Memorandum of Law

880 Words4 Pages
1. RIGHT OF PRIOR NOTICE OF THE CHARGES TO BE USED AGAINST THE OFFENDER IN COURT Prior notices of charges against an offender in court are provided for in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The appellants argument that he was not notified of the charges held against him in reasonable time are covered by the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Process and Equal Protection Clause. Accordingly, the Fourteenth Amendment provides that advance notice that a criminal accusation will follow a substantive offence is not a requirement. What is relevant is whether reasonable opportunity was provided by the prosecution to enable the defendant to defend himself against the accusation. Accordingly, in this case the opportunity to defend himself against the accusations was availed to the appellant thus the judgment was consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment provisions. 2. GROUNDS OF DETENTION AND UNREASONABLE SEARCH, SEIZURE AND DETENTION Lack of identification documents does not warrant an officer to arrest and detain an individual. However, under the Texas law littering is a Class C Misdemeanor that can justify the arrest and detention of the appellant s the objects littered weighed less than five pounds. Accordingly, the suspicion and detainment of the appellant by the police officer is justifiable. However, there have been issues amounting to infringement on the rights of individuals upon detention. Most notably is the fact that the officers responsible for detaining individuals always end up to investigate matters that are not related to the issue of detention. For instance, if the appellant was arrested for lack of identification items he was only supposed by to be asked ... ... middle of paper ... ...n the evidence provided on appeal (objections on the chain of command) was different from the objection raised during the trial of the case( objection on the admissibility of the testimony by the State’s forensic chemist). It is worth noting that this decision is consistent with the court’s decision in the cases of Guevara v State, 97 S.W.3d 579, 583 (Tex.Crim. App. 2003).Also Tex. R.App. P. 33.1(a); Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(1); and Heidelberg v. State, 144 S.W. 3d.535, 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) which outlined the fact that an objection made by the defendant during trial should be similar by that made by him/ her during appeal. Works Cited Fusco, T.J.D. (1994). Permissibility under Fourth Amendment of detention of motorist by police, following lawful stop for traffic offense, to investigate matters not related to offense. American Law Reports 118 A.L.R. Fed. 567
Open Document