Memorandum of Law in Opposition of Suppression Case

Referring to the case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O, argued on March 28, 1984, the search that was carried to assess the violation of the 4th amendment by the school public authority held the court to publicly conclude that the search did not in any way violate the rights of the defendant. Moreover, the question of proper assessment by the public-school officials and the application of the standard to the fact of the case before the court was within the constitutional regulations. From the court ruling on Camara vs. Municipal Court, 3877 U.S., at 532-533, even though the searches should be balanced between individuals expectations of privacy and personal security, the court argued that this is a method needed by the government to deal with a breach of public order effectively. Therefore, the fourth amendment does not protect subjective expectations of privacy that are unreasonable and illegal as in the case of Amanda as seen in the court ruling of Hudson vs. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984). The case dispensation that the search warrant requirement is likely to frustrate the government effort is reasonable to thwart the suppression prayer of the defendant. Additionally, the court holds that there is no need for school authorities to obtain a warrant to carry out a search on students within their authority. Mr. Lott was then justified in opening Mirandas bag and violated no legal right of the defendant as reasoned out by the suspect referring to the 4th amendment.

Considering a court case No. 78-1076 of Rhodes Island vs. Innis, argued on October 30, 1979, the term interrogation is only used to refer to mere question. Thus, the conversation between the officers was just a dialogue and not an express questioning. Additionally, the conversation was not initiated with intentions to incarcerate response from the respondent. There appear to be nothing in response that ties the respondent and the school authorities in violating the right of the respondent. The court thus finds it illegal to suppress the search, and evidence as is the prayers of the respondent. In reference to Miranda vs. Arizona facts and case summary argued on February 28, March 1, 2 and decided on June 13, 1966, the supreme court of Arizona lawfully found that the confession obtained from Miranda was constitutional since the right of Miranda was not violated from the interrogations carried out. Therefore, the statement by the defendant quoted as They never would have found out if they didnt search my cell phone. I didnt even take that girl Sandys phone. This is a setup. I just run drugs for some guy Raoul. Im not cooking it or anything. Such physical evidence including the text messages is very crucial in helping the court to thwart the suppression case against the defendant since there is no legal right violated after drawing the judgment from these statements. The argument by the decision of the court rests on the base of nature of interrogation which is an assessment to establish the cause of action and not a compulsion to offer a response to an action.

California vs. Prisock, case No. 80-1846, the supreme court reversed the ruling of the court of appeal that the required content of Mirandas warning is a virtual incantation. The court holds that the evidence of methamphetamine and the messages retrieved from the Apple iPhone was legally binding as was in the ruling of the court case of California vs. Beheler case No. 82-1666. The messages of distribution do not justify the extensive rummaging through Mirandas bags and the effects that followed. The fourth amendment applies to the search conducted by the school authority is to begin inquiry which is the standards governing the searches and not a violation of the students right. The physical evidence of being in possession of the drug and the intentions of supplying the substances to students and other individuals. Miranda had been identified as a suspect in the school compound following several attempts by the school fraternity to label her suspect. The evidence and the questioning are meant to assess whether the victim s innocent or not hence her rights according to the fourth amendment were never violated in any way. Since the defendant has confessed that the evidence of drug was would not have been found out suppose the search had not been done and the consent that she just run drug for some guy Raul, the court finds it not within the confines of the law to constitutionally assent to the suppression case presented by the defendant.

Having considered the court cases that involved various parties on matters suppression, the supreme court thus finds it illegal to pronounce a ruling which tends to suppress the charges rendered against the respondent. The appellate judges, therefore, find it not within the jurisdictions of this court to uphold the defendants prayers. The court ruling will serve as an example to any offenders who plan to jeopardize the well-being of others in the society. The judges hence unanimously reached a decision on the ruling against the defendants plea after a thorough examination of various court cases related to the case of the defendant before the judges.