The state must prove beyond doubt that the search was conducted by Toms fellow detectives in good faith in order to convict Sam effectively (LaFave, 2004). There is no real doubt that Sam was arrested for possessing child pornographic materials. He had violated Megans statute by communicating with children over the internet and accessing and possessing child pornographic images that he kept in his bedroom. This memorandum addresses whether the warrant was in good faith or not. When determining whether it was in good faith, other cases of the similar nature of arrest without valid warrant needs to be evaluated (Vaughn & Carmen, 1997). United States v. Raymonda, 13-4899 cr, (March 2, 2015), the State appealed from an order of District Court suppressing child pornography testimony that had been gotten from Raymonda’s residence. This was because the search warrant was not supported by probable cause. The government argued that the evidence should not be suppressed because the officers who executed the warrant had an entitlement to rely on good faith on the search warrant. Good faith allows officers to conduct searches for person whom they have observed and determine are engaged in criminal activities, and thus, promoting law enforcement activities. In United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), a judge determined that the evidence obtained against Leon could not be used for his trial since it was obtained using insufficient search warrant. The officers obtained a search warrant following an anonymous tip that Leon was engaging in criminal activities, which necessitated a police surveillance. The police then used the outcome of the surveillance to seek for a search warrant, which was issued. Unlike the case at hand, in this case, the officers failed to establish a probable cause for a search warrant. Nevertheless, in the court refused to accept Herring’s motion that the evidence obtained through search should not be admissible in his case. Though the evidence was obtained using a false search warrant, the judges determined that suppressing such an evidence was only allowable if the act resulted in “appreciable deterrence.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (June 27, 1949), in this case, the petitioner was convicted for charges of transporting intoxicating liquor. He challenged this stating that the evidence was acquired without warrant leading to violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, the motion by the petitioner to suppress the evidence was rejected because the court established that there was probable cause. Prior to the arrest, the offender had been arrested five months earlier for the same crime by the officer who carried out the seizure. Moreover, the same officer had witnessed the petitioner putting liquor into his car twice in Missouri. Though liquor was legal at this place, the officer knew that the offender had a tendency of hauling liquor. The officer with a colleague saw the petitioner heading to Oklahoma where liquor is illegal with a loaded truck, and thus, they decided to intercept and search his track. Evidently, the officer acted in good faith to search the petitioner’s track though without a warrant because he believed crime was being committed. In this case, probable cause was defined as, “where the facts and circumstances within the officers knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed.” Hence, considering the case at hand, Tom acted in good faith to seek for a search warrant because he believed the offender was committing a crime. Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (June 10, 1968), a police officer in New York arrested the appellant named Sibron for possession of heroin, which led to a successful charge for heroin possession. However, Sibron appealed the motion claiming that the officer obtained the heroin unlawfully. The circumstances leading to his arrest were that the police saw him in the company of known narcotic addicts and later spotted him in a restaurant with other addicts. As a result, the law enforcement officer ordered Sibron out and searched his pockets where he found envelopes of heroin. The police officer then seized these and arrested him. Considering these events, the appeal court rejected the motion and established that the officer acted in good faith. They court acknowledged that the police officer had probable cause to search Sibron and seize heroin. Thus, heroin could not be suppressed as evidence, which applies in this case where Tom had probable cause to necessitate the search. Thus, the motion to suppress the evidence should be rejected. Conclusion In all these cases, the police officers and the detectives all behaved in good faith, and the evidence they uncovered led to the conviction. In this case, Tom Murray acted in good faith, as he knew he had to act fast before Sam plotted and effected a crime. There was suspicion that he was seen looking out his balcony, watching the children from across the street playing their games (Parsons, 2005). The arrest warrant, although based on a lie, was in good faith, led to the apprehension of evidence used for the arrest of Sam. Thus, the motion to suppress the evidence should be rejected. Good faith should hold because in some cases, the offender my go free and continue harassing the innocent public if the officer has to wait until when it can be proven that the person is committing a crime. Moreover, in cases such as highway stops, getting a search warrant takes a long process, and thus, so long as a police officer has probable cause, they should be allowed to search and seize. Accordingly, the evidence acquired through these searches should be allowed in a criminal court procedure. References Beatson, J. (2006). Common Law, Statute Law, and Constitutional Law. Statute Law Review, 27(1), pp.1-14. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (The Supreme Court June 27, 1949). Herring v. United States , 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. District Court 2009). LaFave, W. (2004). Search and seizure: A treatise on the Fourth Amendment . St. Paul, Minn: Thomson/West. Parsons, I. (2005). Fourth Amendment practice and procedure. South Bend, IN: National Institute for Trial Advocacy. Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (New York June 10, 1968). United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (Supreme Court 1984). United States v. Raymonda, 13-4899 cr, (March 2, 2015), Vaughn, M., & Carmen, R. (1997). The Fourth Amendment as a Tool of Actuarial Justice: The "Special Needs" Exception to the Warrant and Probable Cause Requirements. Crime & Delinquency, 78-103. Read More