The invesitigating officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle and as a result, both stop and the subsequent search violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.
1) The relevant cases and rule under Franklin law
a) The rule
There has to be (i)a reasonable suspition that criminal activitiy may be afoot (Terry v. Ohio("Terry") for the police to make a brief investigatory stop if they have a reasonable suspition that criminal activitiy may be afoot.
In order to determine whether the suspicion is reasonable, the court will look at the (ii)totality of the circumstances of each case(Under State v. Montel("Montel"). In the case of lack of "personal observation" or "firsthand account" of a crime, there is no way of knowing the original informat's state of mind and whether the original informant is the reliably and accurately relate events(Terry State v. Grayson("Grason")). Therefore, this is taken into account as a negative factor to admit the (i)above.
Also, the (iii) the independent police corroboration is necessary in order to make a brief investigatory stop(Grayson).
b) This case
In this case, The Officer Simon("Officer") havd no reasonable suspiciton that would justify the stop of McLain("D") as the following reasons.
The officer is not "personal observation" or "firsthand account" a crime, because had just received unknown call.Also, he just experienced the marijuana case on 8th street and he have no experience in 8th street regarding methamphetamine.
(iii)
Because had just received unknown call, so there is no independent police corroboration. The fact he searched the
Also, he just experienced the marijuana case on 8th street and he have no experience in 8th street regarding methamphetamine.
So, there is no independent corroboration here.
Also, he just checked the very common charecter of the suspect based on the phone, this is not enough
Besides, he found less siginificant quantity of methamphetamine.Also the package of coffe is not included in the phone and it can affect to deny the resasonableness.
Therefore, the mistake about marijuana shows his lack of corroboration.
On the contrary, the Office may say thet there is no reprot from Oxford Streetshop-Mart, that turned out to be erroneous.
However, in this case, the informant is unknown person and not
Oxford, so this doesn't corraborate his belief. there is no way of knowing the original informat's state of mind and whether the original informant is the reliably and accurately relate events.
2 Argument about the Issue 2
1) The relevant cases and rule under Franklin law
a) The rule
Under State v. Decker("Decker"), if it is impossible to commit the greater offense without first having committted the lesser offense, it is the violation of the double jeopardy and due process provision of US Constitution(Decker)
Franklin case law doesn'trequre a strict textual comparison. If in comparing the elements of the offenses in the abstract, there offenses are so simmilar that the cmmission of one offeense will necessarily result in commission of the other, then the oofenses are multiplicitous.
b) This case
In this case, the elements of the Possession of Equipment or Supplies with the intent to Manufacture Methamphetamine, (Code 43) is as leser-included offense of Manufacture of Methamphetamine(Code 51). Because,in comparing the elements of the former offense and latter offense, to commit the latter offense, the person manufactures 15 or more grams but less than 100 grams of methamphetamine, and this means that after manufacturing the object, they automatically possess mpossible to commit the greater offense without first having committted the lesser offense, it is
This means that the defendant automatically has to possess and it is impossible to commit the latter offense without first having committted the lesser offense.
offenses in the abstract, there offenses are so simmilar that the cmmission of one offeense will necessarily result in commission of the other, then the oofenses are multiplicitous.