MEMO 2 INSTRUCTIONS Writing a memorandum of law on a specific legal question and fact pattern that will be at the end of these instructions. This is an OPEN memo; I will be providing you with one case and you will do the research for the rest of the case to complete the memo. The sections that MUST be included in the memo are: heading, question presented, brief answer, facts, discussion (will include Issue, rule, analysis, conclusion), and a conclusion. The focus on this memo is the quality of the cases, the accurateness of citations, as well as the overall memo writing skills.

Below is a list of statutes and case law that MUST be used in the Memo: Golphin v. State, 945 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2006). Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution *Complete the rest of the research. Must have a minimum of FOUR cases, and a maximum of SIX. (number does not include the text of the Fourth Amendment)*

CASE: CLEESE V. STATE (5th Circuit of Florida) On October 25, 2018 at 2 AM Officer Eric Chapman along with his partner Officer Peter Mellark were out on patrol when they encountered Martin Cleese. The officers were patrolling their "beat area," a specific area that they patrol and keep track of. When they saw Mr. Cleese, he was engaged in a heated discussion and the officers could tell that the situation was tense. When the officers pulled over their vehicle to see if the situation was under control, they double parked so as to not block Mr. Cleese's walk way. When Mr. Cleese was approached, Officer Chapman did not yell at him or order him not to leave; yet, Mr. Cleese chose to stay and speak with him. Officer Chapman asked to see Mr. Cleese's identification, and he was very cooperative and agreeable to that request. As is typical procedure, Officer Chapman took the identification to his car to run a warrants check to look for outstanding warrants. Officer Chapman never told Mr. Cleese that he was free to leave, but he was never ordered or told to stay by the police car and wait either. Officer Chapman was in the car with Mr. Cleese's identification for no more than 10 minutes. The warrants check showed an outstanding warrant for Mr. Cleese's arrest, in which Officer Chapman subsequently arrested him. When Mr. Cleese was searched pursuant to his arrest, Officer Chapman found that Mr. Cleese was in possession of several bags of crack cocaine. Mr. Cleese said that he felt unable to leave because he feels as though it is "not a good idea to walk away from the police" and if he left, he would "get shot in the back." Officer Chapman, while armed, never displayed his weapon, he spoke to Mr. Cleese calmly, made no physical contact with him before his arrest, and made no indication that he was not free to leave. Mr. Cleese was charged with knowingly and intentionally possessing 5.2 grams of crack cocaine. At Mr. Cleese's trial, defense counsel moved to preclude the State from using evidence at his trial obtained through an illegal search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Cleese argued that a seizure occurs any time a police officer retains an individual's identification as they would not be able to leave without it.

After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion ruling that the evidence seized during the search was admissible at trial. The court rejected the notion that a seizure occurs any time police retain an individual's identification. Further, the court found that Mr. Cleese's encounter with Officer Chapman was consensual and he was not seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Cleese comes to your office asking to represent him on appeal. The present issue is whether the defendant, Martin Cleese, was seized under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when Officer Chapman of the Daytona Police Department retained his identification to perform a warrants check. Please explain the relevant law surrounding the issue and if Mr. Cleese is like to be successful on appeal pursuant to the law. U.S. Supreme Court cases, Florida Supreme Court cases, and 5th District Court of Appeals cases are BINDING on your court. All other Florida cases are PERSUASIVE.