Search And Seizure Legality

Summary

The legality of the search and seizure of cocaine found during a safety sweep hinges on Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Key Supreme Court cases such as Katz v. United States, Arizona v. Hicks, Mincey v. Arizona, and Maryland v. Garrison provide the framework for determining whether the search was lawful. The defense argues that the search was illegal and the evidence should be inadmissible, focusing on the scope of the search and the validity of the safety sweep.

Full Conversation

Write the memo as the defense
MEMORANDUM OF LAW

To: Senior Partner, Top Notch Defense Firm
From: [Your Name], First-Year Law Clerk
Re: Legality of Search and Seizure of Cocaine in Daring Defendant's Home
Introduction

This memorandum addresses whether the search and seizure of cocaine from Daring Defendant's closet was lawful under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. This analysis relies on the following U.S. Supreme Court cases: *Katz v. United States*, *Arizona v. Hicks*, *Mincey v. Arizona*, and *Maryland v. Garrison*. Based on these precedents, we argue that the search and subsequent seizure were illegal, and the evidence should be deemed inadmissible.
Relevant Facts

- ShamRock Police Officers had a valid warrant to arrest Darling Defendant for grand theft auto.
- Darling Defendant's husband, Daring Defendant, consented to the officers' entry.
- Darling Defendant voluntarily surrendered.
- Officer Ted Testo conducted a "safety sweep" and found a small metal box containing cocaine in a closet.
- Daring Defendant was arrested for possession of cocaine, while Darling Defendant was not charged.