Help with a 1 page paper

Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality, logic/organization of the paper, and language and writing skills, using the following rubric.

Points: 100	Case Study 2: Plain View, Open Fields, Abandonment, and Border Searches as They Relate to Search and Seizures
Criteria	Unacceptable Below 60% F	Meets Minimum Expectations 60-69% D	Fair 70-79% C	Proficient 80-89% B	Exemplary 90-100% A
1. Identify the constitutional amendment that would govern Officer Williams' and Officer Martinez' actions. Weight: 35%	Did not submit or incompletely identified the constitutional amendment that would govern Officer Williams' and Officer Martinez' actions.	Insufficiently identified the constitutional amendment that would govern Officer Williams' and Officer Martinez' actions.	Partially identified the constitutional amendment that would govern Officer Williams' and Officer Martinez' actions.	Satisfactorily identified the constitutional amendment that would govern Officer Williams' and Officer Martinez' actions.	Thoroughly identified the constitutional amendment that would govern Officer Williams' and Officer Martinez' actions.
2. Analyze the validity and constitutionality of Officer Williams' and Officer Martinez' actions. Weight: 25%	Did not submit or incompletely analyzed the validity and constitutionality of Officer Williams' and Officer Martinez' actions.	Insufficiently analyzed the validity and constitutionality of Officer Williams' and Officer Martinez' actions.	Partially analyzed the validity and constitutionality of Officer Williams' and Officer Martinez' actions.	Satisfactorily analyzed the validity and constitutionality of Officer Williams' and Officer Martinez' actions.	Thoroughly analyzed the validity and constitutionality of Officer Williams' and Officer Martinez' actions.
3. Assess if the officers' actions were justified under the doctrines of plain view, abandonment, open fields, or border searches. Support your response by citing specific case law and/or contemporary cases. Weight: 25%	Did not submit or incompletely assessed if the officers' actions were justified under the doctrines of plain view, abandonment, open fields, or border searches. Did not submit or incompletely supported your response with the citation of specific case law and/or contemporary cases.	Insufficiently assessed if the officers' actions were justified under the doctrines of plain view, abandonment, open fields, or border searches. Insufficiently supported your response with the citation of specific case law and/or contemporary cases.	Partially assessed if the officers' actions were justified under the doctrines of plain view, abandonment, open fields, or border searches. Partially supported your response with the citation of specific case law and/or contemporary cases.	Satisfactorily assessed if the officers' actions were justified under the doctrines of plain view, abandonment, open fields, or border searches. Satisfactorily supported your response with the citation of specific case law and/or contemporary cases.	Thoroughly assessed if the officers' actions were justified under the doctrines of plain view, abandonment, open fields, or border searches. Thoroughly supported your response with the citation of specific case law and/or contemporary cases.
4. Cite three references. Weight: 5%	No references provided.	Does not meet the required number of references; all references poor quality choices.	Does not meet the required number of references; some references poor quality choices.	Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices.	Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices.
5. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements Weight: 10%	More than 8 errors present.	7-8 errors present.	5-6 errors present.	3-4 errors present.	0-2 errors present.