Email Review For Attorney

Sure, please provide the content of the email you want to send to your court-appointed attorney, and I'll review it for you.

The document you uploaded outlines a detailed summary of potential constitutional violations related to your May 9th, * arrest. It includes specific arguments for Fourth Amendment violations, potential misuse of the Plain View Doctrine, Fifth Amendment rights, Due Process concerns, and a lack of probable cause for your arrest.
Your email to your attorney is well-structured and covers the essential points. Here are some suggestions to enhance clarity:
*. Fourth Amendment Violation: Clearly state that the search warrant was limited to specific content and officers exceeded that scope.
*. Plain View Doctrine: Emphasize that seeing the apps alone does not constitute immediate incrimination.
*. Fifth Amendment Violation: Highlight how bypassing your right to remain silent directly impacts your defense.
*. Due Process Violation: Stress the lack of clear notice regarding re-reporting requirements.
*. No Probable Cause: Reinforce the need for proper investigation before arrest.
These points are well-founded and should be discussed with your attorney for potential motions to suppress evidence or dismiss charges.
Is there anything specific you'd like me to focus on or any additional questions you have?

Case Rating: *
Sure, here's a revised version of your statement to your court-appointed attorney:
---
Hi Sam,
I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to summarize my concerns regarding my May 9th, * arrest and possible constitutional violations that could be relevant to my defense. Based on what happened, I believe there are multiple legal issues that should be challenged, including potential Fourth Amendment (illegal search), Fifth Amendment (right to remain silent), and Due Process violations. Below is a detailed breakdown for your review.
*. Fourth Amendment Violation – Search Exceeded Warrant Scope
- The federal search warrant only authorized law enforcement to search my phone for illegal pornography.
- My wife voluntarily provided my phone’s passcode so they could check for that specific content.
- No illegal pornography was found, but officers noticed TikTok and Facebook on my phone and used that as the basis for my arrest.
- Since the warrant was not issued to investigate SOR registration compliance, this seems like an unlawful expansion beyond the warrant’s scope (Riley v. California, *).
Potential Defense:
- A motion to suppress evidence based on the argument that police searched for crimes beyond what the warrant allowed.
*. Plain View Doctrine Does NOT Apply
- The police saw TikTok and Facebook on my phone, but they didn’t investigate whether they were actually used or properly reported.
- Instead of asking me or my wife about them, they called SOR and arrested me based solely on that conversation.
- Under Coolidge v. New Hampshire (*), plain view only applies when the evidence is immediately incriminating.
- Simply seeing a social media app on my phone doesn’t automatically prove a crime was committed.
Potential Defense:
- A motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause, since just having an app is not a crime, and police failed to verify whether I knowingly failed to report it.
*. Fifth Amendment Violation – Right to Remain Silent Ignored
- I invoked my right to remain silent, yet the police continued to build a case by contacting SOR instead of questioning me directly.
- By working around my Miranda rights, this could be considered a Fifth Amendment violation (Missouri v. Seibert, *).
Potential Defense:
- A motion to suppress evidence/statements, arguing that police circumvented my right to remain silent and built a case against me without allowing me to respond.
*. Due Process Violation – No Clear Notice to Re-Report Facebook
- I had already reported my online identifier to SOR.
- My Facebook account was in my real name and had been deactivated during my probation.
- My probation officer never informed me that reactivating an old account meant I needed to re-report it.
- My wife reactivated Facebook on her phone, not me.
- TikTok was on my phone but never used, so there was no intent to deceive.
Potential Defense:
- A motion to dismiss based on lack of intent (Mens Rea)—I didn’t knowingly fail to report.
- A due process challenge if I was never clearly informed that reactivating Facebook required re-reporting (Lambert v. California, *).
*. No Probable Cause for Arrest
- Facebook was already in my name and was never hidden.
- I was never told I had to re-report it after reactivation.
- TikTok was on my phone but wasn’t used, meaning there was no actual intent to hide it.
- The police arrested me without conducting a proper investigation.
Potential Defense:
- A motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause, since police acted on assumptions rather than clear evidence.
Next Steps
Based on these concerns, I’d like to discuss filing the following motions:
- Motion to Suppress Evidence – Because the search went beyond the warrant’s scope.
- Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Probable Cause – Because the police arrested me without confirming whether I knowingly failed to report.
- Motion to Dismiss for Due Process Violations – Because I was never told I had to re-report Facebook.
- Motion to Suppress Statements – Because my right to remain silent was ignored.
Please let me know your thoughts on this and what the best course of action would be.
I appreciate your help and look forward to your guidance.
Kind regards,
Nicholas
---
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?