Sample Case Brief
An brief introduction to briefing
A case brief is an informational and teaching tool. This type of document is a mainstay of studying cases in law school, as well as a form of communication about law in government agencies and private law firms.You may also make liberal use of cut and paste to get a workable version of the case facts and the legal phrases reflecting the ruling of the Court. I have inserted comments on each element of the case brief. If you cannot see these comments, turn comments on in the view menu for the document.
But don't just copy what the court said: Try to say it better, quicker, cleaner! If you run across words you don't understand, consult an online legal dictionary for a quick and dirty definition. Of course, consult and cite to an authoritative legal dictionary (Black's Law Dictionary is the gold standard) if defining a term in your written work. Compare my efforts to be brief and cut away the verbiage by following the link to the original opinion at the top of the page. Read the whole thing: Did I cut out the unnecessary phrasing? Did I preserve the essential facts and ruling of the case? If I see that you just cut and paste the facts, or the Court's ruling, without attempting to present a cleaner, meaner statement of facts and law, your grade will reflect this.
If you are briefing a case on the job for a supervisor, then careful attention to quotations and references to the opinion is the better course to follow. The sample case brief is more formal and you should use this format for your assignment. It's a good discipline to work with a particular format, especially when your teacher or supervisor requests it. This means that your case brief should look like the sample I have given you in every significant respect. This is a test to see if you're interested in following directions.
Nilsen v. State, 2009 OK CR 6, 203 P.3d 189
Procedural History
Appellant was convicted in a non-jury trial of possession of a controlled substance, marijuana (Count I), unlawful possession of paraphernalia (Count II), transporting an open container of beer (Count III) and driving under suspension (Count IV). The trial court sentenced Appellant to one year in county jail, with all but twenty days suspended, and a $200.00 fine on Count I; a $100.00 fine on Count II, a $50.00 fine on Count III and a $150.00 fine on Count IV. Count IV.
Facts
In July, 2005, someone called law enforcement and reported they had seen a person drinking beer while driving. The caller described the car, its location, and gave a tag number. After receiving this information from an Oklahoma State Trooper by radio, a Washington County deputy sheriff identified and stopped defendant’s car based solely on the information given to him by the Trooper. At trial, the deputy testified that he observed no traffic offense, no equipment failure or anything else that would have provided a basis for the stop. Prior to trial, Appellant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop of his vehicle without reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity was an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Section 30 of the Oklahoma Constitution. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion and admitted the evidence, convicting Appellant of the foregoing offenses.
Standard of Review What's this?
The Court of Criminal Appeals reviews the denial of a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion. Opinion, at ¶ 5.
Issue on Appeal
Whether the information from the anonymous caller was sufficient to support the stop in this case?
Short Answer/Holding
No. The stop was an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Constitution.
Rationale
A traffic stop is an investigatory detention and must comply with the Fourth Amendment principles of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). An investigatory detention requires “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.’” Opinion, at ¶ 6, citing United States v. Leos-Quijada, 107 F.3d 786, 792 (10th Cir. 1997). An anonymous tip must be “sufficiently corroborated to furnish reasonable suspicion” that the person detained was engaged in criminal activity.” ¶ 7, citing Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 331, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 2416, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990).
Under White, and another case, Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000), the Supreme Court held that sufficient corroboration to justify an investigatory stop came not from the anonymous tipster’s description of the suspect’s car, which could be known to anyone who saw it, but from the tipster's ability predict the suspect’s future behavior, showing inside information – a special familiarity with the suspect’s affairs. “When significant aspects of the caller’s predictions were verified, there was reason to believe the caller was both honest and well informed, at least well enough to justify the stop.”
The deputy who stopped Appellant relied only on the information from the anonymous tipster, whose credibility could not be assured and who faced repercussion for a false accusation. The informant provided identifying information but nothing to corroborate the allegation of criminal activity. The anonymous tip here lacked the indicia of reliability to justify the initial stop, and the deputy lacked any particularized and objective basis for suspecting Appellant of criminal activity. This seizure violated the the Fourth Amendment and all evidence obtained from the stop was inadmissible. See opinion, at ¶¶ 6-9.
Disposition
The judgment and sentence of the district court is reversed with instructions to dismiss. ¶ 10.