In the memo, I have presented my analysis on the evaluation of the facts pattern of the presented case. The pattern analysis aims to determine whether the seized evidence presented in the case against the client is admissible and whether there is a proof of the charged offense(S).
Issue
In the facts presented, the offenses charged against our client are as follows
Whether:
A Misdemeanor offense under DC Code: 48-904.01 has been committed by our by knowingly or intentionally possessing a controlled substance.
Our client has committed a Felony offense under DC Code 48-904.01 by intentionally or knowingly distributing a controlled substance while he was at least 21 years of age and that the person whom he distributed or intended to was under 18 years old.
A Felony/misdemeanor offense under DC Code 7-2502.01, 7-2507.06 has been committed by our client by knowingly and intentionally being in possession of an unregistered firearm.
In the charged misdemeanor offense under DC Code: 48-904.01, the officers responding to the neighbors call about the noise emanating from the Smiths household had no probable cause of suspecting our client to have been in possession of controlled substance.
The issue in the presented case is whether an individual or a houseguest who is not staying overnight at the hosts house has a legitimate expectation of privacy to the point that one cannot object to any alleged unreasonable search of the house.
In the felony charges regarding the possession of unregistered firearm, the issue in the case presented is whether the District of Columbias prohibition of handguns that are usable in the home violates the Second Amendment.
Rule
When arguing the case, the court must consider the past cases regarding the Fourth Amendment wherein the case the officers violated Mr. Blakes privacy. The court must also take into account that the state is bound to exclude evidence(s) that are acquired in violation of the Fourth Amendment as in the case against our client. In the case, Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998), the court held that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure does not in any way extend to individuals not staying overnight in the place they are visiting. In my opinion, the case against the defendant on possession of controlled substance is unwarranted since it is not consistent with the Fourth Amendment. The court strike down the offense of being in possession of an unregistered firearm. In a similar case, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees a person the right of possessing a firearm in their home for instances of self-defense. Although the Second Amendment is not absolute, it extends the right of all persons to keep firearms. It is imperative to note that a complete ban on some class of weapons violates the constitution.
Analysis
In a Motion to Dismiss the case, the court must assume that the allegations presented in the petition are true. In the memorandum facts presented, Mr. Blake was allegedly observed by the officers through a large window in the living room. In a similar case, the respondents had a standing in their claim of the Fourth Amendment since they were entitled to a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998). Therefore, Mr. Blake search was unreasonable. Here, the allegation does not satisfy the elements of possession of controlled substance.
The Fourth Amendment protects an individual against unreasonable searches and seizures only if the individual stays overnight in another individuals house. Therefore, one can conclude that an individual visiting another person and does not stay or has no intention of staying overnight is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Although the court in reverse the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that was based on the Second Amendment, it did not address the issue on whether the Second Amendment restricts the local and State governments. The set precedence in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) does not offer guidance on how the lower courts should evaluate firearms charges. The court stated that the Second Amendments purpose was to ensure that it assured the continuation of possible effects of the amendment and the militia. As such, the second amendment must be applied to that end.
Conclusion
The allegations of the prosecution against Mr. Blake does not satisfy the elements of a Misdemeanor offense under DC Code: 48-904.01, a Felony offense under DC Code 48-904.01, and Felony/misdemeanor offense under DC Code 7-2502.01, 7-2507.06.
References
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0367_0643_ZO.html
Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1147.ZO.html
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Request Removal
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the customtermpaperwriting.org website, please click below to request its removal:
