What are the most important facts and issues in this case, and how are they likely to be resolved?

– Office Memo Assignment Memorandum
TO: Associate Attorney
FROM: Dayna Maeder, Esq.
DATE: February 22, 2021
RE: Dani Douglas Criminal Case
The following information pertains to the office memorandum assignment. You should read this document carefully—more than once. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Officer Sara Pete responded to a domestic issue at the residence of Dani Douglas. Upon arrival, Officer Pete found Theo Belvedere rummaging through the kitchen cabinets in an extremely agitated state. Claiming he was being illegally evicted, Theo was able to demonstrate that his name was on the internet bill and he was living in the apartment. After questioning Theo, it became clear to Officer Pete that Theo was not, in fact, on the lease, which was later confirmed by the leasing office. When Officer Pete explained this to Theo, Theo responded by claiming that Dani should not even be allowed to live there because she is a “big time drug dealer.” He then directed Officer Pete to look for a briefcase full of cocaine hidden behind Dani’s desk.
Dani’s desk is located in a small foyer between the living room and her bedroom. There is no door to the foyer or the bedroom; instead, one proceeds under an archway and down a short hall, through the bookshelf-lined foyer (where the desk is located), and under another archway at the front of the master bedroom (Dani’s room). Officer Pete did not pass under the second archway and instead stopped at the desk, looked behind the side panel, and discovered a briefcase, apparently hidden there. Inside the briefcase, Officer Pete discovered 6 kilograms of cocaine base.
Officer Pete immediately called in the find and a BOLO was issued for Dani Douglas. With a clear description of her vehicle provided by Theo, it was not long before Dani was spotted by Officer Tee Jay, out on regular patrol. Officer Jay conducted a routine stop.
During the stop, Officer Jay asked Dani if she had been drinking or using drugs. Dani responded that she had not. Officer Jay asked Dani if he could search the vehicle, and Dani got out of her car but did not verbally consent. The supposition is that consent was implied—Dani never objected to the search or invoked her right to refuse the search; she told our office that she “thought there wasn’t anything to find.”
Officer Jay found $19,000 in cash in a gym bag in the backseat of the car. He also found a small jar with just under 3 grams of marijuana stuck underneath the driver’s seat. Dani does not have a medical marijuana card, and she maintains that the someone must have planted the jar because she has never seen it before. She notes that Theo is the only person she knows who has a medical marijuana card. Officer Jay reported that Dani became belligerent after he discovered the jar and the cash. He claims that Dani appeared both surprised and angry when he produced the jar from under the seat, and she then repeatedly refused requests to step away from the car and to back away from Officer’s Jay’s person.
While searching Dani’s vehicle, Officer Jay noted that Dani’s cellphone was unlocked, as she had apparently been streaming an anger management video when she was pulled over. Considering that there may be evidence of further nefarious dealings on the phone, Officer Jay made continuous efforts to keep the cellphone unlocked throughout the remainder of this encounter. Officer Jay placed Dani under arrest and brought her back to the station, where she was eventually charged with conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
These charges are based largely upon text messages and call logs on Dani’s phone—heavily, and sometimes directly, evidencing detailed drug dealing activities—as well as the cocaine, cash, and Theo’s testimony that “Dani regularly brought the product into their residence, Dani spent most of her days delivering packages, and Dani prepared and distributed the cocaine entirely on her own.”
Dani adamantly maintains her innocence, saying she “was never involved” and “had no knowledge of” a drug enterprise. She believes that Theo set her up. During questioning, Theo admitted to purchasing small quantities of cocaine in the past, but he stated that he “had never planned, negotiated, or participated in any sale or conspiracy to distribute cocaine.” Theo has one prior felony drug possession charge, for which he served three years concluding in 2010. He further stated that he only traveled with Dani for “friendly visits” when she was dealing drugs. Theo maintains his own innocence as well.

As you are already aware, Dani Douglas has brought her Fourth Amendment case to our prestigious firm. Please prepare a memorandum outlining the significant legal issue(s) and suggesting a likely conclusion of law. Attend to these questions: What are the most important facts and issues in this case, and how are they likely to be resolved? What rules/cases will the Court look to in making this determination? Should we accept the case?
The Rhetorical Situation: The audience for this assignment is me—your supervising attorney. Imagine that I know nothing or very little about this case; I’ve likely forgotten the facts you’ve been provided (though I am able to contact Dani if you have questions for her). Also, imagine that I will use this memorandum, and this memorandum alone, to decide whether or not the firm should take this case. Make your writing speakable. Pretend we are having lunch after a hearing downtown and I’m asking you to tell me about “this Douglas case” and the research you’ve done.
Yes, the text in this instance is, of course, written—an office memorandum. That is, an internal communication between you and lead counsel that discusses the merits and likelihood of success for a particular case. This sort of document is privileged attorney work product, so you need not worry about whether you disclose something to opposing counsel.
Carefully review the fact pattern provided. You are being asked to consider the relevant rules (statutes, amendment(s), and case law) and assess how the Supreme Court is likely to rule in this case. Moreover, you should pick a side—either we should take the case or not. This is the ultimate purpose of the office memorandum: to advise me of the likely outcome. You should apply the relevant facts to the rules and prove your case. Be clear and concise, but make an effort to keep me reasonably informed. You don’t want to pull the wool over my eyes on this one. Use your best judgment, and consider the rhetorical situation. You qua associate attorney are the authorof this brief. Take this assignment seriously, as though your job is on the line—it likely would be.
Please ignore any procedural issues or issues outside the scope of the Fourth Amendment.
Expanding CREAC: We again adhere to the CREAC format for this assignment. The office memo expands, in particular, the first “C” in our CREAC analysis. It will include a brief statement of the issue and a brief answer. You will also need a discussion of relevant facts. You may have three or more “REAc” sections, depending upon the number of rules you address. As always, be sure not to omit the counteranalysis.
There is a Memo Reading on Canvas that provides more information about this assignment. It also provides examples. Review this document, and use it to help direct your writing.
Other Considerations: Structure your memorandum with section headings and thoughtfully format it so that it appeals to your audience. Pay close attention to grammar and style rules. Keep font and formatting consistent. There is no page requirement for this assignment. You mustinclude appropriate citation in order for your memo to be complete. You are also required to thoroughly edit and revise your memorandum. Office memos have “take lines” like the ones you find at the top of this assignment memorandum.

Last Completed Projects