A Defendant Being Charged For Possession Of A Controlled ✓ Solved

A Defendant Being Charged For Possession Of A Controlled

A defendant being charged for possession of a controlled substance in the first circuit. In this matter, the police acted on an anonymous and unconfirmed tip that a defendant was in possession of a controlled substance by going to his residence and asking to search his apartment. The defendant denied the request, grabbed his coat and left the residence. As the police were leaving another person walked out of the residence and informed them he was the defendant’s roommate. The police asked this person for permission to search the apartment. The roommate agreed to the search and the police found a controlled substance. The prosecutor is concerned about the validity of the search, he thinks there is Supreme Court case law on the issue. Write a short memorandum about the applicable case law and validity of the search.

A neighbor that was arrested for driving while intoxicated. He said the arresting police officer had him do a cartwheel, a handstand and an Irish jig, then arrested him for failing standardized field sobriety tests. The neighbor has a brother-in-law that is a real estate attorney who gave him the attached case. He wants to know if it helps him. You need to tell him in short memo form; the holding of the case; the precedential value of the case.

You are paralegal for a defense attorney in Providence. Your firm has a client that was arrested for possession of a firearm. This occurred during a traffic stop for failure to use a seatbelt. The firearm was in plain view in the car as the officer approached to issue the ticket. Your client says he was stopped, and his car searched because he drives an old Buick and is Hispanic. He admits he was not wearing his seatbelt. Does the police officer’s true motivation (individual bias) for the stop subject the evidence to a motion to suppress (assume Rhode Island law)?

Your client comes to you with a question. His mother is elderly and wants to leave all of her money to him. He has a will with him and wants to know if he can be both the beneficiary and witness to the will (assume R.I. law).

Paper For Above Instructions

The legal scenarios presented involve various aspects of criminal and property law, specifically regarding search and seizure, DUI arrests, traffic stops, and wills. Each scenario requires an understanding of relevant case law, statutes, and the constitutional implications governing these situations. This memorandum aims to address each scenario systematically, providing an analysis grounded in applicable law.

1. Validity of Search for Possession of Controlled Substance

The first scenario involves the search of a defendant's apartment after the roommate consented to the police search, following an unconfirmed anonymous tip. The critical case law to consider is Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990), where the Supreme Court held that a warrantless entry is permissible when the police reasonably believe that a third party has the authority to consent. However, for the search to be valid, the police must have an objectively reasonable belief that the consenting party has such authority (Rodriguez, 1990).

In this case, the police believed they were authorized to search based on the roommate's consent. If the roommate had common authority over the premises, the search may be upheld. However, if the defendant was present and objected to the search, it might undermine the roommate's authority to consent. Furthermore, the police's reliance on an anonymous tip raises issues regarding the tip’s veracity and reliability (Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 1990). In conclusion, the validity of the search largely depends on the roommate's authority and the totality of circumstances surrounding the tip.

2. DUI Arrest and Field Sobriety Tests

The neighbor arrested for DUI raises concerns about the legitimacy of the field sobriety tests conducted in an unusual manner. The relevant case to review is Florida v. White, 397 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1981), where the court assessed whether the methods used to evaluate driving impairment were reasonable. In this instance, if the arresting officer did not conform to established protocols for sobriety testing, the evidence collected may be considered unreliable.

Therefore, the neighbor's situation may benefit from challenging the arrest based on claims of excessive and unreasonable testing procedures. The precedential value lies in demonstrating the necessity for officers to adhere to standard practices, which if violated, may warrant the suppression of evidence or the dismissal of charges.

3. Traffic Stop for Possession of Firearm

In evaluating whether the evidence obtained from the traffic stop can be subjected to a motion to suppress based on individual bias, the leading case is Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), establishing that a traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment if there is valid probable cause for the stop, even if the officer's true motivation is based on racial profiling. However, the stop must generally be justified at its inception. Since the client admits to not wearing a seatbelt, this could justify the traffic stop.

Nonetheless, if the client can prove that the stop was solely a pretext for investigating further due to his race, there may be grounds for a motion to suppress the firearm evidence obtained, invoking the argument of discriminatory enforcement under existing Rhode Island laws.

4. Will Witness and Beneficiary Status

In Rhode Island, the question of whether a beneficiary can also serve as a witness to a will is addressed under R.I. Gen. Laws § 33-6-10. This statute generally states that in order for a will to be valid, it must be signed by at least two witnesses who are not beneficiaries. If a beneficiary signs as a witness, then the gift to that person may be voided unless two other disinterested witnesses are present.

Therefore, it is advisable for the client to have disinterested individuals witness the will to avoid challenges to its validity. The significance of proper witnessing is crucial in ensuring that the intentions of the testator are honored without subsequent legal challenges.

Conclusion

Each legal scenario highlighted requires careful analysis of existing case law and statutes. It is vital for the parties involved to seek competent legal representation to navigate these complex issues effectively. As a paralegal, it is imperative to provide thorough and accurate information to support clients’ needs in these legal matters.

References

• Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990).
• Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990).
• Florida v. White, 397 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1981).
• Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996).
• R.I. Gen. Laws § 33-6-10.
• California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988).
• Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006).
• Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
• Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
• State v. Curb, 208 A.3d 171 (R.I. 2019).