Draft a Legal Memorandum (3-5 pages) For purposes of this assignment, Mary Whittaker walked into your law office.? She is the client and you are the at

Draft a Legal Memorandum (3-5 pages) For purposes of this assignment, Mary Whittaker walked into your law office.  She is the client and you are the attorney.  While she was telling you her story, you did some quick research and found the Poole case.  After reading the Poole case, you believe Mary Whittaker has a viable Motion to Suppress. 2. So you agree to represent her.  Your senior partner wants to file a Motion to Suppress (in real life you would not have had access to the Whittaker transcript when you file a Motion to Suppress, since the transcript is of the hearing on the actual Motion to Suppress.  You would have filed a Motion to Suppress before the hearing).3. The senior partner wants you to write a memorandum of law to be filed along with the Motion to Suppress.  YOU WILL BE WRITING/TURNING IN ONLY A MEMORANDUM OF LAW.In chapter 12, you were provided examples of Motions to Suppress.In chapter 13, you were provided examples of a Law Office Memo (which format is similar to a memorandum of law) and you started to learn how to draft legal memorandum.In chapter 14, you were provided examples of a memorandum of law in the textbook.  4. In preparing to draft the memorandum of law, use the resources provided to you in this module (such as the Poole case, charging affidavit, affidavit of Mary Whittaker, and Whittaker transcript).  5. REMEMBER YOU REPRESENT MARY WHITTAKER.  BECAUSE YOU ARE WRITING A MEMORANDUM OF LAW, YOU WILL NEED TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT THAT MARY WHITTAKER WAS ILLEGALLY STOPPED/SEIZED (OR STATED ANOTHER WAY THAT WHITTAKER'S ENCOUNTER WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT WAS NOT A CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTER).  6. So, follow the examples of a memorandum of law in Chapter 14 of the textbook for format.       The memorandum of law needs to be 3-5 pages, 12 point, Times New Roman, and double spaced. 7. Remember, as stated in the textbook, the longest portion of the memorandum will be the argument section that is the area that you use the law to support your facts.       HINT:  The issue is whether the encounter of Mary Whittaker was a seizure/stop or a consensual encounter?8. So, you will need to research and find 2 additional cases (in addition to using Poole) to use as support for your argument in your memorandum of law.9. FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT, YOU WILL BE WRITING/TURNING IN ONLY A MEMORANDUM OF LAW (DO NOT DRAFT A MOTION TO SUPPRESS).                          Here are some cases that may be similar to the pool case to help with writing the legal memo. You can find some other cases on your own but use only the one that is highly similar to the Poole case.                                                         Here are five cases that could help support your argument regarding whether Mary Whittaker’s encounter with law enforcement was a seizure or a consensual encounter:

1. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)  Terry established the standard for investigatory stops, known as "Terry stops." The case clarified that a brief stop or detention of a person by law enforcement does not necessarily violate the Fourth Amendment, but it must be based on reasonable suspicion. This case is relevant for establishing the parameters of what constitutes a seizure.
2. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991)  Bostick dealt with the issue of consensual encounters versus seizures, specifically in the context of bus searches. The Court held that an encounter between police officers and a citizen is not a seizure unless, considering the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would feel that they were not free to leave or terminate the encounter.
3. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980)  This case clarified the test for determining when a police encounter becomes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that a seizure occurs when, in view of all the circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. This is critical in arguing whether the encounter with Whittaker constituted a stop or seizure.
4. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007)  In this case, the Supreme Court held that a passenger in a vehicle who is subjected to a traffic stop is also "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, even if they are not the focus of the officer’s inquiry. This case is relevant if Whittaker was in or near a vehicle when the stop occurred.
5. Parker v. State, 133 So. 3d 440 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)  In this Florida case, the court held that an encounter with law enforcement was not consensual when the officers’ conduct objectively indicated that the individual was not free to leave. The decision emphasizes the importance of considering the manner in which officers approach individuals and whether their actions would lead a reasonable person to feel they were not free to go.