Using IRAC
Monday Business Law II Assignment
Last class, we examined the case, Fernandez v. California, and we
learned how to analyze the case using the IRAC method. IRAC is
the way we reason through any legal problem. IRAC stands for
(Issue; Rule; Application; Conclusion). (If you look at how to brief a
case in your textbook, you will see that IRAC is the foundation of
briefing a case.)
In class, we used Brandon Austin’s approach to deciding this case,
and filled out the following IRAC outline.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Issue: Can the police search a home where they were denied
access by an arrested cotenant where the other cotenant
subsequently consented to the search?
Rule: The Fourth Amendment – “The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.”
Georgia v. Randolph
Application: Consent is the heart of my constitutional right to
privacy. Fernandez did not consent; therefore, since he never
consented during custody, the police need to get a warrant.
1
Conclusion: No, the police cannot search a home where they were
denied access by an arrested cotenant where the other cotenant
subsequently consented to the search.
TWO ADDITIONAL NOTES:
1) You may want to add to your conclusion your
understanding of what the resolution is or should be in the case.
For example, since Mr. Austin found that the home search was
unconstitutional, one of Mr. Austin’s conclusions might be that the
evidence of the weapons used in the robbery should be
suppressed; and that the conviction should be reversed.
2) You may want to add other sections to your IRAC analysis
that help your reasoning. So you may want to start off by briefly
stating the facts of the case. Or, if you are analyzing a judicial
decision, you may want to include how the judges voted.
2
HOMEWORK FOR NEXT CLASS:
1) Find and read the Supreme Court’s decision in Fernandez v.
California. [Go to LEXIS-NEXIS and search for the case in the legal
cases sections by entering the case name.] Contact me at
tobias_pinckney@yahoo.com if you cannot complete this step.
2) Using IRAC, describe the majority opinion’s analysis.
3) Using IRAC, describe the dissenting opinion’s analysis.
4) Which one do you find more convincing? Why?
5) Using any resources and the National Labor Relations Board
decisions that you have about the unionization of graduate
students, write an IRAC analysis of whether college football
students should unionize.
3