Running Header: LEGAL ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM 1

Legal Analysis Memorandum:

Possession of a Controlled Substance and Possession of an Unregistered Firearm

[Your Name Here]

[Your Course Information Here]

16 October 2016
LEGAL ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM 2

Legal Analysis Memorandum:

Possession of a Controlled Substance and Possession of an Unregistered Firearm

Issue

Our firm’s client Mr. Jonathan Blake is facing charges on three different counts. The first count

is a misdemeanor charge of Possession of a Controlled Substance (DC Code Citation: §48-

904.01, §48-904.08); the second count is a felony charge of Possession of a Controlled

Substance with Intent to Distribute (DC Code Citation: §48-904.01); the third count is either a

misdemeanor or a felony charge of Possession of an Unregistered Firearm (DC Code Citation:

§7-2502.01, §7-2507.06). It is the purpose of this analysis to discuss the degree to which the

evidence supported each one of these counts is admissible in court. As a result of the following

analysis, it has been concluded that the evidence supporting the charges of Possession of

Controlled Substances is admissible in court, but the evidence supporting the charge of

Possession of an Unregistered Firearm is not admissible in court.

Rule

The key issue in determining whether or not the evidence obtained to support the charges faced

by our client is admissible in court concerns the interpretation of the 4th Amendment. In

particular, the 4th Amendment guarantees that “the right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be

violated” (Storm, 2015). Thus, this analysis seeks to determine whether or not, and to what

degree, this constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures renders the

evidence obtained by the prosecution inadmissible in court. Of additional significance to this

process are the following Supreme Court decisions:

LEGAL ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM 3

 Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961): held that evidence seized in the course of an illegal

search is inadmissible in federal court

 Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998): modified Mapp v. Ohio to conclude that police

are justified in using evidence seized from a private residence against an individual who

was not there as a personal guest

 District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008): held that the District of Columbia

could not categorically prohibit the registration of any class of commonly used personal

firearms.

Analysis

The analysis will take up the issue of our client’s charges of Possession of Controlled Substances

and our client’s charge of Possession of an Unregistered Firearm separately.

Possession of Controlled Substances

According to the defendant, he was arrested on 6 February 2011, while watching the Super Bowl

game at the house of his friend, Mr. Jessie Smith. Our client was observed by police officers

looking through a large living room window as he smoked marijuana, and provided a bag of

white powder, presumably cocaine, to another individual in the room. After being granted

permission to enter the house by the house’s owner, Jessie Smith, police officers informed our

client that he had been observed providing the bag of white powder to another individual, while

also informing everyone else in the rest of the room that everyone had been seen smoking

marijuana. The officers then proceeded to frisk our client and the other individuals in the room,

uncovering on the person of our client quantities of suspected marijuana and cocaine, and a large

amount of cash as well. Additionally, officers discovered four unregistered firearms in the room.
LEGAL ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM 4

At first glance, it may appear that these seizures are a priori a violation of our client’s 4th

Amendment rights. The police did not have a warrant to search the property for the firearms or

controlled substances for which our client is being prosecuted, and he was in a private residence

at the time the evidence was obtained. However, the findings of Minnesota v. Carter operate to

suggest that the obtained evidence may be admissible in court after all. In particular, if looking

through a hole in a blind as per Minnesota v. Carter is to be considered an acceptable means of

procuring evidence, then looking through a fully transparent window as per our client’s current

case will likely also be considered an acceptable means of procuring evidence. However, there is

one worthwhile caveat to be observed here in our client’s defense. Minnesota v. Carter held that

the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy since he was on the premises for

business purposes, while our client was on the premises for reasons of a personal friendship with

the homeowner. Thus, it might be worth pursuing a motion to dismiss the drug charges under the

argument that our client had a reasonable expectation of privacy while in the house of his friend.

However, it is unlikely that this motion will be successful, since our client was not an overnight

guest, but was merely visiting for a short period of time.

Possession of an Unregistered Firearm

In general, the firearms can be considered admissible in court on the same lines of

argumentation that render the controlled substances admissible in court. However, possession of

an unregistered firearm can only be considered to be a crime on the part of the firearm’s owner.

Since the ownership of the unregistered firearms is still an open question at this point, the

prosecution has no grounds for suggesting it was our client himself who possessed the

unregistered firearms in question. Mere physical proximity is insufficient to substantiate actual

LEGAL ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM 5

possession, so it is hard to see the court accepting the evidence behind this charge as being

admissible.

Conclusion

It is my legal opinion that the evidence in support of the charges of Possession of a

Controlled Substance is admissible in court, but that the evidence in support of the charges of

Possession of an Unregistered Firearm is inadmissible in court. While it may be possible to

convince the court that the evidence in support of Possession of a Controlled Substance should

be considered inadmissible since our client had a personal relationship with the owner of the

house he was visiting, this line of argumentation may not be supportable under the “overnight

guest” provision of Minnesota v. Carter.

LEGAL ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM 6

References

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998)

Storm, L. M. (2015). Introduction to criminal law. Ann Arbor, MI: U of M Press.