Legal Memorandum on the Fourth Amendment Violation
Instructions:
You are to assume the role of a paralegal in a law firm that is representing Miss Student Clyant in the matter of the State of New York v. Student Clyant, Indictment Number 13-C- 0800-04 in the Acton County Court (NY). You will draft a legal memo which involves the legal analysis of the issue raised by the facts of Miss Clyant’s case. It is designed to identify the law that applies to the legal issue, analyze how the law applies to the issue, and present a proposed conclusion based on the analysis.
Facts:
Students met for the start of the school year assembly in the auditorium at the New York State public school Herkimer Generals High School in Acton County, NY. Amid the pep rally activities, students were also informed of the school’s policies and procedures including the prohibition against possessing a weapon on school property except by law enforcement personnel. A copy of the student handbook was distributed and the Principal also reviewed the web site address for the electronic version of the handbook. On Monday, October 5 Art Teacher was discussing the continued absence of 18 year old senior Student Clyant with the Principal in Art Teacher’s classroom. Looking outside the classroom door window, Art Teacher noticed Student Clyant, who had again been absent from class, in the hallway near her locker and he pointed her out to the Principal. Both Art Teacher and the Principal noticed that Student Clyant was very agitated. Watching her, the two school officials saw Student Clyant unzip her jacket and pull out a revolver. Art Teacher and the Principal started to run towards her when they saw Student Clyant put the the revolver inside her backpack and begin walk down the hallway to the library. The Principal and Art Teacher ran down the hall after her, yelling for her to stop. Catching up to Student Clyant who had stopped to face them, the Principal demanded that Student Clyant hand over her backpack to him as he was aware that she had a weapon in her possession. Looking at both the Principal and Art Teacher, Student Clyant handed the Principal her backpack. The Principal searched Student Clyant’s backpack thoroughly, finding the revolver. Student Clyant told the Principal and Art Teacher that she had found the revolver in the field next to the school. The Principal turned the revolver over to the police, and Student Clyant was charged with one count of criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds. Student Clyant was suspended from school for one year per school policy. Student Clyant’s claim is that the product of the search, the revolver, should be suppressed because the search of her backpack by the Principal in the hallway was unreasonable; it violated her Fourth Amendment rights.
Issue:
Did the fact that the Herkimer Generals High School principal searched Student Clyant’s backpack in the hallway of the school without a warrant violate Student Clyant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution?
LIMITATIONS ON YOUR TASK AND PROJECT:
You are to confine your legal research and analysis to the one (1) legal issue set forth above. You may ignore any other legal issues that you might spot. Also, notice that the issue provided to you above focuses only on the U.S. Constitution. Your memorandum must demonstrate that you have conducted adequate research and analysis. (Hint: for this exercise, memoranda of fewer than three pages do not generally demonstrate adequate authority and analysis). This is a hypothetical case and is in no way whatsoever intended to identify any person, Court, Judge, Assistant District Attorney, Attorney, or any other person, alive or dead. Any similarity to any of the above is purely coincidental. In the State of New York, County Court is authorized to handle the prosecution of all crimes committed within the County. The Court generally handles felony cases (in which a sentence of imprisonment in excess of one year may be imposed). “Acton County, New York” is a fictitious county. Also fictitious are the names of all defendants, witnesses, police officers and/or agencies, and all other persons or places.
Notes:
The penal code of the State of New York, upon which Miss Student Clyant’s charge was based, is constitutionally valid on its face.
Required Format for Legal Memorandum:
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
To: Colleen R. Kehoe-Robinson
From: [Your name], Paralegal
Date:
Case: The State of New York v. Student Clyant
Office File No.: 13-C-0800-04
Docket No.: 013-119
Re: Whether Miss Clyant’s rights were violated under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution when the Herkimer Generals High School principal searched her backpack without a warrant.
Statement of Assignment. You have asked me to prepare a legal memorandum on the question of whether Miss Clyant’s rights were violated under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution when the Herkimer Generals High School principal searched her backpack without a warrant.
Issue:
Did the fact that the Herkimer Generals High School principal searched Student Clyant’s backpack in the hallway of the school without a warrant violate Student Clyant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution?
Statement of Facts.
Analysis
Rule of law
Case law (if necessary)—(interpretation of rule of law)
Application of law to facts of case
Counteranalysis
Conclusion
Outline for memo
•
• Statement of Assignment:
• Issue:
• Brief Answer:
• Statement of Facts:
• Analysis
……………Rule of law (general law that governs the issue)
……………Case law —interpretation of rule of law
(look for the landmark case)
……………Application of law to facts of case
(locate at least two additional cases to provide further analysis)
…………….Counteranalysis
• Conclusion
Solution
Legal Memorandum on the Fourth Amendment Violation
To: Colleen R. Kehoe-Robinson
From: [Your name], Paralegal
Date:
Case: The State of New York v. Student Clyant
Office File No.: 13-C-0800-04
Docket No.: 013-119
Re: Whether Miss Clyant’s rights were violated under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution when the Herkimer Generals High School principal searched her backpack without a warrant.
