Free energy is а meаsure оf energy thаt is available tо dо work.
CHP Officer Beck wаs pаtrоlling the 5 freewаy when he nоticed a White Tesla swerving within its lane. The оfficer then observed the white Tesla change lanes without signaling – in violation of the state’s vehicle code. The officer initiates a traffic stop via lights and a brief siren chirp. The Tesla pulls over to the side of the freeway. The officer approaches the driver, greets her and asks why she failed to signal before changing lanes. The driver mumbles something unintelligible, then introduces herself as “Cora.” While Cora is speaking the officer observes objective symptoms of intoxication. The officer requests that Cora perform field sobriety tests (FSTs). Cora consents and performs the FSTs poorly. The officer arrests Cora for Driving while Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). Prior to handcuffing Cora and while she is standing approximately two feet from her open driver’s door, the officer searches her pockets for weapons or contraband. In Cora’s right front pants pocket, the officer locates, a liquor store receipt for purchase of a bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey. This purchase receipt is dated and time stamped at 30 minutes before this traffic stop. In Cora’s left front pocket, the officer locates a small, but useable, quantity of Cocaine. Officer Beck looks under the driver’s seat and locates a nearly half empty 25-ounce bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey. Officer Beck then handcuffs Cora and places her in the back of his patrol car, closing the rear door thereto. He then walks back over to Cora’s Tesla and begins searching the entire passenger compartment. In the backseat, the officer locates a closed suitcase which he opens and I which he locates a large quantity of Heroin The officer transports Cora to the police station for processing and to obtain a blood sample to be later tested for alcohol content. Meanwhile, a backup officer who had earlier arrived at the scene summons a tow truck to impound Cora’s vehicle as authorized by state law. While awaiting the tow truck, the officers search through the vehicle to document the contents thereof pursuant to required property preservation procedures. While so documenting, the officers locate a stolen firearm in the trunk of the vehicle. Back at the police station, Officer Beck prepares to read Cora the consent form to obtain a sample of her blood in a medically approved manner. However, as he approaches Cora, he sees that she has passed out and is unresponsive, though breathing and otherwise fine. Officer Beck then summons a trained phlebotomist who draws blood from Cora who remains unconscious. A forensic scientist tests this blood sample which yields a blood-alcohol content well above the legal limit. Cora remains in a temporary holding cell until she regains consciousness approximately one hour later. She is then transported to the main Women’s Jail. Prior to entry, the female jailers perform a full body search of Cora and locate a small baggie of Fentanyl concealed within her private parts. All the afore-mentioned evidentiary items were collected and booked into an evidence locker. Cora is thereafter charged with DUI; Simple Possession of Cocaine; Transportation of Heroin; Possession of a Stolen Firearm; and Simple Possession of Fentanyl. Prior to Cora’s trial, her attorney files a motion to exclude the prosector from admitting into evidence the collected items, asserting that the traffic stop was unlawful, and each subsequent item of evidence was also seized pursuant to unlawful searches. -Assume no warrants sought regarding the searches and/or seizures in the fact pattern. -Assume for the purposes of this exam only that, after Cora’s arrest but prior to trial, the US Supreme Court modified 4th Amendment Jurisprudence (again) holding that it is always unreasonable under the 4th Amendment to obtain a DUI suspect’s blood in the absence of consent, unless authorized by a warrant. Directions: Pursuant to 4th Amendment Jurisprudence, discuss the traffic stop, the arrest of Cora, and the admissibility of the collected items of evidence.
Dаphne is оn а twо-week vаcatiоn visiting California, where she has never been before. She meets Paolo, who used to work as a tour guide throughout the state, and who happens to be on vacation in the same hotel as Daphne. Daphne and Paolo then enter into a valid written contract whereby Daphne will pay Paolo $1,000, and Paolo will show Daphne the best spots to visit as a tourist over the next two weeks. Paolo shows Daphne several spots over the course of the next week. Daphne is enjoying herself, but Paolo finds it quite boring and decides that he would rather relax in the hotel. Paolo tells Daphne he will only continue showing her around for the second week if she pays him a total of $1,500. Daphne agrees, as she is enjoying the spots Paolo is showing her. On the last day of Daphne’s trip, she tells Paolo she’s enjoyed herself so much, and appreciated his company and help so much, that she’ll give him an expensive watch as a thank-you gift. Paolo doubts whether Daphne will actually give him the watch, but he tells her he appreciates it nonetheless. The next day, Paolo realizes that Daphne has left for home, and she never gave him the watch or paid him anything. Paolo reaches out to an attorney to determine whether he should file a lawsuit against Daphne, because she broke her three promises: (A) to pay him $1,000; (B) to pay him $1,500; and (C) to give him the watch. Which of these promises, if any, will Paolo be able to enforce if he sues Daphne? Discuss.