Motion To Suppress Evidence (PC)

The Appellant Roger Wayne Cole, was stopped by the police for driving with a broken tail light and immediately arrested for driving with a suspended license. The appellant claims that his actions can be justified because he was trying to get help for his wife who was six months pregnant at the time and was experiencing severe stomach and back pain. He testified that before he was arrested that day he went to the neighbor’s house to use their phone but they didn’t answer the door. The appellant explained that because he did not have access to a phone he had no other choice than to drive to the nearest payphone half a mile away to call his mother in law and ask her to take his wife to the hospital.

Truab had subpoenaed. The opposing counsel tried to argue that it was too late in the case to introduce additional witnesses. Ms. Traub argued that it was not because our client is LEP and did not have counsel until halfway through the case. The hearing office agreed with the opposing counsel but opted to hear from the EMT as he was there and responded to the incident. Before the EMT was called in the opposing counsel stated that the ex-husband would like to testify. He state that day he just asked her to go to the mountains and she said no and pushed him and that he was unsure why the police showed up. Then the EMT was then called in and asked to testify. He was first asked by Ms. Traub to recount what happened that day. He stated that he responed to the call and found out client upstairs in the house and our client with a hematoma over her eye and clear symptoms of dizziness such as a lack of balance. He was then asked questions by the opposing counsel. She asked if he had seen and blood or had to apply any stitches. He promptly responded no and that he only things he treated her for were the hematoma on our client’s eye and her dizziness. The judge then asked him if he felt that our client was lying or faking her

El Chico Corp., 732 S.W.2d 306. For instance, in Bruce, the court held that the inebriated state of a pair of customers of the defendant’s restaurant may be deemed to have been sufficiently apparent to the restaurant based on circumstantial evidence alone even if the defendant had not possessed actual knowledge of the pair’s condition. Bruce v. K.K.B., Inc., 52 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2001). The plaintiffs in Bruce suffered serious injuries after his car was struck by an intoxicated driver (a member of the aforementioned pair), who die died in the crash, who was driving home from the defendant’s restaurant. Id. In spite of testimony to the contrary by both the restaurant’s employees and the surviving member of the pair, the court held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to exhibit that the driver had been “obviously intoxicated to the extent that she presented a clear danger to herself and other” at the time of service. Id. Analogously, in Perseus, the inebriated nature of a patron of the defendant’s bar was deemed to have been sufficiently apparent to the defendant, even if the defendant lacked actual knowledge of the patron’s condition, since the defendant should have had knowledge of the customer’s condition. Perseus, Inc. 995 S.W.2d 202. The defendants in Perseus. were sued after the aforementioned patron hit and killed two people after leaving

Case Procedural History: Roy Caballes tried to suppress the drugs seized in the stop by claiming that the state troopers did not have probable cause to search his vehicle. The trial judge denied the motion to suppress the seized marijuana. The trial judge held that the use of the drug dog did not prolong the duration

ISSUE: (1) The police department continued with the interrogations process that led to incriminating statements without reading the defendant’s rights.

On November 19, 2016 I went to Price County Superior Court from 9:30am-12pm. I watched the court session in room 202A of case #16-077-01126 between John Lewis and the State of Washington. Present in the courtroom was Judge Whitener, prosecutor Lewis of WA state, John Lewis the defendant representing himself, an appointed court member to assist the defendant, Deputy Kevin Pressel who gave the witness testimony, and lastly the court reporter, clerk, and bailiff (no jury). In this case, Lewis driving a truck was being followed by another vehicle who also reported that Lewis shot a revolver out his window. The two vehicles ultimately crashed and police were called to the scene. Pressel was first to arrive and identified and detained Lewis. Soon after Pressel identified a firearm in the truck, but Lewis denied he had a firearm and thinks it was planted by the people in other vehicle. The court session today between Lewis and WA State, was questing the legality of Pressel taking the Firearm from the vehicle without warrant and if the firearm is tampered evidence.

In the matter of Fare v. Michael C. (442 US 707) (1979), Michael, the offender, was arrested on suspicion of murder in Van Nuys, California. Michael, 16, was already on probation and had a long history of criminal offenses. Before any questioning, Michael was advised of Miranda Warnings, per Miranda v. Arizona. Upon being informed of Miranda Warnings, Michael had requested to see his probation officer. This request was denied by law enforcement. Michael C. had never asked for an attorney and, upon his request being denied, Michael proceeded to make statements without an attorney present. These statements made to law enforcement eventually led to Michael incriminating himself.

