Help me with writing a Legal MEMORANDUM

Here is the CASE:

Memo #1 At 4:00PM on June 19, 2023 an employee at Riverside Auto Dealership was closing down the dealership for the day when they saw a brand-new red Jeep Wagoneer (the \"J eep\") from their lot speeding away into the night. They immediately phoned the police to report that the Jeep had been stolen. Prior to the theft, the employee had noticed that there was a suspicious looking black Ford F150 Truck (the \"F 0rd\") parked nearby with its lights on. At rst the employee thought that maybe it was waiting for one of the customers, but it stayed around the dealership long after closing and left immediately behind the Jeep. The police began searching for the Jeep by asking the public for help on the local news channel, where they provided a Crimestoppers tip line where people could call in if they spotted the Jeep or the Ford. One of the Crimestoppers tips came om an anonymous source telling them that they believed there was a \"chop shop\" (a place Where stolen cars are taken apart and re-sold on the black market) located at 1234 Elm St. in Vancouver and that the Jeep might be there. Upon receiving the tip, the police dispatched Ofcer Kimmel to follow up on the tip. Ofcer Kimmel rst approached 1234 Elm St. with a Forward Looking Infrared (F LIR) camera to collect any readings of the heat emanating from the residence and garage located at 1234 Elm St. The F LIR found that there was a great deal of heat coming from the garage consistent with heat emanating from a car that had recently been driven at high speeds, as well as the use of welding equipment that is commonly used in \"chop shops\" to take apart stolen cars. Officer Kimmel then knocked on the door to the main residence of 1234 Elm Street and an older man named O'Conner answered the door. Officer Kimmel explained that they were looking for a missing Jeep. O'Conner welcomed Officer Kimmel into the house and offered them some hot cocoa. O'Conner explained he rented one of the bedrooms as well as the garage to a man named Deckerd, who was going through a messy divorce (with kids and pets and everything). Deckerd was not home - "He's probably at the pub" O'Conner explained. Deckerd did a lot of drinking to try to cope with the divorce. Kimmel looked on the coffee table and spotted a cell phone next to a desktop computer. "Mind if I take these back to the department so one of our IT folks can have a look inside?" Kimmel asked. "They're Deckerd's, but I'm sure he'd be OK with it - he leaves them here for me to use whenever I want" answered O'Conner. Officer Kimmel went to search O'Conner's backyard. At that moment Deckerd returned home to O'Conner's house. "I'm placing you under arrest!" O'Conner exclaimed so Deckerd backed out the door and started running away. O'Conner ran after him, tackling Deckerd to the ground. Hearing the scuffle, Officer Kimmel ran to the front yard and found O'Conner pinning Deckerd to the ground choking him. "I can take it from here," Officer Kimmel said, pulling Deckerd up from the ground and placing him in handcuffs. "I'm placing you under arrest for the theft of a vehicle Mr. Deckerd. We'll have to go to the station." Officer Kimmel put Deckerd in their police cruiser and then continued to search the neighbourhood. They came across a black Ford F150 truck that matched the description of the Ford that was lurking near Riverside Auto Dealership. Officer Kimmel radioed in the plates of the Ford and found it was registered to Deckerd. Officer Kimmel searched the Ford and in thebackseat underneath the floor mats they found baggies containing methamphetamine, cocaine, and scales that could be used for weighing drugs. Ofcer Kimmel had the Ford towed to a police facility where a more extensive search could be done. By the time Ofcer Kimmel brought Deckerd to the police station it was 11:00PM. Deckerd asked to speak to his lawyer. Ofcer Kimmel provided Deckerd with a card with the number of duty counsel, as well as phone he could use to call any lawyer he wished. Deckerd's lawyer did not answer the phone and Deckerd left a message for him and then returned to the holding cell. Deckerd turned to his cell mate and asked him what his name was. \"My name is Jo and I am here because I was supposedly driving under the inuence.\" Said the man 7 who was actually an undercover police ofcer. Deckerd told Jo: \"That sucks man. I'm here for drug stuff they'll never nd my stash though. I'll be out in no time. Got a great lawyer.\" \"Oh yeah?\" asked Jo. \"Definitely\" said Deckerd. \"It's hidden like in secret compartments in my truck, places you can't even see without like the jaws of life prying open my car. . ..Hey, do they give you anything to eat in here? I'm starving. I don't think I've had anything to eat today.\" Jo replied, \"yeah, there are sandwiches at mealtimes, but it could be a while.\" Deckerd laughed, \"I'm kind of on a liquid diet these days beer, beer, and more beer!\" Jo asked, \"when's the last time you had a beer man?\" Deckerd replied \"oh like, right before they arrested me. Probably my eighth beer today. I was just hanging out at the bar all night and then when I got back my roommate tackled me and now I'm here.