PART 1
Background: Holland was contacted by a colleague, Attorney Blanton, a partner in another law firm who is representing a client in a complex search and seizure case and is seeking Holland’s advice. Holland and you met with Blanton to discuss Blanton’s client’s case.
Holland wants you to analyze the facts in the case and prepare a memorandum to him that he will discuss with Blanton.
Facts: Acting on a tip from a government informant, agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) sought a warrant from a Federal magistrate to search the property of Garland Fold, a farmer on the Maryland Eastern Shore. The informant told the FBI that Garland Fold and his brother, Bruce Fold, were terrorists planning to contaminate the water supply in Washington, DC with lethal dosages of certain chemicals.
The informant told the FBI that Garland was storing the chemicals in a barn on his farm. Therefore, the agents obtained a warrant to search the barn on Fold’s property.
The FBI assigned four agents to execute the search warrant. When the agents arrived at the farm to execute the search warrant, however, they did not find a barn. Rather, they found one building on the farm: an unoccupied shed. The agents found Garland Fold in the farm fields and arrested him. The agents gave Garland a Miranda warning, but in the questioning, Garland admitted that he had stored chemicals in the shed.
The agents did not have a warrant to search the shed, but they searched the shed and found the chemicals. In the rear of the shed was a walking path that led through the farm fields to a motel that was ½ mile from the shed.
Prepare the legal analysis that addresses the following:
- Analyze and discuss whether defense counsel can likely argue successfully that the chemicals found in the shed should be suppressed and why or why not.
- Identify and explain the crimes that are applicable to Garland Fold’s case.
- Analyze whether the defendant, Garland, will likely be convicted of any crimes identified in #3 above and why or why not.
TO: Beckett Holland, Esq.
FROM: (your name), Paralegal
RE: Analysis of Crimes and Admissible Evidence in Garland Ford Defense
Date:
1.
2.
3.
PART 11
At a recent firm case conference, the paralegals and attorneys started a lively discussion about whether a person’s expectation of privacy in a car while driving on a public highway is too extensive under the 4th Amendment.
Instructions:
Explain your opinion on this topic and explain why.