I need help with this interoffice memo assignment, please help if you understand this assignment , thank you

T0: Supervising attorney FROM: Paralegal DATE: September 1?, 2020 RE: MURRAY V DETECTIVE ROSE STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT: Markmhas requested our ofce to represent him in a civil rights matter, where he was falsely accused and falsely imprisoned and suffered injuries. After going through the facts of the case, 1 have established the following as the strong points to apply while arguing Murray's case. . . ' ' Is She took two days to call her mental health worker and notify the police. On 4th January 202d, Rete'ctive Rose .Bgsatook Ms. W statementJUIs. Wclaimed to know the person who robbed her as they attended the same mental health facility. and that she knew his name as Scotmor Murphy. Later that monthI Ms. Wwas admitted to a psychiatric unit where she was diagnosed with schizophrenia and treated on March, 1? 2020. Ms. Wtogether with her boyfriend, Carlos Wright, who had a history of drug and alcohol abuse. got into a ght with Scot Murphy or W in a local bar and claimed to have secured the plate number of the alleged Murray which turned negative after police investigated. On May 5, 2020, Ms. Wand her boyfriend identied a photo of mfrom the police database at the detective unit. Detective Rose printed it without conrming positivity from the victims and on May 18, 2020, used it to lodge an arrest warrant agath W Mark mmwas charged, arraigned, and imprisoned for 30 days on May 30, 2020. Suspecting and later conrming a potential problem with Watestimony, the City district attorney's ofce withdrew prosecution against MW ISSUES: 1 Warrest 2. Defectives investigations 3.Conducting photo identication without regard to the procedure BRIEF ANSWERS: 1. Detective Rose has a duty to conduct a preliminary investigation while complying with the laced down procedure. Nonetheless. the detective breached this duty by failing to ensure that the victim positively identied the suspect. As a result, this led to the arrest of Murray. The arrest was made in the presence of his neighbors, thereby tainting his image. Moreover, upon arrest, Murray was held in the same room with hardcore criminals who ridiculed and harassed him. As such, Murray has immensely suffered as a rdsult of the shoddy investigations conducted by ofcer Rose. 2. In opposing, the existing precedence in Hill v State, 401 State KPH; T97 [1933], the court was of the opinion that detectives need not tight evidence to arrest a suspect This eludes that detective Rose tightly arrested, Murray. During the hearing, this is likely to be Rose's defense. Nonetheless, Murray's case is likely to succeed since the court is likely to be convinced that the arrest was occasioned by Rose's failure to follow the set procedure. ANALYSIS; 1. Is our clients Motion for Summary Judgment likely to be granted? Ms. Wsuffered from mental illness and even attended and was admitted to a mental health facility. Her boyfriend, Carlos Wright had a history of drug and alcohol abuse. Detective Rose went ahead and used the photo that the victims identied without conrming their doubts and used it to lodge an arrest warrant against Mr. M Mr. Murray was embarrassingly arrested, arraigned, and imprisoned for 30 days. Detective Rose did not have enough evidence nor probable cause to arrest Mr. \"pm To recover under the state ordinance 1'? 5.0. s 1296, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the arrestfprosecution was illegal and that the arresting ofcer did not have probable cause to arrest himfher at the time of the arrest CONCLUSION: According to the state ordinance 1? 5.0, S 1296, Mnmwould prove without a doubt that he was arrested without the ofcer [Detective Rachael Rose] having a rm probable cause. RECCIJMENDATIONS: Our client should be consulted and acknowledged of our intent to le a Motion for Summary Judgment Immediately, prior to ling the motion, each of the authorities set forth in this memorandum should be sherardized and rationalized. Please inform me if there is any further research on this case that you would like me to do. INTEROFFICE MEMO TWO TO: Paralegal FROM: Supervising Attorney Date: MM/DD/YY RE: Mccusker's v. State ASSIGNMENT: Junior Mccusker requested that our office represent Mccusker's Tavern in a detrimental reliance / quasi breach of contract action based upon government assurances that his business, and many others, claim they were misled by State's Governor who, after three months into the COVID-19 pandemic, assured and publicly declared that bars and restaurants could partially reopen on July 1, 2020. Please review the following facts of