\" While Deckerd was in the holding cell, Ofcer Kimmel started doing the paperwork related to his arrest (included as appendixes to this memo problem) so that they could apply for a warrant from a judge for a more extensive search of the 1234 Elm St. property. Once that was nished, at 2AM, Ofcer Kimmel pulled Deckerd out of the cell and into an interview room. Ofcer Kimmel asked if Deckerd repeatedly about the the of the truck from Riverside and Deckerd denied knowing anything about it. Kimmel then asked him about the drugs that were found in his car and he repeatedly said he wanted to speak to his lawyer. \"It will be a lot easier for you if you just co-operate with us\" Ofcer Kimmel said. \"You know, we're interested in the Jeep, but I could easily charge you with driving while intoxicated because you rceked of alcohol when I could easily charge you with driving while intoxicated because you reeked of alcohol when I first arrested you.\" Deckerd remained silent so Ofcer Kimmel continued, \"You wouldn't want us to tell your ex-wife about this situation, would you? Could mean you could lose access to your kids if she finds out that you've been arrested for drugs and that you're caught up in this truck theft...\" Deckerd loved his family more than anything, so he said, \"I didn't mean to do anything. . .but sometimes good people have to do bad things. I had to sell the drugs so that I could pay for a lawyer so I could actually see my kids. Lawyers man, they are so expensive, and I really had no choice.\" At about 6AM the police returned Deckerd to his cell. Officer Kimmel contacted Deckerd's exwife, Sophie, and asked if she could come down to the station and maybe get Deckerd to talk. Sophie was upset with Deckerd because of the divorce and she wanted to help out the police so she came to the station and allowed the police to put a recording device on her while she went to talk to Deckerd. When Deckerd saw Sophie he started crying, being overcome with emotion. Sophie asked him: \"did you do it? Did you steal the Jeep?\" Deckerd was sobbing and begging Sophie to get back together. \"I'd do anything for you and the kids Sophie\" he said. \"Even steal a car, break the law, sell drugs 7 whatever! I love you!\" Six hours later, on June 20th (before the warrant was signed by the justice), at the police impound facility, the police conducted an invasive search, taking apart Deckerd's Ford where they found more drugs, as well as a GPS unit that tracked the Ford's movements for the night of June 19, 2023. That GPS unit showed the Ford had been parked outside the Riverside Auto Dealership for a number of hours before driving to where it was ultimately found by Ofcer Kimmel near Elm St. The IT specialists pulled a series of text messages off of the cell phone that suggested that Deckerd was involved in planning the theft of the Jeep, and was acting as a \"lookout' for the individuals who drove away in the Jeep on June 19. You are an articling student who is working for defence counsel Dewey, Cheatem and Howe who have been hired by Deckerd to help defend him from charges of theft over $5,000 and various charges under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. They have asked you to write a legal memo where you provide your opinion, anchored in the relevant statutes and law from this course, on the following issues: 1. Do you believe that the search of the 1234 Elm St. residence (including the cell phone & computer) and the Ford violated Deckerd's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? Why or why not? 2. Are the admissions Deckerd made to Jo and Sophie likely to be admissible at his trial? Why or why not? 3. If there was a violation of Deckerd's Charter protected rights, would he be entitled to any kind of Charter remedy? Discuss whether an application for a remedy would be successful or not. *note you should discuss this issue even if you do not believe Deckerd's Charter rights were violated* the difference between remedies under sections 24(1) and 24(2) of the Charter Remedies under - 24(1), exclusion of evidence under s. 24(1)? the criteria for the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2) - R. v. Grant test for exclusion of evidenceD the meaning of privacy under section 8 of the Charter D when and how section 8 of the Charter applies D the requirements for a constitutionally valid search D the requirements for a search warrant under section 487 of the Code D the requirements of other provisions that allow for search warrants D the validity of \"perimeter" and similar searches D common law powers of search and seizure the nature of and distinction between admissions and confessions the problems associated with jailhouse informants the meaning of "person in authority," for the purposes of the confession rule the criteria for a confession to be admissible in evidence - the impact of Charter rights to counsel and silence on the admissibility of confessions issues with undercover police officers eliciting confessions (Mr. Big) - the nature of the privilege against testimonial self- incriminatin