Can someone please explain to me what I did wrong in the submitted assignment and what I'm suppose to do with this assignment, my teacher commented in the end please help.

Section Five

25 points

Brief the mandatory court opinion that you will be citing in your appellate brief as assigned in Lesson Three.Refer to "Briefing An Opinion" in Statsky Chapter 7, and include all sections of a Comprehensive Case Brief, as detailed in Exhibit 7-13.

Appellate Brief Scenario:

Your client, Ms. Kimberly Hall, stands convicted under your state law for charges involving theft, trafficking in stolen property, fraud, and alteration of vehicle identification numbers.Hall runs a small salvage yard on a 3.5 acre piece of property surrounded by several fences, tall trees, dense scrub bushes, andposted No Trespassing signs.The property contains 2 structures:a small one-room cabin, in which Hall resides, and a separate structure, approximately 30 feet high, with sliding barn doors on all four sides, no windows, and no roof.

Early on the day of Hall's arrest, state and local authorities conducted a drone-surveillance sweep after an anonymous tip line received several calls reporting the operation of multiple automotive chop shops in a rural location within your state of residence.Captured video of the larger structure, obtained by the drone's camera from approximately 100 feet in the air and simultaneously transmitted to police officers on the ground, revealed the presence of multiple dismantled vehicles, a pile of license plates, various automotive parts and tools, including grinders, cutting saws, hoists and welding rigs.Hall was taken into police custody at approximately 5:00 a.m. that morning, and was subsequently charged based on that footage.

At trial, several residents claimed that the presence of the drones in the early morning hours resulted in unnecessary panic, which quickly swept the small community, and resulted in multiple calls to local police dispatch, some minor property damage, and at least one assault.Sally Jones, who lives adjacent to Ms. Hall, testifiedthat, "Conner Peterson and those damned drones caused enough drama and paranoia to end a 25-year friendship in a fistfight."Conner Peterson, a survivalist/prepper and avid short-wave radio enthusiast, stated for the record that, on the morning of Hall's arrest, he was up late monitoring radio transmissions between members of a known local anti-government group who were discussing plans for "something big" involving the use of personal drones.Mr. Peterson stated that he heard an unusual buzzing noise coming from the west side of his property as he stood outside with his dog at approximately 4:00 a.m.When he spotted a drone hovering between his house and his garage, he immediately began calling to warn his neighbors that something was up, and to remain vigilant.

The trial court considered all testimony, exhibits, and arguments and found your client guilty.

Section Five

I. Citation

Opinion Briefing: Is it lawful for there to be aerial surveillance conducted resulting in Ms. Kimberly Hall being prosecuted?

Names of the Parties:

The State vMs. Kimberly Hall

II. Parties

Lead parties: The lead parties are Ms. Hall and The State.

Relationship to each other: Ms. Hall is a neighbor living in the area and The State is the people which have sent the policeseveral calls and reports about the operation of multiple automotive chop shops in a rural location within their state of residence.

The plaintiff at the trial level is the state and the defendant is Ms. Hall. The role played by the plaintiff is to prosecute the defendant, get a conviction and admission of a video footage from drone surveillance as evidence in the case against Ms. Hall. The role played by the defendant is to defend herself against the charges brought against her and to challenge the use of evidence from the drone surveillance.

III. Objectives of the Parties

The state wants to convict and punish Ms. Hall forcharges involving theft, trafficking in stolen property, fraud, and alteration of vehicle identification numbers. Ms. Hall wants to avoid conviction and punishment.

Ms. Hall -The role of the appellant at appeal level is to seek a reversal of a conviction at trial or to challenge the decision of the trial court either in law or on facts, with the overall goal of reversing a conviction.

The State - The role of the respondent during an appeal is to seek the appeal court to sustain the trial court's decision by quashing the appeal.

.

IV. Theories of the Parties

Trial: The states theory is that Ms. Hall has suspicious itemsof multiple dismantled vehicles, a pile of license plates, various automotive parts and tools, including grinders, cutting saws, hoists and welding rigs in which she had to be taken to custody for. The state may use 496 statutes because they may think that the suspicious items in her yard with license plates can be stolen.

Appeal: Ms. Halls theory is that the state has violated1983statue as well as Amendment four rights. The state has invaded her privacy and used aerial drones to help in her conviction, which she would see as unlawful.

At the trial level of the case Ms. Hall was convicted of having items that could be stolen property, suspicious license plates and this was evidence to convict her.

The response of the defendant can be that using the aerial drones to lead to her arrest unlawful and an invasion of privacy because this search has been done without her consent.

V. History of the Litigation

Prior Proceeding: The prior proceeding was theanonymous tip line receiving several calls from people in the area reporting the operation of multiple automotive chop shops in the rural location within the state of residence.

Present Proceeding: The trial court, which determined what the result of Ms. Hall's consideration of whether, she is guilty or not guilty.

Trial: A criminal prosecution was brought by the state.

Result: Trial court reviewed the testimony, exhibits and information and found Ms. Halls guilty in the conviction.

Vl. Facts

Ms. Kimberly Hall runs a small yard on her property surrounded by several fences, tall trees, dense scrub bushes and posted No Trespassing signs. After an anonymous tip reporting operationof multiple automotive chop chops in rural location, the state and local authorities conducted a drone-surveillance. The drone-surveillance captured video of the larger structure revealed the presence of multiple dismantled vehicles, a pile of license plates and various automotive parts and tools. Hall was taken to the police custody and was charged accordingly.

VII.Issues(s)

The issue is whether aerial surveillance is an unlawful search or whether a search without a warrant is unlawful.

VIII. Holding(s)

The trial court considered all testimony, exhibits, and arguments and found Ms. Hall guilty. Therefore, there is no holding.

IX. Reasoning

The state has conducted that there was reasonable evidence to prosecute Ms. Hall therefore there is no unlawful search when it comes to the states point of view statute states that they could use this surveillance to convict someone when it comes to stolen property and suspicious items.

X. Disposition

The trial court reviewing the testimony found that Ms. Hall has to be convicted and is found guilty, therefore she has been arrested concluded by the aerial drone evidence

My teacher comments:

We are not briefing our client's case---we need to research the issue and then brief a case we have located that we may use in the appellate brief to support our client's position.I do need you to re-dothis section and resubmit it.

Thanks!