Business Law

BUSL 18 Memorandum

Please brief People v. Cantor (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 57 [57 Cal.Rptr.3d 478], which is posted on our Canvas page. Use the following format for your brief, including the headings . Consult your book at pages 19 - 23 and A-1 through A-3 for an explanation and an example of case briefing. You will notice that these headings are slightly different from those in your book; please use the headings below.

People v. Cantor (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 57 [57 Cal.Rptr.3d 478]

Facts :

The defendant was noticed by the police as being a careless driver and he was stopped. He was seen reaching over something and pulling towards his seat . He was asked if he was hiding something but denied it. However, the smell of Marijuana was a little bit stronger in the car but there was no sign of burnt cigarettes and thus the police were unable to determine where the smell that was in the car came from . Later on it was discovered that there was a smell of Marijuana and the serach commenced . The defendant accepted the police to start the inspection of him and his vehicle . He even accepted being inspected by the police dog but before the police dog was brought, the police started inspecting different parts of the vehicle and the police started opening a small mechanical device which he met a paper bag that contained cocaine in it . The defendant was charged of transporting and possessing cocaine for sale. As a result of this there was no justification for his detention to be prolonged.

Procedural History :

The defendant is charged with possessing and transporting cocaine for sale. The Court of Appeal reversed because there was a claim that the search exceeded the defendant’s consent and this was against the US constitution 4th amend. The legal theories in this case was possession that the prosecution is using. Before facing trial, the defendant moved to ensure that he suppresses the evidence found in his trunk. The motion was denied for a writ of mandate to compel the suppression of the evidence that was available.

Issue : Whether the searching of the defendant went against the US constitution 4th amend; the trial court erred as a matter of law because it failed to recognize the limited scope of the consent of the defendant at hand; citing Jimeno and Crenshaw, the Attoney general maintains the scope of defendant’s consent was not exceeded because the unscrewing the back of the record cleaner did not break it.

Result/Holding : There was the exercise of independent judgement by the court. The prosecution bears the burden to ensure that it has been able to prove that the warrantless search was within the scope of the given consent. The court relied on a crucial concern that was underlying the fourth amendment jurisprudence that is the expectation of privacy that is reasonably manifested by an individual in his locked luggage no matter the location of the luggage. The cases that have remained fail to give a clear indication of the extent to which, if at all the items had been sealed or locked

Reasoning : A consensual search may not really exceed the scope of the conscent that supports it. The totality of circumstances is what is really important at this given moment in time especially while the search was being conducted.a normal person could not really understand as to why the defendant could really allow the intense search to be done very quickly to such an extent as he was waiing for the police dog. An equipment that could only be opened using a screw driver can be equated to a sealed container and for this matter the police have a mandate to be near such a container especially where it is located. In the remaining cases there is no clear indication to what extent the searched items or containers were sealed or locked

Procedural Consequences :

DISPOSITION: The judgement is reversed

Format :

Total :

�6/10 Details missing. Unclear writing. Was Cantor arrested?

�Indent

�Name?

�Was he being careless? Driving 80 mph, tailgating, refusing to yield to the officers?

�toward the floor of the car.

�The officer smelled burnt marijuana coming from the car.

�Didn’t you just say this?

�search

�Did Cantor consent to a search? How did the officer describe the search he wanted to conduct? Use the exact words the officer used.

�awkward

�How did the officer open the box?

�?

�Procedural History. No court stuff here.

�7/10 Was Cantor convicted? Did he appeal? Why? Don’t put the outcome of the appeal here.

�Indent

�was

Use past tense throughout. See the evaluation form.

�Procedural Consequences.

�The motion and the petition are separate.

�12/15 Be more specific: Did the trial court make a mistake when it denied Cantor’s motion to suppress the cocaine because the officer’s search of the car and use of a screwdriver to open the box exceeded the scope of Cantor’s consent to a “real quick” search of the car? Issues should be questions only, no answers, no background, just questions.

�Reasoning.

�11/15 This is all Reasoning. Result/Holding should not be general statements of law. R/H should be a specific answer, specific to Mr.Cantor: “The trial court erred as a matter of law by failing to recognize the limited scope of defendant’s consent . . .”

�Reasoning.

�Start with the R/rule/law: “Consent to a search is a recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.” Then quote, from the same paragraph, the standard for measure scope of consent to a search.

�10/25 MUCH more needed. Use the RAC format specified in the assignment sheet and the evaluation form and explained in chapter 1.You MUST use the legal sources referred to in the case.

�spelling

�Discuss the use of a screwdriver to open the box in a separate paragraph, using separate cases.

�5/5

�judgment

�14/20

-5 Follow instructions on naming your document. See the assignment sheet, the evaluation form, and my announcements.

-1 Indent the first line of each new paragraph.

�65/100