I’ve attached the complete office memo. Could you please correct or add to what’s wrong with the memo please.
Slide 1 of 1
UNFORMATTED ATTACHMENT PREVIEW
Running head: COMMONWEALTH V. DEMICHEL Commonwealth v. DeMichel Name Instructor Course Institution Affiliation Date COMMONWEALTH V. DEMICHEL 2 MEMORANDUM To: FROM: DATE: RE: COMMONWEALTH vs. CLAVEL The case of Commonwealth v. Clavel, police officers carried out a search and seizure of narcotics in Mr. Clavel’s house. As Yeager (1993) would assert, the defendant claimed of withdrawal of the case reasoning that, under U.S. Constitution Amendment IV, the search and seizure was illegally executed. However, despite such claims, the evidence discussed in the office memo should be admitted into evidence. Insufficient supportive evidence for Clavel Basing on Aynes (1993) contentions, in spite of the foregoing, there were no any other supporting and persuasive reasons that convinced the search that Mr. Clavel’s search in his premises was executed unlawfully. In the event of an appeal for suppression of the evidence there should be another or showing of an extra evidence which had not been previously presented. In addition 15 seconds were a reasonable duration to wait, having that there was someone from the premises who peered at the police via the blinds of a window very close to the front door. Vulnerability of Evidence Destruction Moreover, from the previous experiences one would reason that the paraphernalia noticed through the window would instantly be drugs or the marijuana or other in rice paper. Thus, there will be a probability that the defendant may have been destroying evidence, especially basing on COMMONWEALTH V. DEMICHEL 3 instances where the evidence is susceptible to quick or easy destruction. This such involved destructible lottery paraphernalia. The police had a belief that records would be on the rice paper that easily dissolves in contact in water. Furthermore, the police officers have testified that they had noticed the suspect in the kitchen by the time they arrived. The defendant, as they claimed was holding a white paper under a cup water. Police Affirmation and Blind Raising The police officers announced or affirmed themselves as police officers with a search warrant. Besides, as per the officers’ assertions, there were voices that would be heard from inside the premises. Raising of a window blind at a window next to front door as someone looking through then lowering it shortly proofs that the defendant was aware or other had heard the police announcement and delayed in opening the door. In addition it is not that the police announced and set the time such as stopwatch before flinging the door open that they would have known the exact time they waited. The mention of a fine five to fifteen seconds wait was just an approximation as they claim they were not sure how long they waited. The police officers might have taken around twenty minutes without their consent. Delayed Opening of the Door Just as Aynes (1993) would argue out, anyone would assert or make conclusions that the defendant never delayed in opening the door because he was hard of hearing, but rather because he was destroying evidence. After all, there was no reason as to why he delayed if he never knew what the police officers were after nor did not doubt himself of any allegations. Upon affirmation of their identity as well as their purpose, any time that the police officers waited would be deemed necessary for someone to come to the door and admit them. After all, the police had noticed COMMONWEALTH V. DEMICHEL 4 someone raising and lowering the blind at the window. Moreover the house being searched was small and voices would be heard inside after the announcement. Conclusion Therefore, in reference to all these events there were no violation or breaches of the fourth amendments in the United States constitution warranting on unreasonable searches and seizure of the defendant. The affidavit or other proclamation of any case ought to be fully stressed with sufficient claims or evidence. The evidence should therefore be admitted in for conviction basing on the fact that the appellant only grounded his claims from one stand point/perspective that police forcefully entered his premises. COMMONWEALTH V. DEMICHEL 5 COMMONWEALTH V. DEMICHEL 6 References Aynes, R. L. (1993). On misreading John Bingham and the fourtee