Statement of Assignment. You have asked me to prepare a legal memorandum on the question of whether Miss Clyant’s rights were violated under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution when the Herkimer Generals High School principal searched her backpack without a warrant.
Issue:
Did the fact that the Herkimer Generals High School principal searched Student Clyant’s backpack in the hallway of the school without a warrant violate Student Clyant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution?
Brief answer:
Given the special circumstances and the location in which the events mentioned above occurred, the principal did not violate student Clyant’s Fourth Amendment rights
Statement of Facts
There are a number of important facts pertaining to the current case. These facts are outlined below.
- Student Clyant (hereafter also referred to as ‘the student’) is a senior student at Herkimer Generals High School.
- Herkimer Generals High School has a strict no weapons policy with the only exception being law enforcement agencies
- Student Clyant had continuously been absent from school, causing concern for the school administration.
- While discussing her continued absence, her art teacher and principal (hereafter referred to as ‘the two’ or ‘the two authorities’) observed Student Clyant standing next to her locker.
- While observing her, the two noticed that student Clyant was very agitated.
- As they were still watching her, the two observed as the student unzipped her jacket and removed a revolver.
- As they ran up to her, she put the revolver in her backpack and started walking towards the library
- The two authorities continued running towards the student yelling to her to stop, which she did and faced them.
- The principal then demanded Clyant hand over her bag, making her aware that he knew she had a revolver in her possession.
- Student Clyant complied with the demand and the principal proceeded to search the backpack thoroughly, finding the revolver.
- Student Clyant claimed that she had collected the revolver on the field next to the school.
- The principal handed the revolver to the police and Clyant was charged with the illegal possession of a firearm in the school compound.
- Student Clyant claimed that by searching her backpack without her consent, the principal had violated her Fourth Amendment rights.
Analysis
There a number of important matters of fact and matters of law in the above case. The first is the behavior and conduct of student Clyant. Student Clyant had been missing classes and on the eventful day, she had missed a class, which was the cause of consultation between her art teacher and the principal. The two therefore had reason to be worried about the student’s demeanor. In addition to this brief history of deviant behavior, on the fateful day, the two authorities also noted that the student appeared very agitated. Another important fact to note is that the school has a very strict policy regarding the possession of firearms. The school regulations strictly prohibit the possession of firearms except by officers of the law. Student Clyant was therefore in blatant violation of the school provisions on this matter. Importantly, students had also been informed of this policy during an assembly at the beginning of the school year.
A third and more significant matter is that the events described here occurred within school precincts. The school is a public premise, which, as shall be seen, is an important exception consideration under the Fourth Amendment. Considering the two prior issues regarding the student’s demeanor as well as her violation of the policy on firearms, the two authorities had reason to be concerned about public safety. The cause for concern is particularly exacerbated by America’s bitter history with school shootings, which Everytown.org places at 221 since 2013 (EveryTown.Org, 2017). The period during which the current scenario occurred is not readily apparent, but the contextual consideration of a school setting is imperative in light of these shooting incidences. There is also further cause for concern considering that the student was headed to the school library, which is a high-risk area since it is a highly crowded area with many potential victims.
Rule of law
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from unlawful searches by officers of the law. In particular, the amendment provides that individuals will only be searched where there is a warrant of search or seizure based on reasonable cause, with such a warrant describing the place to be searched or person to be seized. In particular, the amendment reads as follows:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (United States Constitution, Amendment 4)
While the Fourth Amendment is very categorical, it is important to note the language of the amendment. The amendment only protects against what it terms as ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’. Importantly, it is not just enough for one to quote the Fourth Amendment. Rather, according to the Cornell University Law School, one must demonstrate an expectation of privacy. Such an expectation regards the extent to which one takes precautionary measures to exclude access by others. Moreover, this expectation to privacy does not apply to an open field. Each of these issues derives from case laws, which are described in the next section.
