Motion To Suppress Evidence: State V. John Doeyour Supervisi

Motion To Suppress Evidence State V John Doeyour Supervising Attorney

Motion to Suppress Evidence State v. John Doe Your supervising attorney has received and reviewed the discovery on behalf of John Doe. The police report states that once the police had John Doe safely secured in the back of the police car, they searched his car parked in the bar parking lot without a warrant. They found three pieces of crack cocaine in a sealed container in the glove compartment of the car. Now they have filed charges against him for possession of cocaine.

The attorney asks you to prepare a motion to suppress evidence. You can create additional facts to complete the motion. In addition, prepare the following using the templates provided: Notice of motion to suppress the evidence Certification Proposed form of order Proof of mailing.

Paper For Above instruction

In the case of State v. John Doe, the defendant moves this honorable court to suppress evidence obtained in violation of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution. The basis for this motion is that the evidence—three pieces of crack cocaine found in a sealed container in the glove compartment of the defendant’s vehicle—was the result of an unlawful warrantless search conducted by the police after the defendant was already secured in custody.

Factual Background: On the night of the incident, police officers responded to a reported disturbance at a local bar. Upon arrival, they identified John Doe as a suspect involved in an altercation. The officers detained Mr. Doe and placed him in the police vehicle for safety reasons. Once Mr. Doe was secured in the back seat of the police cruiser, the officers proceeded to search his vehicle without obtaining a warrant or probable cause. During this warrantless search, the police discovered a sealed container with three pieces of crack cocaine in the glove compartment.

The police report indicates that the search was conducted solely based on the defendant’s detention, without individualized suspicion or exigent circumstances justifying an immediate warrantless search. Under established law, such searches are presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has consistently held that searches conducted without a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances violate constitutional protections unless an exception applies (Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 1967; California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 1991).

Legal Argument: The search of Mr. Doe’s vehicle was performed after he was lawfully detained, but after that detention, the police did not possess sufficient probable cause or exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless search of the vehicle. As established in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), vehicle searches incident to arrest are permissible only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the vehicle at the time of search or when the police have reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. In this case, Mr. Doe was secured in the police car at the time of the search, and there was no indication that he had access to the vehicle or that evidence of the current offense (possession of cocaine) was in plain view.

Furthermore, under the "auto exception" to the warrant requirement, police must have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. Here, the police lacked probable cause at the time of the search—no information or observation suggested that the cocaine was in the vehicle prior to their entry. Therefore, the evidence obtained as a result of this illegal search must be suppressed under the the exclusionary rule (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 1961).

Conclusion: The warrantless search of the vehicle was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence obtained as a result should be suppressed. Accordingly, the motion to suppress should be granted, and the evidence—three pieces of crack cocaine—should be excluded from any subsequent proceedings.

References

• Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
• California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991).
• Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009).
• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
• Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969).
• Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).
• United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982).
• Roberts v. United States, 674 F.3d 609 (9th Cir. 2012).
• People v. Williams, 146 Cal. App. 4th 825 (2007).