Do the following:

For this assignment analyze each of the scenarios below using the IRAC format and submit your assignment as a Word document by the due date of Sunday, April 15.

To be eligible for full points you must label the different parts of your answers as Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion. And you must do this for each of the three scenarios below.

I suggest that you frame the Issue as a question that can be answered ‘yes' or ‘no'. For example, suppose the scenario described an incident that seemed like it might involve embezzlement. The Issue is: Did John's actions constitute embezzlement under the law? The Rule step would require you to list the various laws that have to do with embezzlement.

The third step of IRAC is Application and that is where you have to apply the various rules and laws to your specific scenario. This analysis could include the mention of other cases considered to be good precedent for your scenario.

Finally, your Conclusion simply answers the question that you set up in step one, and it can be stated as ‘yes' or ‘no'. If your analysis leads you to determine that John's actions did constitute embezzlement based on your analysis of the Rules of law and how they relate to your situation, then your Conclusion is ‘Yes.'

Label your answers A, B, and C. Remember, you must cite specific laws or legal precedent to support your decision in each scenario. You may reference any chapter from our text to support your reasoning. (providing page # in the text would be helpful). You may also do your own legal research on the internet. The more legal details that you provide, the higher your score will be. Good luck.

A. Freedom of Speech

Mark Wooden sent an email to an alderwoman for the City of St. Louis. Attached was a nineteen-minute audio file that compared her to the biblical character Jezebel. The audio said she was a "bitch in the Sixth Ward," spending too much time with the rich and powerful and too little time with the poor.

In a menacing, maniacal tone, Wooden said that he was "dusting off a sawed-off shot gun," called himself a "domestic terrorist," and referred to the assassination of President John Kennedy, the murder of federal judge John Roll, and the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords. Feeling threatened, the alderwoman called the police. Wooden was convicted of harassment under a state criminal statute. Was this conviction unconstitutional under the First Amendment?

B. Arbitrary and Capricious Test

Michael Manin, an airline pilot, was twice convicted of disorderly conduct, a minor misdemeanor. To renew his flight certification with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Manin filed an application that asked him about his criminal history. He did not disclose his two convictions.

When these came to light more than ten years later, Manin argued that he had not known that he was required to report convictions for minor misdemeanors. The NTSB's policy was to consider an applicant's understanding of what information a question sought before determining whether an answer was false. But without explanation, the agency departed from this policy, refused to consider Manin's argument, and revoked his certification. Was this action arbitrary or capricious?

C. Fourth Amendment

Three police officers, including Maria Trevizo, were on patrol in Tuscon, Arizona, near a neighborhood associated with the Crips gang, when they pulled over a car with suspended registration. Each officer talked to one of the three occupants. Trevizo spoke with Lemon Johnson, who was wearing clothing consistent with Crips membership.

Visible in his jacket pocket was a police scanner, and he said that he had served time in prison for burglary. Trevizo asked him to get out of the car and patted him down "for officer safety." She found a gun. Johnson was charged in an Arizona state court with illegal possession of a weapon. What standard should apply to an officer's patdown of a passenger during a traffic stop? Should a search warrant be required? Could a search proceed solely on the basis of probable cause? Would a reasonable suspicion short of probable cause be sufficient?