Case law
The reasonableness test is an important concept applied by courts in analyzing a violation to the Fourth Amendment. The reasonableness test makes it constitutional to conduct searches or seizures absent of a warrant in certain circumstances. Some of the cases where an exception to the requirement for a warrant has been granted are as follows. The first is the case of exigent circumstances, where there is a need to engage in immediate searches or seizures to forestall some imminent danger (Pirius, 2014). Secondly, exception is also granted where a search is granted incident to a lawful arrest, particularly where the search seeks to seize weapons thereby protecting officers and preventing the destruction of evidence. There are also exigency exception for automobile and containers, due to the mobility of these items before a warrant can be obtained. Finally, an exception is also granted under the plain view/feel doctrine, when an item of evidence is spotted in plain view or is within plain feel.
One of the most important cases is Katz v. United States, in 1967. This case pertained to the collection of evidence by the FBI via eavesdropping activity. The petitioner claimed that by collecting information in this manner, the FBI had violated the Fourth Amendment. In its opinion, the court held that the Fourth Amendment did not principally pertain to individuals’ privacy, but to their right to be free from governmental intrusion. Mr. Justice Harlan, in expressing the concurring opinion, brought about the argument regarding an expectation of privacy (Katz v. United States, 1967). These position entails two components, the first being a subjective expression by an individual of this expectation, while the second is the recognition by society of that expectation as reasonable. Consequently, in the above case, where the petitioner was speaking over a public telephone, did not qualify for protection under the expectation of privacy, since given the context that would be unreasonable.
Application of law to facts of case
A variety of issues has been highlighted regarding the legal aspects of this case. Here, I will identify components of the law and apply them to the case in context.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from government intrusion. Its operationalization, however, occurs within the perspective of probable cause. Thus, probable cause is a necessary aspect for a search and seizure in all circumstances, whereby once that probable cause has been established, the amendment then requires the governmental authority to obtain a warrant of search. In the current case, the condition of probable cause has already been fulfilled in more than one way. The first is the aggressive demeanor of Student Clyant, while the second and most prominent is the plain site of the weapon in question.
The requirement for a warrant of search may, however, be waived based on certain special considerations which obviate the need for a warrant. One of these is exigent circumstances; where there is a need to engage in an immediate search and seizure in order to forestall some form of imminent danger. In this case, it has been demonstrated that there were indeed exigent circumstances at hand. Student Clyant had been truant for some time. At the time that the incident occurred, she appeared very agitated. The two authorities then saw her with a gun, which she transferred from her pocket into her backpack, before heading for the library. Granted the recent incidences of school shootings, the two authorities had probable cause to believe that such a threat was looming and therefore needed to do whatever they could to prevent this danger from materializing.
Another situation under which the requirement for warrant can be waived is the plain view/plain feel doctrine. This doctrine applies when an objective of evidence is within plain view. In this case, the two authorities had already seen the gun that they were after in plain view.
Finally, there are also issues related to an expectation of privacy and the open field doctrine. Individuals need to portray a subjective expectation to privacy if they expect to be protected under the Fourth Amendment. The petitioner failed to express such a subjective expectation, by removing the gun within a school hall, which also comprises an open field.
Based on the above facts, it is evident that there was no breach to the Fourth amendment. The case satisfies many of the conditions for an exception to the Fourth Amendment
Counter analysis
A counter analysis to the position expressed above would probably rely on a stringent interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Such an interpretation would be erroneous. The Fourth Amendment does not provide an absolute protection of individuals’ privacy. Actually, the amendment only targets a prevention from intrusion. Undeniably, the two authorities intruded on the girl’s privacy. The two authorities intrude on her backpack. The counter analysis position, however, is intrinsically weakened by a systematic set of considerations as has been discussed in the section on the application of the law.
Conclusion
In
conclusion, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred as claimed by Student
Clyant. The student relies on a stringent and rigid reading of the Fourth
Amendment, which ignores the spirit and intentions of the same. For starters,
the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from intrusion, but does not
necessarily deal with privacy. Moreover, the amendment requires that reasonable
cause should exist, which should then be accompanied by a warrant of search or
seizure. There are certain circumstances, however, when the requirements on
warranty are shelved. One such instance is exigent circumstances where some
certain danger is imminent. Moreover, individuals need to portray an
expectation to privacy if they are to claim protection under the Fourth
Amendment. Such an expectation cannot be expressed within an open field,
whereby a school hall comprises an open field. Finally, when an object is in
plain view, then the need for warranty is also waived. Student Clyant waived
their protection under the Fourth Amendment when she displayed the gun within
an open field, therefore retracting her expectation to privacy. Moreover, the
existence of imminent danger also waives the Fourth Amendment protection.
References
EveryTown.Org. (2017). 221 School Shootings In America Since 2013. Retrieved from Every Town Research: https://everytownresearch.org/school-shootings/
Katz v. United States, 35 (Supreme Court December 18, 1967).
Pirius, R. (2014). The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure Law. Minnesota: House Research.
The Constitution of the United States. (n.d.).
