Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 142 views

    LL MTS

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous 69tCCOGo
    1) The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence gathered by law enforcement during a search of his detached garage. 2) Law enforcement initially obtained a warrant to search the garage for a specific vehicle. After finding the vehicle, officers continued searching other areas of the garage. 3) The continued search resulted in the observation and seizure of additional firearms. Law enforcement then obtained an additional warrant. 4) The defendant argues that the continued searching beyond the scope of the initial warrant was an illegal general search, and any evidence found as a result should be suppressed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    LL MTS

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous 69tCCOGo
    142 views5 pages
    1) The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence gathered by law enforcement during a search of his detached garage. 2) Law enforcement initially obtained a warrant to search the garage for a specific vehicle. After finding the vehicle, officers continued searching other areas of the garage. 3) The continued search resulted in the observation and seizure of additional firearms. Law enforcement then obtained an additional warrant. 4) The defendant argues that the continued searching beyond the scope of the initial warrant was an illegal general search, and any evidence found as a result should be suppressed.

    Original Description:

    LL Motion to Suppress

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence gathered by law enforcement during a search of his detached garage. 2) Law enforcement initially obtained a warrant to search the garage for a specific vehicle. After finding the vehicle, officers continued searching other areas of the garage. 3) The continued search resulted in the observation and seizure of additional firearms. Law enforcement then obtained an additional warrant. 4) The defendant argues that the continued searching beyond the scope of the initial warrant was an illegal general search, and any evidence found as a result should be suppressed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    142 views5 pages

    LL MTS

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous 69tCCOGo
    1) The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence gathered by law enforcement during a search of his detached garage. 2) Law enforcement initially obtained a warrant to search the garage for a specific vehicle. After finding the vehicle, officers continued searching other areas of the garage. 3) The continued search resulted in the observation and seizure of additional firearms. Law enforcement then obtained an additional warrant. 4) The defendant argues that the continued searching beyond the scope of the initial warrant was an illegal general search, and any evidence found as a result should be suppressed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 5

    Case 2:09-cr-00919-DAK Document 21 Filed 03/26/10 Page 1 of 5

    RHOME D. ZABRISKIE, #9113


    STEPHEN A. ALLRED, #12013
    ZABRISKIE LAW FIRM, LLC
    899 North Freedom Blvd., Ste. 200
    Provo, Utah 84604
    Phone: (801) 375-7680

    ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


    DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MOTION AND MEMORANDUM TO


    SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
    Plaintiff,

    vs.

    BRETT BISHOP, 2:09CR00919

    Defendant.

    COMES NOW the defendant by and through counsel and pursuant to the Fourth

    Amendment of the United States Constitution and respectfully motions this court to suppress any

    evidence gathered as a result of law enforcement exceeding the scope of its Original Warrant, or

    alternatively to suppress any evidence gathered as a result of law enforcement exceeding the

    scope of its Updated Warrant.

    FACTS

    1. On August 6, 2009 law enforcement entered the detached garage portion of a

    home rented and occupied by Brett Bishop. The purpose of the entry was to execute a warrant
    Case 2:09-cr-00919-DAK Document 21 Filed 03/26/10 Page 2 of 5

    permitting a search of the detached garage structure for a silver 2005 Porsche Cayenne, VIN

    #WP1AC29P35LA91261 (the Original Warrant). This Original Warrant gave law

    enforcement the authority to search out and seize the Porsche.

    2. Officers entered the structure from a man-door on the north face of the structure.

    The man-door enters into a small office adjacent to the actual garage space within the structure.

    Once thru the man-door to the structure, officers went thru an interior door a few feet away into

    the actual garage space where they immediately observed a fully assembled gray Porsche

    Cayenne, consistent with the description provided in the Original Warrant.

    3. After officers had identified the Porsche Cayenne, and as they were waiting for a

    wrecker to impound the vehicle, officers entered thru an interior door into a separate room in the

    southeast corner of the structure. While in the southeast room officers observed a gun case with

    glass doors thru which they could see eight rifles and six handguns in plain view from within the

    southeast room.

    4. After observing the guns law enforcement received an erroneous indication that

    the defendant had a prior felony conviction making it illegal for the defendant to possess

    firearms.

    5. Based upon the plain view observations made in the separate southeast room and

    the erroneous indication that the defendant had a prior felony conviction, law enforcement

    obtained a new warrant to search out and seize Eight Rifles and Six Handguns (the Updated

    Warrant).

