Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Review the sample brief on p. 25 of your textbook. Using a sample brief ?and the ?Case Brief Instuctions as a guide, prepare a case brief on one of the following cases:? St | Wridemy

Review the sample brief on p. 25 of your textbook. Using a sample brief ?and the ?Case Brief Instuctions as a guide, prepare a case brief on one of the following cases:? St


  1. Review the sample brief on p. 25 of your textbook.
  2. Using a sample briefdownload  and the  Case Brief Instuctionsopen in new window as a guide, prepare a case brief on one of the following cases: 
    • State of Kansas v. Dinh Loc Ta (p. 283)
    • Ramon Ramierez v.  The State of Texas (p. 288) 
    • Commonwealth v. Berggren (p. 293) 
    • U.S. v. Scott (p. 297)  

United States v. Arvizu Case Brief

Fourth Amendment to the Constitution: Unreasonable Search and Seizure

Title and Citation: U.S. v. Arvizu, 122 S.Ct. 744 (2002)

Type of Action: SCOTUS review of a 9th Circuit Appellate Court decision, violation of the 4th Amendment, warrantless stop, search and seizure of a motor vehicle based on totality of the circumstances and reasonable suspicion.

Facts of the Case: Ralph Arvizu was stopped by a border patrol agent in southern Arizona, for suspected contraband smuggling. After receiving consent to search the vehicle from the respondent, Agent Stoddard discovered more than 100 pounds of marijuana in the vehicle. Respondent was subsequently arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Respondent made motions at trial to suppress evidence, which were denied by the courts. Subsequently, Arvizu entered a conditional guilty plea based on the mounted evidence against him.

Upon completion of the case in the District of Arizona court, Arvizu appealed to the 9th Circuit

Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case stating that the Agent Stoddard had no reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was occurring or had occurred. The government was grated certiorari by the SCOTUS to consider and opine the case.

Contentions of the Parties:

Ralph Arvizu: Argues that the stop was a violation of his 4th amendment right to freedom from unreasonable stop, search and seizure. Arvizu argued that the agent had no reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was present or had been committed.

United States: The U.S. argues that the Agent, through his training and/or experience in contraband smuggling, interdiction, and human smuggling, resulted in the totality of the circumstances which he used to develop reasonable suspicion necessary to validly stop the vehicle driven by Arvizu.

Issue: Did the Agent violate Arvizu’s 4th amendment right of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure by conducting a stop based on reasonable suspicion that criminal acts had taken place or were taking place?

Decision: No, SCOTUS reversed and remanded the case to the District Court, stating that the Appellate Court did not consider the totality of the circumstances which the Agent utilized to develop his own reasonable suspicion to conduct the stop, which led to the discovery of contraband.

Rational: SCOTUS

determined that the Appellate Court wrongfully analyzed single factors which the Agent used to develop his belief that illegal activity was occurring. The Appellate Court further used its authority to delegitimize the elements Agent Stoddard used to develop his reasonable suspicion, claiming they were both uncertain and unpredictable relative to fourth amendment rights. SCOTUS clearly said that the Appellate Court wrongfully compartmentalized the factors which Agent Stoddard inferred for his reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop. Had the Appellate Court combined all of the factors together, they would have seen Agent Stoddard acted within his authority. Given the specific training and experience with interdiction and smuggling which Agent Stoddard had, the Appellate Court should have combined all factors and conclude, much as the district court had, that Agent Stoddard acted appropriately and within the law

Rule of Law: SCOTUS reiterated that the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Each reasonable suspicion stop is a potential violation and the facts must be analyzed with regard to the totality of the circumstances.


CRM 123 – How to Brief a Case

A case brief is a dissection of a judicial opinion. It contains a written summary of the basic

components of that decision. Briefing a case helps you acquire the skills of case analysis and

legal reasoning. It also helps you understand it. Briefs help you remember cases for class

discussions and assignments. Learning law is a process of problem solving through legal

reasoning; case briefs, therefore, should not be memorized. Below are examples and

explanations of the components of a case brief.

1. Case Title and Citation

■ Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health

and Human Services

(Plaintiff Nursing Home) v. (Defendant State Entity) 532 U.S. 598 (2001)

Case titles generally take on the names of the parties involved in the case. For example, in this

case Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and

Human Resources, Buckhannon Board is the party asking the Court to reverse a lower court’s

holding; West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources wants the Court to affirm

that holding.