the case, as well as the legal authority that I have provided, to determine the strengths and weaknesses of Mr. Mccuskers' case. Discuss whether you think we have a good case against the State and discuss whether there are any defenses to the claim. FACTS: In early March 2020, Olympus, a small country in the South Pacific, was bracing for an unprecedented dilemma in response to a global pandemic. Regions literally shut down across the country. This was mandated at the state and federal levels. All state governors were forced to order the shutdown of bars and restaurants. As summer approached, the national and state levels of infected citizens decreased, and on June 15, 2020, State Governor, Marshall McCraven, publicly announced that bars and restaurants in State could open on July 1, 2020 for partial indoor dining with restrictions on occupancy and "social distancing." Mccusker's Tavern is located just off the beach in a summer-seasonal town on the coast of State. Mccusker's can hold 200 patrons in the indoor restaurant, another 150 in the Banquet Room and another 100 in outdoor dining. It has catering capabilities for private parties and weddings. Before the announcement, Mccusker's strictly followed State guidelines for outdoor dining, as they did minimal takeout. Outdoors, in good weather, they could, at capacity, seat around forty (40) patrons in the outdoor tables. Since early March, they continued operating while barely breaking even. Junior Mccusker was content employing his staff on a part time basis. Once Governor McCraven announced the indoor lift, Mccusker's, like many similar establishments, received numerous calls for reservations indoor, booked three weddings, and ordered $15,000.00 worth of fresh vegetables, lobsters, meats, kegs of craft draft beer, liquors, champagne, and fine French wines to accommodate the reservations and influx of indoor patrons. On June 27, 2020, in the wake of increasing cases of COVID-19, Governor McCraven decided that it was necessary to rescind the prior order and thus, cancelled the opening of all indoor activities, including indoor dining in all bars and restaurants. Nearly all of the items purchased by Junior Mccusker in anticipation of the reopen went to waste when Mccusker's Tavern was unable to resume indoor service. LEGAL AUTHORITY: State Code Art. 2 $ 1423. Cause defined; detrimental reliance A party may be obligated by a promise when he knew or should have known that the promise would induce the other party to rely on it to his detriment and the other party was reasonable in so relying. Recovery may be limited to the expenses incurred or the damages suffered as a result of the promisee's reliance on the promise. Reliance on a gratuitous promise made without required formalities is not reasonable. (Note, Mccuskers is the promisee) In Gold Finger's Casino, Inc. v. State Department of Taxes, 123 State 2d 456 (2000), the plaintiffs, Gold Finger's, paid sales taxes under a newly enacted Casino law that was, in their accountant's opinion, vague and conflicting. Gold Finger's general manager contacted the Department of Taxes where an employee assured them that no taxes were due for that year. Two years later, the Department claimed that Gold Finger's owed $30,000.00 in back taxes and penalties for the year in question. The trial court and State Court of Appeal found that although the taxes were due, the state was precluded from collecting them because of the doctrines of detrimental reliance and equitable estoppel. On further appeal, State Supreme Court disagreed finding that "detriment resulting from reliance simply has not been proved." In considering Gold Finger's, the Supreme Court noted four factors required to invoke detrimental reliance against a governmental agency. The additional factors include: "(1) unequivocal advice from an unusually authoritative source, (2) reasonable reliance on that advice by an individual, (3) extreme harm resulting from that reliance, and (4) gross injustice to the individual." Here, Gold Finger's had to pay the tax because the same tax was enforced against numerous other casinos, who also made a lot of money, and that Gold Finger's failure to pay taxes was based on a misrepresentation by a rather high ranking state official who thought she had the authority to act accordingly. Under section 470 of the Public Health Service Act (64 Olympus Code $ 541), the Olympus Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into Olympus and between states. Further, the states shall have police power functions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons within their borders. within their borders, s ct laws to enforce the use of isolation