The rational for the present sense impression exception for hearsay stem from the notion that statement is reliable because the contemporaneity of the event observed and the hearsay statement describing it leaves no time for reflection. Thus, the likelihood of deliberate misrepresentation or faulty recollection is eliminated. People v. Brown 80 N.Y.2d 729, 734, 610 N.E.2d 369, 594 N.Y.S.2d 696 (1993); People v. Vasquez 88 N.Y. 2d. 561, 575, 670 N.E.2d. 1328, N.Y.S.2d 697 (1996); People v. Melendez 296 A.D.2d 424, 426, 744 N.Y.S.2d 485 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 2002). In People v. Semple the audio tape of the radio communication between the police officers during the police high speed chase provide no opportunity for any of the officer to reflect and to fabricate the statement. People v. Semple 174 Misc.2d 879, 882, 666 N.Y.S.2d 900 (Sup. Ct. 2d Dept. 1997). In People v. Melendez, the defendant made a 911 call shortly made after stabbing her boyfriend claiming that it was an accidental stabbing. The Appellant Division deem that the defendant does not appear to have sufficient time to fabricate anything on the 911 tape. People v. Melendez 296 A.D.2d 242, 244, 744 N.Y.S.2d 485 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 2002). In Jerkson case following the reasoning from People v. Semple and People v. Melendez when the unidentified woman saw that the police was apprehending the wrong man she dialed 911 to inform the police

We all do our best to protect what is ours, but how far will we go to do that and will it justify our reasons behind our actions? Whether it’s protecting our properties and possessions, or family or even ourselves, situations get out of hand and we are faced with making decisions that could change our lives and the lives of those around us. The tiniest detail can determine ones actions as justifiable or unjustifiable. For Don Luis Ceballos and Judy-Ann Laws Norman their actions of defense were unjustifiable according to a jury.

Facts: The defendant was pulled over after the officer saw him swerving in between lanes. The officer did not tell him he was free to leave, but the officer believed it. He asked him to step out of the car and perform a balancing test. After failing the test he was placed under

made a mistake on the officer sworn statement (DS-367) (Exhibit 1) and the officer completed the Arrest and Supplemental Report (Exhibit 2) 6 days after the arrest, which does not fall within the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule, Section 1280 of the Evidence Code. In addition, officer signed the second page of the DS-367 (Exhibit 1) after 6 days of the arrest, therefore, the DS-367 is altered. In addition, the DS-367 (Exhibit 1) and the Arrest and Supplemental Report (Exhibit 2) are not credible, not trustworthy and not admissible. Officer notes are destroyed after he completed his report and memory of the officer is questionable.. Counsel cited the Glatman, MacDonald, Manny cases to support his

The defendant stated that she told the officer that she had stopped at the limit line as required. The officer agreed and said: "You stopped, but you didn't stop long enough." The defendant stated that the officer seemed to indicate in this statement that he wanted her to stop for a longer period of time than she actually had.

Great response, I truly enjoyed your expression to the scenario. The story line was exceptionally fascinating on the grounds that this does happen a lot, especially when a person feels like we all might get into trouble. I total agree with you on the defendant’s was seeing driving all over the road and the officer had a substantial motive to make the stop. The passenger only spoke the truth of course but a prosecutor will try to have it use as hearsay which it maybe. Overall Wallace stated it so 80% of it was the truth. Thank you as well for exploring the 804 rule when applies to the hearsay evidence. Good job.

The defendant was only found crying over the body and the public defender made a valid argument that the trauma could have been from someone preforming CPR on the body. The cause of death for the corpse was not provided and this causes an issue for proving that this was not done prior to the entry of Mr. Smith. On the charge of Resisting Arrest I agreed to dismiss the charge. This was because of the fact that the defendant did actually assault the officer.

Officer Smith had pulled a vehicle over after she noticed it had what appeared to be a broken tail light covered with colored tape. In accordance with the “good-faith” law, I believe that Officer Smith had no deliberate intent to defraud the party, only to acknowledge the driving of a vehicle with improper and unsafe equipment. Only when she walked upon the vehicle did it occur to her that it resembled a car, fitting a general description of a suspected car in a recent road side killing of a fellow