    6. After the Updated Warrant was obtained law enforcement immediately seized all

    of the items listed in the Updated Warrant.

    7. After seizing all of the items to which it was entitled by virtue of the Updated
    Case 2:09-cr-00919-DAK Document 21 Filed 03/26/10 Page 3 of 5

    Warrant, law enforcement continued its search by opening drawers, cabinets, and compartments

    in the actual garage space, and in the southeast and northeast rooms adjacent to the actual garage

    space.

    8. After discovering all items listed in both the Original and Updated Warrants, law

    enforcement searched out and seized other items of evidence, including but not limited to a

    muffler which had been modified and could possibly be used as a homemade silencer.

    MEMORANDUM

    Evidence seized by law enforcement after the discovery of the fully intact 2005 Porsche

    Cayenne should be suppressed. Alternatively, evidence seized by law enforcement after the

    discovery of the eight rifles and six handguns should be suppressed.

    ARGUMENT 1

    On August 6, 2009 law enforcement executed a search warrant on the defendants

    detached garage structure for a 2005 Porsche Cayenne (the Original Warrant). Law

    enforcement entered the structure thru the man-door on the north facade of the structure.

    Officers proceeded immediately from there through an interior door into the actual garage portion

    of the structure. Upon entering the actual garage portion officers immediately noticed the

    presence of a 2005 Porsche Cayenne. Law enforcement had, at this point, exhausted the entire

    scope of the Original Warrant. However, instead of terminating the search there, officers

    continued to conduct a general exploratory search.

    While waiting for a wrecker to come and remove the Porsche one of the officers opened a

    door into a separate room in the southeast corner of the same structure as the garage. He entered

    the room and from that vantage point observed eight rifles and six handguns thru the glass doors

    of a gun case. Thereafter, law enforcement sought an updated warrant to seize those eight rifles
    Case 2:09-cr-00919-DAK Document 21 Filed 03/26/10 Page 4 of 5

    and six hand guns.

    In Marron vs. United States the Court explained that the particularity requirement of the

    Fourth Amendment is to prevent general exploratory searches of a persons belongings (275 US

    192, 195-6). Pursuant to the Fourth Amendment law enforcement cannot continue with a general

    exploratory search once the particular item, or items described by the warrant have been searched

    out and found.

    In the case at bar law enforcement should have stopped all searching once it discovered

    the Porsche. Any items of evidence discovered as a result of the general exploratory search that

    ensued thereafter should be suppressed.

    ARGUMENT 2

    After executing an Original Warrant for a 2005 Porsche Cayenne On August 6, 2009 law

    enforcement secured a new warrant to search the defendants detached garage structure for eight

    riffles and six hand guns (the Updated Warrant). Since officers observed these items thru the

    glass doors and could name the exact number of firearms in the defendants gun case before

    requesting the Updated Warrant, it is by necessity that the items were already searched out and

    found at the moment the Updated Warrant was secured. However, instead of terminating the

    search with the seizure of the particularly described guns, officers continued with a general

    exploratory search.

    In its continued general exploratory search law enforcement opened drawers, cabinets,

    and compartments in the actual garage space, and in the southeast and northeast rooms adjacent

    to the actual garage space. As a result law enforcement searched out and seized other items of

    evidence, including but not limited to a muffler which had been modified and could possibly be

    used as a homemade silencer.


    Case 2:09-cr-00919-DAK Document 21 Filed 03/26/10 Page 5 of 5

    In Marron vs. United States the Court explained that the particularity requirement of the

    Fourth Amendment is to prevent general exploratory searches of a persons belongings (Id).

    Pursuant to the Fourth Amendment law enforcement cannot continue with a general exploratory

    search once the particular item, or items described by the warrant have been searched out and

    found.

    In the case at bar law enforcement should have stopped all searching once it secured the

    previously identified eight rifles and six hand guns described in the search warrant. Any items of

    evidence discovered as a result of the general exploratory search that ensued thereafter should be

    suppressed.

    CONCLUSION

    Based upon the foregoing facts and argument the Court should suppress all evidence

    discovered as a result of the general exploratory search carried out by law enforcement after the

    Porsche was searched out and found by law enforcement. Alternatively, the Court should

    suppress all evidence discovered as a result of the general exploratory search carried out by law

    enforcement after the eight riffles and six handguns were searched out and found by law

    enforcement.

    DATED this 26th day of March, 2010.

    /s/Rhome D Zabriskie
    RHOME D. ZABRISKIE

    You might also like