On the following pages I have reproduced an excellent student brief originally written for Politics 366. This may be the best brief I have received in a Constitutional Law class. I have edited it just a little to remove some small errors that you might otherwise emulate. I invite you to study this exceptionally good brief for the insights it may provide in the preparation of your own. Note particularly that the entire argument is a carefully structured hierarchy of contentions. (See A Good Argument Is a Hierarchy of Contentions.) Strong and weak points of the brief are discussed briefly in the commentary I provided to its author, which is reprinted below. (I've fixed the first three weakness mentioned.)

Craig W. Allin

COMMENTS OF CRAIG ALLIN ON THE ATTACHED BRIEF

Your written brief is superb. It is--at the minimum--one of the best I have seen over a ten year period. Without consulting the files, I'd wager that it is the best. It's exceptionally well-organized, exceptionally well-written, exceptionally creative, and (almost) properly presented. You've conceptualized the arguments effectively and argued persuasively. You developed your arguments step by step and developed each precedent with skill. The biggest problem I see in undergraduate advocacy briefs is the urge to make an assertion and simply attach a case name to it, as if a case name can substitute for an argument. There is none of that here. The relevant features of every case relied upon are explained clearly to the court. You deserve special plaudits for the 4th Amendment argument which is entirely original and very persuasive. The better a brief is the harder I look for errors. You didn't make it easy. In fourteen single-spaced pages, this is the best I can do:

• p. 3, ¶4: You leave the preposition "to" dangling at the end of the sentence. It belongs before the "what."
• p. 8, ¶2: "but" should be "buy."
• At a somewhat more significant level, you state two legal questions and respond with three main arguments resulting in a mismatch between questions asked and answered. Your arguments I and II are subsets of your response to question I and should be organized that way.
• Your statement of the relevant provisions of the Child Protection Act of 1984 is so attenuated as to be a sentence fragment. Arguably the important words and phrases are all here, but at least complete the sentence.

Standing alone, I'd rate the brief an A+.

The Model Brief is presented in pdf format to maintain the original look of the printed pages as submitted.