See full details in attachment. For this work I require a writer who is a lawyer or an expert legal writer! THE FORMAT IS LEGAL MEMO, not any of the usual college/paper formats! It is imperative to follow instructions as given. Six pages, double spaced, Times New Roman, 12 font, with pages numbers. Use headers when you are answering each of the 6 questions posed.
As for substance, use at least 2 citations to statute, and 4 citations to cases. The rest of the details and complete case is in the attachment. Please do reach out if you have questions.
You can see examples on how to format a legal memorandum here: http://www.law.cuny.edu/legal-writing/students/memorandum/memorandum-3.html or google ?legal memo.? I repeat, NO APA/CHICAGO, ETC FORMATS. A LEGAL MEMO
For this project you will be preparing an in-house memorandum to the senior partner of your law firm. Please carefully read the instructions and format required. NO ESSAY format; THIS IS A LEGAL MEMO!
Format instructions: Your memo will be an in-house memo to me, as the senior partner.
To: Mark Pullin, Senior Partner
From: Student?s Name
Subj: People v. Williams
It should have the following header: “CONFIDENTIAL – Protected by attorney-client and work product privileges.” It should 3-5 pages, double spaced, Times New Roman, 12 font, with pages numbers. Use headers when answering each of the 6 questions posed.
As for substance, use at least 2 citations to statute, and 4 citations to cases.
You can see examples on how to format a legal memorandum here: http://www.law.cuny.edu/legal-writing/students/memorandum/memorandum-3.html or google ?legal memo.? I repeat, NO APA/CHICAGO, ETC FORMATS. A LEGAL MEMO.
OFFICER JONES? report:
On the evening of September 27, 2009, San Diego Police Department (S.D.P.D.) Gang Enforcement Officer Kevin Jones and his partner, Officer Smith were on patrol in San Diego when they observed Defendant WILLIAMS driving a black car northbound on West Boulevard, approaching Slauson Avenue. WILLIAMS turned eastbound on Slauson without signaling, a violation of the Vehicle Code. WILLIAMS’ driving was erratic. When making the turn onto Slauson, he entered the middle of the second lane. He veered to the left, veered to the right, veered back to the left, and then veered so far to the right that he nearly hit the curb. He made a right turn onto Brynhurst Avenue, again veering to the left and then to the right. WILLIAMS stopped ?on the curb just south of Slauson.
Due to erratic driving and the traffic violation, the Officers pulled up immediately behind WILLIAM?S car and exited their patrol vehicle. WILLIAMS (W) appeared ?very nervous.? He was attempting to use a cellular telephone, and his hands were shaking. Officer Jones told W to put the phone down, turn off the engine, and roll down his window. W complied, partially opening the window.
W’s nervousness, coupled with the facts that the stop occurred at night, in an area claimed as the territory of the Rolling 60’s criminal street gang, prompted Jones to ask W to step out of the car. W did not comply, but instead asked why he had been stopped. Jones explained the basis for the stop. Jones and W ?went back and forth,? with Jones asking W to exit the vehicle at least 10 times, and W repeatedly asking why he had been stopped. W’s reluctance to exit the vehicle appeared unusual to Jones; in his experience, most motorists comply with a direction to exit their cars ?once you explain everything to them as [he] did.? W’s voice ?shuddered? and cracked. His hands continued to shake. Jones ?who had been an officer for more than eight years and had conducted over 1,000 traffic stops?explained that W ?appeared more nervous than most people I’ve ever come in contact with on a traffic stop.? W’s refusal to exit his car indicated to Jones that ?something was wrong.?
Jones told W he would use pepper spray or a taser if W continued to refuse to get out of his car. W continued to refuse. When additional police units arrived approximately 10 minutes later, Jones sprayed a small amount of oleoresin capsicum spray into the car through the window, which was open approximately one-half inch. W rolled up the window and remained in the car, staring forward. Another officer broke the driver’s side window. W was tased and removed from the car. He was placed face down on the ground, with officers on top of him, and arrested for interfering with an investigation Penal Code section 148 based on his refusal to exit his automobile.
After W was immobilized on the ground, officers searched W’s car. They discovered 11 clear, empty sandwich baggies and approximately $65 in cash in the vehicle’s front center console. The car was taken to the police impound yard. W was apparently taken to the hospital.
Approximately 10 minutes after leaving the scene, Officer Jones arrived at the police station and performed background check on W. Within five minutes he learned that W was on parole and had previously been arrested for murder. Police conducting a search of W’s vehicle related to that earlier arrest had discovered a firearm in the car’s air vent. After Officer Jones ascertained that officers had not searched the vehicle’s air vents, he went to the impound yard and conducted a second search of the car, where they discovered rock cocaine in the air vent. Their decision to search was due to W’s behavior, the ?totality? of circumstances of the traffic stop, and the fact that a gun had previously been discovered in the air vent of W?s vehicle.
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN YOUR MEMO INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:
1) While your memo would normally include a summary of the facts, you do NOT need to incorporate facts for this assignment in light of the facts provided above.
2) This was a warrantless search. Who has the burden of proof at the motion to suppress?
3) Was the initial traffic stop legal?
4) May police order W to alight (step out of) his vehicle?
5) Did the vehicle search fall within the exception for searches incident to arrest in light of Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. 332 [129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485] (Gant)?
6) Was the search permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement?