When stating the rule in "rule" section of an interoffice memorandum , do you state precedent cases as well or just details of the rule or statute itself? If advised by the supervising attorney to only reference the legal authority provide below, how would the rule section of the interoffice memo be completed?

For example. How would you compose the "rule section of the memo in the scenario below. using only the provided legal Authority?

Here are the facts, legal authority can be found after the facts.

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 18, 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 30 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 S.O. 1296, plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the arrest/prosecution were illegal and that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to arrest him/her at the time of the arrest.

According toHill 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 (2) 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.

InCom. vSheppard, 341 St. Misc. 403 (1985), in February of 1981, 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 1981, Mr. Metz was shown an additional array of photographs and positively identified 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."