Sunday, November 24, 2019

Internal Memorandum Essays

Internal Memorandum Essays Internal Memorandum Essay Internal Memorandum Essay Internal Memorandum Name: Course: Date: Internal Memorandum To: From: Re: Issue Mr. Blake was watching the super bowl game on at the residence of Jessie Smith and his wife on 2-7-2011. Mr. Blake and two other guests were on the couch watching TV and packing a white powdered substance into small bags. Police officers who responded to the Smith’s home for noise complaint stated that they observed Mr. Blake and his friends packing the white powder through the large living room window of Jessie Smith’s home. Since the Police officer saw this in plain view while responding to the complaint, Mr. Blake’s drug charge is admissible according to the Criminal Statutes provided by the Firm’s Law Librarian. The relevant criminal procedure is that if a police officer reasonably suspects that a person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a felony or a Penal Law misdemeanor, the officer is authorized to stop, question and frisk that person. The officer’s personal observation gave them a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity t aking place in the house. â€Å"Procedural criminal law sets forth the rules and laws to be followed from the investigative stage of a crime to the arrest, trial, and sentencing of the defendant. The fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures† (Garland 2009, p.36). Rule The Possession of a Controlled Substance can be either a felony or misdemeanor under the DC code. Controlled substances may include drugs like heroin, marijuana, and firearms that are not registered. According to the misdemeanor DC Code Citation:  §48-904.01,  §48-904.08 criminal statutes provided by the firm’s law librarian states two elements for the misdemeanor level of offense, which are: 1) The defendant possessed a controlled substance. 2) The defendant did so knowingly and intentionally. This means he did it consciously, voluntarily, and on purpose, not mistakenly, accidentally, or inadvertently. From the observations of the responding officers, they witnessed both of these elements stated above. Part two of the Possession of a Controlled Substance under the felony offense: DC Code Citation:  §48-904.01and the charge elements are: 1) The defendant distributed a controlled substance. To distribute means to transfer or to attempt to transfer an item to another person’s possession. The government need not prove that the defendant received or expected to receive anything of value in return after the transfer has taken place. 2) The defendant distributed the controlled substance knowingly and intentionally. This means consciously, voluntarily, and on purpose, not mistakenly, accidentally, or inadvertently. 3) When the defendant distributed the controlled substance, he was at least 21 years of age as is required by law. 4) When he distributed the controlled substance, the person to whom the controlled substance was distributed to be under 18 years old and, therefore, was a juvenile. 5) The amount or quantity of the controlled substance distributed was 30 grams or more. Analysis The officers stated that they also observed Mr. Blake pass over a white powdery baggie to another person standing near the couch. Therefore, this makes the charge of Possession of a Controlled Substance admissible because they observed Mr. Blake pass over the white powder-filled bag to someone else in the room intentionally. He voluntarily not mistakenly distributed the controlled substance to another person. So according to the facts and Criminal Statutes provided by the Firm’s Law Librarian, the Possession of a Controlled Substance charge in this case is admissible and, therefore, considered a felony. The facts presented meet the requirements set out in the DC Code for the drug evidence. The possession of an unregistered firearm charge should NOT be admissible. This charge should not be accepted because the responding police officers did not witness the guns in the possession of Mr. Blake, the defendant. After entering the home, they observed the guns sandwiched in between t he cushions of the couch near the location Mr. Blake was seated, but he is not the owner of the home and was not in possession of the firearms at the time. This is the reason why the police officers do not have enough probable cause to pin the unregistered firearms on Mr. Blake. If nobody else in the home admits to owning the unregistered firearms, then the homeowner should be held liable for the charges of Unregistered Firearm. This is because the firearms were found in their home. According to the DC Criminal Statutes, this can be either a Felony or a Misdemeanor. Mr. Blake does not meet the requirements for any of the elements of this offense or the supplied case laws. This means that Mr. Blake cannot be accused of the possession of unregistered firearms (Werle et al, 2005). Conclusion From the collected evidence, it can be concluded that Mr. Blake is admissible for the drug possession charges but not the possession of firearm charges’. Blake is admissible for the drug charges because the police witnessed the criminal drug activity going on through the window of the home, while responding to that home for a noise complaint. Mr. Blake is not liable for the firearm charge because police do not have valid proof that the unregistered firearms found in the house belongs to Mr. Blake. The unregistered firearms could belong to any of the other occupants in the home during the super bowl game when the arrest took place. References Garland, N. M. (2009). Criminal law for the criminal justice professional. New York: McGraw-Hill. Werle, G. (2005). Principles of international criminal law. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.