I need help writing a Memorandum, example 2nd picture below

To: Paralegal FROM: Supervising Attorney Date: , zo_ RE: Mark Murry v. Detective Rose ASSIGNMENT: Mark Murry has requested that our office represent him in a Civil Rights matter where he claims he was falsely accused of robbery, was falsely imprisoned, and suffered serious iniuries. 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. Murry's case. Discuss whether you think we have a good case against Detective Rose and whether she had probable cause to believe Mr. Murry was the person who committed the robbery. in preparing your memorandum, please consult the sample Legal Memorandums in pen and Statsky. Please note, this is a closed memo. Therefore, it is important that you do not conduct any outside research or apply any outside law in your analysis/conclusions. Apply the law as provided below. FACTS: Debbie Donnow was robbed by a man she identified as \"Scott Murry or Murphy" on January 1, 2020. For the next two days she remained at home crying before she contacted her mental health worker and explained what happened. The police were notified, and on January 4, 2020 Officer Rachel Rose interviewed and took Ms. Donnow's statement Ms. Donnow claimed that she recognized the man who robbed her because they attended the same mental health facility, saints Medical Center, and that she knew his name because "...they would call it out. It's "Scott Murry or Murphy." Along with that name, she also provided Officer Rose the alleged robber's height, weight, age, treating doctor, and eye color. Later that month, Ms. Donnow was admitted to a psychiatric unit where she was diagnosed with schizophrenia and treated until her release on February 16, 2020. while hospitalized, she met her current boyfriend, Carlos Wright, a fellow patient with a history of drug and alcohol abuse. On March 17, 2020, Ms. Donnow, and Carlos Wright got into a fist fight with "Scott Murry or Murphy" at a local bar. The police were called but were unable to apprehend Murry/Murphy; however, Ms. Donnow claimed to have secured the plate number from Murry/Murphy's vehicle, which Officer Rose then ran with negative results. On May 15, 2020, Ms. Donnow and her boyfriend made it to the Detective Unit to view photos to look for the assailant. Officer Rose showed them a computer photo array of all Murrys and Murphys in the police database, eight pictures total. Ms. Donnow pointed to a picture and said, "that's him.\" Officer Rose printed the photos without asking, \"Are you positive?" Mr. Wright then viewed the same photos and said, \"That resembles his smug smile.\" Both Donnow and Wright signed the photo without being told that the person in the photo would be arrested. On May la, 2020, the positive photo ID by the victim and her boyfriend was the basis for officer Rose's probable cause to have an arrest warrant lodged against Mark Murry, the individual in the photo. The Affidavit of Probable Cause contains a \"positive" identification by Donnow but not a "positive\" identification by Carlos Wright, Mark Murry was arrested and Charged with robbery on May 30, 2020. That afternoon, members of City Police Department converged on him in public, exhibited guns, forced him to the ground, handcuffed him behind his back, and advised him that he was under arrest. Murry was embarrassed because he was arrested in front of several neighbors and was transported to the City Police Department where he was processed. After arraignment, Mr. Murry was imprisoned for so days in the City's holding facility awaiting trial as no one in his wealthy family would bail him out. During this time, he was incarcerated in a section of the prison designated for the most violent offenders where he was continually terrorized, ridiculed, and tormented by other inmates. suspecting a potential problem with Ms. Donnow's testimony, Assistant District Attorney Karson wanted a line-up because during a phone interview, Ms. Donnow denied making a "positive identification" and told officer Rose, \"That looks like him." Two days later, at a lineup identification at the prison, Ms. Donnow failed to identify Mr. Murry as her assailant and screamed, "He is still out there (meaning on the street)." The City District Attorney's Office subsequently withdrew prosecution against Mark Murry. LEGAL AUTHORITY: To recover under state Ordinance 17 so s 1296, plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the arrest/prosecution were illegal and that the arresting ofcer did not have probable cause to arrest him/her at the time of the arrest. According to Hill v. State 401 State Rptr. 797 (1973), the arrest of a person mistakenly believed to be another is valid under the Constitution if the arresting officer (1) had probable cause to arrest the person sought and t2) reasonably believed that the person arrested was the person sought. Once a police officer discovers sufficient facts to establish probable cause, the officer has no Constitutional duty to further investigate or find exculpatory evidence. In Com. v Sheppard 341 St. Misc. 403 (1935), in February of 1931, a businessmen, Mr. Metz, was assaulted and robbed while he was attempting to deposit approximately $10,000.00 in cash and checks at the Bank on Chestnut Street in City. That evening Mr. Metz examined police "mug books,\" but he could not positively identify the perpetrator. In March of 1931, Mr. Metz was shown an additional array of photographs and positively identied defendant Sheppard. Based on this identification an arrest warrant was obtained for Sheppard who was then charged with the crime. The court denied a motion to suppress the photo identification, finding that the pretrial photo identification was not suggestive, and none of defendant's "constitutional rights were abridged incident to that identification which provided probable cause for his arrest," LEGAL OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: SUPERVISORY ATTORNEY FROM: DAISIE COLLIER DATE: 8/6/2012 CASE: MAD DOG REVIEW V. JONESVILLE RE: FIRST AMENDMENT - FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT You have asked me to prepare a legal memorandum on the question of whether Jonesville Ordinance $ 355-20 violated Mad Dog Review's right to freedom of expression. Pursuant to your request, this memo includes an analysis of the relevant state and federal law as well as case law. ISSUE Under U.S. Const. Amend. I, did enforcement of Jonesville Ordinance $ 355-20 violate Mad Dog Review's freedom of expression when it prohibited their public performance, due to the lyrics of one of their songs that described the city council in explicit terms? BRIEF ANSWER Yes. Jonesville Ordinance $ 355-20 violated Mad Dog Review's freedom of expression due to the ordinance not having standards for restrictions. FACTS Mad Dog Review is a controversial, local rap band. The song, "Mad Dog City Council" describes Jonesville's City Council in explicit terms using obscene words. Based on this language, the City Council banned the group from performing in their community under Jonesville Ordinance $ 355-20. ANALYSIS The rule of law that governs the right to freedom of expression is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." U.S. Const. Amend. I. To clarify this amendment, we look at case law