A citation acts as the case’s “address.” There is a standard format for cases contained in the

United States Reports (abbreviated U.S. in case citations). Therefore, in this case, the citation is

532 U.S. 598. This means that this case is found on page 598 of the 532nd volume of the

United States Reports.

2. Procedural History

■ Procedural History

The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the case and denial of

attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed. The procedural history (or posture) states how the

case got to the court that wrote the opinion that you are reading.

3. Facts

■ Facts

Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. (“Buckhannon”), which operates care homes

that provide assisted living to its residents, failed an inspection by the West Virginia Office of the

State Fire Marshall because some of the residents were incapable of “self-preservation” as

defined under state law. On October 28, 1997, after receiving cease and desist orders requiring

the closure of its residential care facilities within 30 days, Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and other

similarly situated homes and residents brought suit in federal district court against the state of

West Virginia, two of its agencies, and 18 individuals. Plaintiff agreed to stay enforcement of the

cease-and-desist orders pending resolution of the case and the parties began discovery. The

district court granted West Virginia’s motion to dismiss, finding that the 1998 legislation had

eliminated the allegedly offensive provisions and that there was no indication that the

Legislature would repeal the amendments. Buckhannon then moved for attorney’s fees as the

prevailing party.

This section includes a brief overview of the relevant facts of the case that (a) describe the

dispute at hand and (b) have brought the case to this point. Basically, you should answer the

questions of who did what to whom and why. The facts of the case are often presented at the

outset of an opinion of the Court, although sometimes they may describe through the opinion. It

is also important here to note the holdings of the lower court(s) (i.e., the legal history of the

case) so that you understand the decision of the Supreme Court when it “reverses” or “affirms.”

4. Issue

■ Issue

Is a prevailing party is entitled to attorney’s fees in Federal court when the prevailing

party did not receive a judgment on the merits, but only prevailed because the lawsuit brought

about a voluntary change in the defendant’s conduct.

In this section, you identify the legal issue(s) addressed by the court. The legal issues should

refer specifically to the facts of the case, but you should not phrase the issues as purely factual

questions. Issues may involve substantive law or procedural law.

5. Ruling and Reasoning

■ Ruling and Reasoning

(Rehnquist, J.) No. The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the appeals court’s

ruling denying the motion for attorney’s fees. Although attorney’s fees may be granted to a

prevailing party following a judgment on the merits, in addition to settlement agreements

enforced through a consent decree, attorney’s fees are not warranted where there has not been

a judicial determination altering the legal position of the parties.

In the United States, parties are ordinarily required to bear their own attorney’s fees so

that the prevailing party is not entitled to collect from the loser. However, Congress has passed

laws permitting the shifting of attorney’s fees in numerous instances. In refusing to award

attorney’s fees in this instance, though, the court stressed that its decision was consistent with

prior decisions refusing to award attorney’s fees where the court issued a directed verdict

against one party.

The ruling and reasoning section includes what this court ruled, or, how the court answered the

question (theoretically, the court’s application of the law to the fact of this specific case).

6. Dissenting or Concurring Opinion

■ Dissent

Justice Ginsberg dissented, in which he was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and

Breyer. His dissent stressed that fee shifting should depend on the outcome of the case, i.e.

whether the prevailing party received their desired outcome, regardless of whether or not a

judicial decision existed to memorialize the outcome. Essentially, the dissent defined the term

“prevailing party” in a practical sense, such clear that a party may be considered to have

prevailed even when the legal action stops short of final judgment due to intervening mootness.

■ Concurrence

Justice Scalia concurred, in which he was joined by Justice Thomas. His concurrence

focuses on the fact that a prevailing party cannot be one who left the courthouse empty-handed,

i.e. one must have received a judicial determination to be considered a revailing party.

On occasion, a case report will include a dissenting opinion that disagrees with the majority’s

ruling and reasoning. There may also be a concurring opinion that agrees with the majority’s

result but not its reasoning. If so, briefly sate the main points of the disagreement.

(Case example obtained from, retrieved April 18, 2012).

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.

Do you need an answer to this or any other questions?

About Wridemy

We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.

How It Works

To make an Order you only need to click on “Order Now” and we will direct you to our Order Page. Fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Are there Discounts?

All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.

Hire a tutor today CLICK HERE to make your first order

Related Tags

Academic APA Writing College Course Discussion Management English Finance General Graduate History Information Justify Literature MLA