Posted: October 6th, 2022

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
FLORIDA

STATE OF Florida
Plaintiff, State of Florida )
V. ) CASE No: ___________
WILLIE PIERCE )
Defendant, Jimmy Jaffers )
____________________________________________________
MOTION TO SUPPRESS __________________________________________________________________
Factual Background
The Police had obtained a search warrant for a single-family residence in search of ant unlawful amphetamines and gear utilized of their manufacture. The search warrant granted authority to have Harry Hampton searched. The warrant had described Hampton as 32 years of age, 6 ft. 2 in., and 225 lbs. On arrival, the Police began the search with one looking Hampton. The search resulted in contraband. One other police officer detained Jimmy Jaffers, who was seated on the porch in the home. Jaffers was subjected to a pat-down search the place no weapons had been found. The officer seen a suspicious lump in his entrance pants pocket containing a plastic bag of capsules. On examination, the tablets had been thought of to be unlawful amphetamines.
Contested Problems with Constitutional Reality
On the listening to on this movement, the Court docket will likely be required to make the next findings of constitutional reality: 1. Whether or not the contraband discovered on Jaffer’s particular person ought to be suppressed. If that’s the case, the Court docket ought to deny utilizing the proof in listening to the case. Nevertheless, if the states deny the movement to suppress, the Court docket should decide one other problem. 2. Whether or not Jimmy Jaffers was a sufferer of an unreasonable search
Abstract of the Argument
The plaintiff Jimmy Jaffers didn’t grant any precise or implied permission to the police brokers to conduct in-person proof on him. Jimmy Jaffers is a person who has no expertise coping with regulation enforcement officers. To this impact, he didn’t know that the officers had the mandate to request consent from him earlier than conducting any search. Jimmy was not knowledgeable of his rights, equivalent to withholding consent in case it was required. The Police needed to point out that they’d affordable suspicion to conduct the search on him, which they did not state. Due to this fact, Jaffers underwent an unreasonable search in residence, and any proof that was collected from him on the time must be suppressed. His constitutional rights offered by the Fourth Modification had been egregiously violated.
Argument
I. The Court docket ought to suppress all proof obtained from Jiffy Jaffers as a result of the Police acquired the affirmation by way of an egregious violation of the Fourth Modification.
The Supreme Court docket has constantly indicated that the courts have to suppress any proof that was obtained by way of egregious violations of the Fourth Modification or every other liberties that could be a transgression of the beliefs to elementary equity. This was illustrated within the case of I.N.S. v Lopes-Mendoza (1984), the place the egregious violations had been thought of to be when authorities brokers engaged in an operation that will be considered the violation of constitutional rights by a police officer or the violations had been carried out intentionally. Notably, the proof that has been collected by way of the egregious violations must be suppressed whatever the probative worth, as indicated within the case of Adamson v Commissioner of Inner Income (1984).
On this case, the police brokers engaged within the egregious violations of the Fourth Modification by conducting a pat-down search on Jimmy Jaffers, but there was no possible trigger to the search. The search warrant constitutionally and judicially licensed was solely on Harry Hampton and the residence. Moreover, the police brokers make the most of coercion and duress through the search of Jimmy Jaffers for not giving him the capability to consent to the search voluntarily. As per the case of STATE v. EDSTROM (2018), the Court docket indicated that a warrantless search of a non-public residence was unreasonable, particularly when there was no given consent. The Court docket would additional go on to state that the Police want affordable articulable suspicion to conduct their searches and failure to this, then any proof obtained ought to be suppressed. Notably, the police brokers did search Jimmy Jaffers with none affordable suspicion to permit them to go looking him.
II. Was Jimmy Jaffers the Sufferer of an Unreasonable Search
The Fourth Modification prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures has stood equally to the opposite constitutional provisions on particular person rights. When a warrantless search is carried out the place the consent to go looking has been granted freely and voluntarily, then the Fourth Modification has not been violated. The state does bear the burden of proof to make sure that there’s clear and constructive proof that a carried out search was free, clever, simple, and particular consent with none compulsion, not coercion, whether or not it’s precise or implied. Nonetheless, on this case, Jimmy Jaffers has not requested for any permission to permit the cops to seek for him. Jaffers was solely in an surroundings the place there was a search warrant which didn’t state that the people inside the residence had been to be searched apart from Harry Hampton. Jaffers didn’t consent to the particular person search carried out on him.
As cited within the case of State v. Ture, 632 N.W.2nd 621 (Minn. 2001), the Supreme Court docket has prohibited the state from enterprise any unreasonable searches or seizures. Typically, the searches which have been performed with no search warrant are thought of to be “unreasonable.” In Florida’s Chapter 933: Search And Inspection Warrants, the regulation signifies that people have a proper to be safe of their individuals, property, papers, and results in opposition to unreasonable searches and seizures. These rights are to not be violated, and a search warrant ought to solely be issued when there’s a possible trigger that has help from both the oath or an affirmation of the person or his place that’s to be searched. On this case, the Police did not have any search warrant or any description inside the allow they’d that will authorize the in-person search on Jimmy Jaffers. To this impact, the proof that was collected from him was performed unconstitutionally and shouldn’t be used in opposition to him within the Court docket of regulation. The Police even have the burden of proof to ascertain any exception that will apply to the warrantless search. Failure to take action meant that the Fourth Modification rights have been violated.
Conclusion
For these causes, it’s respectfully requested that the Court docket suppress all proof seized on account of the in-person search carried out on Jimmy Jaffers.
This ____Ist___ day of ______August_________, 2020.

___________________________________
Joe Johnson, Esq.
Legal professional for the Defendant
Florida

Johnson & Johnson Regulation, P.CP.C.
1122 Columbus Avenue
Suite 201
Florida

Bibliography
Court docket Circumstances
1. Adamson v. C.I.R.C.I.R., United States Court docket of Appeals, Ninth CircuitOct 16, 1984745 F.2nd 541 (ninth Cir. 1984)
2. INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984). U.S. Supreme Court docket
three. STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Cortney John EDSTROM, Respondent.No. C8-00-798. Supreme Court docket of Minnesota. 632 N.W.2nd 621 (2001)Filed: August 15, 2018.
four. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Joseph D. TURE, Appellant. No. C8-00-798. Supreme Court docket of Minnesota. August 16, 2001.
Laws Statutes
1. The 2019 Florida Statutes
Title XLVII: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS
Chapter 933: SEARCH AND INSPECTION WARRANTS

Order | Check Discount

Tags: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FLORIDA