Describe A Memorandum On A Case Involving Bill Baker V. State (Case Study Sample)

TITLE:
STUDENT’S NAME:
COURSE:
COURSE CODE:
INSTITUTION’S NAME:
DATE:
Word count: 2200
THE COOLEY LAW FIRM
9445 CAMDEN FIELD PARKWAY # 222
RIVERVIEW, FLORIDA 33578
813-419-5100 (Main Office) 8137-358-2671 (Fax)
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:June 26, 2017
________________________________________________________________________
Issue Statement
The memorandum delves into the case of Bill Baker v. State where he was arrested for constructive possession of crack cocaine which is a controlled substance under Fla. Stat. 893.03 .The statements of the arresting officer, Bill Baker; the owner of the camp (Alan Arbour) will form the pillar of the analysis. According to Taylor v. State, 13 So. Be 77, 80 (Fla.1st DCA 2009)0 N.E.2d 324, constructive possession of cocaine refers to when an individual has control over the area where the illegal drug is present or there is someone else within the premises that were holding on to it on their behalf. The leading question is whether the defendant is in violation of Fla. Stat. 893.03 with respect to the cracked cocaine found in the camp?
Brief Answer
I believe that the charges against Bill Baker with respect to constructive possession of cracked cocaine are not sufficient to warrant a trial. In most cases constructive possession is often inferred from the behaviour and surroundings of the individuals. The jury can infer constructive possession when the items are found within the premises of the person arrested even when the home is shared by other people. The sharing of the home introduces the concept of joint possession in the case the drugs were in plain view.
Furthermore, in constructive possession the state has an obligation of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the person being had knowledge of the drugs and had dominion over them. This is in reference to Frank V. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla.App.1967), the defendant was convicted with two counts; the first one is unlawful possession of morphine and the second count is marijuana. In this case the state was unable to determine that Frank was guilty of all the charges and the courts reversed the judgement.
Statement of facts
Bill Baker
Reviewing Bill Baker's statement he indicated that he was not in possession of the drug at the time. According to law, possession takes place when one has immediate control over the substance and has knowledge of the existence of the illegal drug. See Johnson v. State, 456 So. 2d 923, 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). In this case, based on the testimony presented by Bill Baker, it is clear that he did not have actual possession of cocaine. Therefore, our focus is tuned towards establishing whether he had a constructive possession of cocaine. The most pertinent aspect of constructive possession is that the individual, in this case Bill Baker, had knowledge of the existence of the drug and an ounce of control over it.
At the camp, one of the Connie, Bill Baker’s girlfriend played loud music that caused the neighbouring people to call the police. When Bill saw the squad car according to his statement, he went to turn down the volume. Bill believed that the noise was what had attracted the police and with Alan, the owner of the camp, shouting for someone to turn down the music he was just doing what he deemed to be right in this situation.
The fact that Bill Baker was in proximity to the area where the contraband was found is not enough to claim constructive possession but when coupled up with other factors does strengthen the case. The case does simulate to Taylor v. State, 31 So.2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) were the defendant’s proximity with the marijuana which was in plain sight was termed as insufficient evidence to necessitate a conviction.
In the case of Metzger v. State, 395 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), the defendant was acquitted of the charges of possession on the fact that they were a guest hence they had no control over the premises. In the Bill Baker case he was an invited guest to the cabin his proximity to the area where the cocaine was found in the cabin does not indicate that he had knowledge of the existence of the drug.
Allen Arbour
When reviewing the testimony presented by Alan Arbour, the evidence does re-route to Connie as the culpable culprit. Alan stated that Bill Baker’s girlfriend, Connie, was a troublemaker and smoked a lot of weed. The fact that she had access to the weed clearly increases the possibility she had the cocaine . Allen indicates that when the police officer asked if there were any drugs in the cabin they all said no but he did not hear Connie’s response.
Furthermore, Allen asserts that when the police entered into the cabin they were told to walk outside which they did. The police officer later came out with ‘a bag of rocks’, which he stated to have found it in the cabin. Allen concludes his statement by saying he had not seen the item in his life.
In this case, because the officers apprehended Bill Baker outside the room where the cocaine was found, the state has the responsibility of establishing that the suspect had constructive possession of the cocaine. See State v Reese, 774 So. 2d 948, 94,-50 (Fla.5th DCA 2001).The case of Reese was that when the S.W.A.T team entered the room they found her standing at the door. She was not in close proximity to the area where the drugs were found. As the room was shared holding her solely responsible for the drugs weakened the case. In other words, the state needs to clearly show that Bill Baker he had knowledge of the existence of the contraband, the ability to exercise control and dominion over the cocaine.
Arresting Officer
The arresting officer in this case stated that he was informed that there was a lot of noise from the cabin and he came to investigate. The officer saw someone place something in the cabinet but what instigated is curiosity to the existence of drugs in the camp was the smell of Marijuana. The visitors in the camp stated that they were not smoking when asked if they had drugs and allowed the police officer to investigate the premises. The fact that they allowed the police officer willingly to enter the premises nullified the need for a warrant to be acquired by the police officer. It therefore means that anything incriminating evidence found in the cabin is admissible in the court of law.
The police on further investigation found the cocaine in the cabin where the suspect, Bill Baker, was seen to place something before they were asked to move out. The presence of cocaine in the house and the nervousness of Bill Barker was an indication that he had an idea of the presence of the drugs. This is in sufficient evidence with respect to United States v. Holland, 445 F.2d 701 (D.C. Cir.1971) case, in this case the state was unable to prove that the defendant had dominion over the contraband on the aspect that the drugs were found in the dresser where he took his clothing from. The apartment was the woman’s and not the defendant and by preview of accessing something from it does not mean that they had dominion over the contraband.
Furthermore, based on the evidence discovered we can also presume that Bill Baker was in possession with an intention to supply to his fellow cabins. The presence of additional zip lock bags in his pocket can be inferred to mean that he wanted to divide the cocaine and sell to his fellow cabins.
Discussion
Based on the statement provided by the arresting officer, Bill Baker was arrested because he appeared nervous when the police officers came out with the cocaine from the cabin. His nervousness made him a more likely suspect compared with the other cabin occupants an aspect that led the police to arrest him. Afterwards, they patted him and found him in possession of the zip lock bags this is an error in the occurrence of events.
In the Rangel v. State, 110 So. 3d 41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013, Rangel was an occupant of a vehicle that had other members. The sergeant charged Rangel only based on the fact that he was in close proximity to the container that had drugs. Charging only one individual was not sufficient to prove constructive possession. In the case of Bill Baker, the arresting police charging only Baker on constructive possession while other occupants were in the premises do not prove that he had the ability to exercise control over the drugs. See Watson V. State, 1116, 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) in this case Watson was caught in close proximity with weapons, the state was unable to provide independent proof that he either knew or had control over them.
Secondly, the police officer did not test the cocaine zip lock bags to clearly prove that Bill Baker was in deed in possession of the illegal drugs. This coupled with the statement that Connie; Bill’s girlfriend smoked marijuana weakens the case that Bill Baker could have been the one in possession of the cocaine. There is a possibility that he decided to hide the drug with an aim of protecting his girlfriend from being arrested. Therefore, suing him for possession of cocaine will be a harsh trial.
In evaluation of the entire case study, the evidence that Bill Baker was in possession of cocaine is not enough to warrant a trial. Apart from the zip lock bags found in his possession, the rest of the evidence presented by the officer is subjective. Th...