M06 Assignment--Interoffice Memo

.docx

School

Ivy Tech Community College, Indianapolis *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

224

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 29, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by stiening on coursehero.com

Memorandum of Law To: Senior Partner From: Erica Stiening Date: Saturday, April 27, 2024 Subject: Potential Defense for Client Charles Anderson Facts Charles Anderson was charged with DUI on Saturday, April 13 th , 20204. He was driving southbound on Main Street at 5 p.m. when an Indiana State Trooper pulled him over for not having his headlights on. It was early evening, but it was not dark. As a result of that traffic stop, the officer gave Anderson a field sobriety test and, ultimately, a breathalyzer. He blew a .08, the legal limit for driving. Anderson was kept at the scene for approximately 25 minutes before the field sobriety test was issued.  The officer did not smell alcohol at the initial stop but claimed that our client kept looking back at him during those 25 minutes and appeared agitated, which gave him the proximate cause for the sobriety tests. Before he administered those tests, he asked our client if he'd been drinking, and our client declined to answer.  Issue 1. Did the police officer have probable cause to stop Charles Anderson for not having headlights on at 5 p.m. under I.C. 9-21-7-2? 2. Did the police officer violate Anderson’s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution by administering a field sobriety test and breathalyzer test, an unreasonable search and seizure? Discussion 1. Traffic stop for not having headlights on. Indiana Code 9-21-7-2 states, “each vehicle upon a highway: (1) between the time from sunset to sunrise;” our client was pulled over at 5:00 pm, well before sunset. Anderson not having his headlights on during daylight hours does not violate Indiana Code 9-21-7- 2, which will be a strong argument for our defense. In the case of Wilson v. State , 847 N.E.2d 1064, the court held that a traffic stop entirely based on violating the headlight statute during daylight is not supported by probable cause. The court found that relying on a statutory violation as an excuse for the stop is not permissible when the statute does not apply. For our client, the officer pulling over
Anderson at 5:00 pm because he did not have his headlights on when the sun was still out would appear to be a pretextual stop that is not justified, similar to the case of Wilson v. State . It was further stated that if there were no violations of a statute or traffic laws and no engagement in suspicious behavior, an officer would need to obtain a warrant, ask consent to stop the vehicle, or investigate further. 2. Time delay – issuing field sobriety tests. The field sobriety test was administered 25 minutes after the initial stop. The smell of alcohol was not recognized within this timeframe. The officer noted that our client appeared agitated, which gave him the suspicion to conduct the field sobriety tests. In the case of State v. Gray , 997 N.E.2d 1147, the court reiterates the importance of an officer having reasonable and emphatical suspicion to justify prolonged detention of a motor vehicle operator longer than the needed time for the initial stop. The court additionally ruled that an officer having a hunch is insufficient for a prolonged stop. In our client’s case, the officer believed that Anderson was agitated. However, this does not meet the threshold for reasonable suspicion to detain Anderson for a prolonged time. The 25-minute detainment does not have a clear justification, which creates questions about the legality of field sobriety tests conducted on our client. 3. Anderson declining to answer questions. Lastly, our client exercised his right to remain silent when he refused to answer the question, “Have you been drinking?” Our client's refusal to answer this question should not be held against him since the right to remain silent is a right that anyone has. In State v. Washington, 898 N.E.2d, 1200, the court reaffirmed that an individual’s right to remain silent or decline to answer a question/s cannot be used against them as evidence of guilt. Our client’s refusal to answer the question does not default as an admission of guilt or constitute reasonable suspicion. Conclusion Our client, Charles Anderson, vigorously defends the DUI charges. The initial traffic stop lacks probable cause, the prolonged detention has potentially violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and his refusal to answer the question is protected by law. I recommend that these arguments be pursued. I would happily conduct further research if necessary, but the abovementioned cases are a good starting point. Please let me know if additional research is warranted or if there are any questions that I can answer. Sincerely, Erica Stiening Paralegal
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help