Legal Brief Pros And Cons

678 Words3 Pages
LEGAL RESEARCH & WRITINg Florida Attorney Babcock Street Palm Bay, Florida November 1, 2012 Jennifer Weiss Port Malabar Palm Bay, Florida Re: Whether the car stop was constitutional because no violation of any traffic ordinance supported the stop. Dear Jennifer Weiss You hired me on November 18, 2012 to represent you for the stop that was not constitutional because no violation of any traffic ordinance supported the stop; you wondered if you could challenge the stop, whether the police had the right to tape what you said in the back of the patrol car during your phone conversation, and defend yourself against the drug charge for the prescription. Facts The following facts were gathered from…show more content…
The fourth Amendment does not prohibit all searches and seizures just the unreasonable searches and seizure. . Bredlin V. California, 551 U.S. 249, 127 S.Ct. 2400. The courts have allowed officers to stop a vehicle and investigate for a reasonable suspicion of illegal drug activity. The United States Supreme Court, Justice Souter, held that defendant, as passenger, was seized and was entitled to challenge the stop, abrogating People v. Jackson, 39 P.3d 1174, and State v. Mendez, 137 Wash.2d 208, 970 P.2d 722. Vacated and remanded. The second argument U.S. v. Chanthasouxat, 342 F. 3d 1271 C.A. 11 (Ala. 2003). A defendant's consent to a search may cure the constitutional taint on evidence obtained by violating a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Chittakone Chanthasouxat and Keopaseuth Xayasane, the defendants appeal their convictions for drug-related offenses. Chanthasouxat and Xayasane argue that the district court erred in denying their motions to suppress drug evidence and statements obtained pursuant to a stop for an alleged traffic violation and a subsequent

More about Legal Brief Pros And Cons

Open Document