Project 2: Legal Analysis of Fourth Amendment Issues in DC

This project presents a legal analysis memorandum focusing on the Fourth Amendment and the right to privacy in a criminal case. The analysis examines a scenario where an individual was arrested for possession of controlled substances and an unregistered firearm, following a police search without a warrant. The memorandum, written from the perspective of a junior associate to a supervising attorney, discusses issues such as probable cause, stop and frisk procedures, and the legality of the search and seizure, considering the context of a private home and relevant legal precedents. The analysis applies the IRAC method, identifying the key legal issues, the relevant rules, the application of those rules to the facts, and a conclusion on the legality of the police actions. The memorandum highlights the importance of adhering to constitutional rights during criminal investigations, particularly the requirement for a warrant in the absence of exigent circumstances. The analysis references legal cases like Mapp V. Ohio and the textbook to support its arguments. The conclusion suggests that while the possession of illegal items is a criminal offense, the police procedures may have violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights due to the lack of a warrant and the intrusion into a private home.

Project 2 - Legal Analysis
Internal Memorandum
From: Associate Criminal Attorney
To: Supervising Attorney
RE: The Fourth Amendment and Right to Privacy
Issue

As stated in the Fourth Amendment, the right to privacy supports the security of persons with
regard to their personal effects, documents and property. This means that any unreasonable
search or seizure is a violation of rights. Before issuing a search warrant, it is necessary to
scrutinize the basis of such actions. Protected by the constitution, this law may present
unreasonable situations. The client, Mr. Blacks faced the arrest because he was in possession of
a controlled substance featured a felony/misdemeanor offence. The client was also in
possession of an unregistered firearm and charges indicated knowing and intentional possession
of the substances. According to the law, the defendant had to register the firearm as per
requirements under the District of Columbia laws. The defendant was in possession of a firearm
in a known dwelling place near a co-owned catering business environment (the basement).
During the arrest by the Metropolitan Police Department, the client was watching Super Bowl.
This was in a private home at 4630 18th St. NW, Washington DC, 20015. The day was a
weekend (Sunday, February 2, 2014). The friends were having a good time sitting on a couch.
Watching TV while smoking marijuana was not suspicious because in some states medical
marijuana is permissible. This response was from a call by neighbors on the noise. The police
applied the stop and frisk approach to law enforcement but they needed probable cause to
search the premises. There was reasonable suspicion that the persons had guns and controlled
substance but there was need to investigate this based on the underlying facts (Walker & Del
Carmen, 2012).
Rule
Criminal procedure dictates that individuals should have rights during a criminal process

(Mapp V. Ohio, 1961). Relevant procedure issues in this case feature the adherence to
fundamental rights when investigating, arresting or prosecuting individuals. This is important
when administering criminal law. According to the Fourth Amendment, it is important to
inquire whether the police acted lawfully when arresting the client. This is important and comes
before ascertaining whether the client committed the offence. In this case, the police failed to
produce a search warrant. The client did not use any force and did not resist any search.
Invasion of personal liberty in a private property is illegal and this makes the stop and frisk,
plain view procedure a violation of these rights (Walker & Del Carmen, 2012).
However, the search was reasonable because criminal items were involved. Being in possession
of drugs and firearms is a criminal offence under the federal law. Arguments of evidence of
crime does not support a search without warrant. This means police intrusion of privacy is not
an excuse. The right to privacy protects from unreasonable searches. Although the police
knocked on the door, there was no need for a search if no life was under threat. It was not
established whether the bag had drugs. Besides, Mr. Brown cooperated by opening the door and
granting the officers access to the building. Witnessing the transfer of bags with white powder
is not concrete evidence. Simply observing what resembled a shotgun between cushions is also
questionable. However, this led to further inspection leading to three other guns. Although
evidence after search reveals this and they found a large amount of suspected drug substances,
the process was not right.
Analysis
From the facts, criminal justice includes the criminal justice process. The right to privacy is a
constitutional right. There was violation of privacy through unreasonable search and seizure of

both people and items. The police only suspected the possession of controlled substances.
Government intrusion nullified the admission of evidence hence the criminal prosecution was
unlawful. Violation of this right is illegal and renders the evidence inconsistent. The fact that
the client co-owned part of the property means he was within a personal property. The Fourth
Amendment protects the people from illegal intrusion in their private home. In this case, they
were not in the business premise but a private room. This raises inconsistencies in opinion
hence the police search was unnecessary. However, it is a crime to be in possession of
unregistered firearms and drugs
Conclusion
Although it is a criminal offence to be in possession of unregistered firearms and controlled
substances, criminal justice also comprises of procedures. Important principles to observe in a
criminal arrest case include the probable cause, stop and frisk seizures of persons and things. In
this case, consent before searching the people was necessary. The police knocked on the door to
gain access to the house but they did not produce a search warrant before searching it.
Possession of drugs and weapons present an opportunity for a search but proper procedure is
constitutional.
References

Mapp V. Ohio, 367 US 643 (Supreme Court June 19, 1961). Retrieved from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0367_0643_ZO.html
Walker, J. T., & Del Carmen, R. V. (2012). Law enforcement (8th ed.). Taylor & Francis.