STATE OF TEXAS : IN THE DISTRICT COURT

The state hereby submits its Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress. The following discussion confirms that the State considered this move against the defendant because the defendant violated various codes and committed several offenses under the constitution of the U.S. The defendant also faces conviction due to other felony offenses. Therefore, the jurisdiction to listen to this move is before the court because of the felonies mentioned above. The motion to suppress should be denied because the defendant committed various offenses.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On April 3, 2003, officers from the S.T.O.P. Narcotics Task Force were carrying out surveillance on a specific residence around East Crow (District Court 10). Different cooperating individuals had informed the officers the owner, Mr. Jackson, manufactures and sells the substance from the residence. Moreover, the officers were also aware that the defendant would be at Mr. Jackson’s house to buy the illegal drugs.

During a search, the officers noticed that the defendant’s vehicle mud flaps were higher than usual. This move introduced the first offense. After leaving Mr. Jackson’s residence, the officers stopped the defendant and searched his vehicle seizing about 400 grams of the illegal substance from the M & M container.

LAW AND ARGUMENT

The court should deny the defendant’s motion to suppress because he violated the transportation code of section 547.606. The section requires that the mud flaps should be eight inches from the asphalt. Moreover, the defendant’s claims that the interrogation testimonials violated his Miranda rights and the Fifth Amendments. Nevertheless, the court should not suppress the defendant’s statements about the S.T.O.P team were voluntary. The officers did not interrogate him about his experiences with the team.

Probable Cause requirements of the U.S. CONST. Amend. IV.

The Miranda right applies in cases where state officials interrogate suspects while in custody. The Supreme Court holds that the Fifth Amendment is available to all individuals outside the court proceedings (U.S.Courts). The amendment protects all persons from incriminating themselves. The testimonials indicate that the officers did not subject the defendant to interrogations before the proceedings in court. In this case, the defendant made deliberate remarks about the S.T.O.P team. The officers used these statements to justify their actions.

Reasonableness of Seizure under U.S. CONST. Amend. IV.

The vehicular searches close does not guarantee suppression of the defendant’s motion. The amendment states that officers may search vehicles without search warrants if they are sure that the cars have contraband or other suspicious objects (GPO 1638). In this case, the defense’s argument that the officers had no warrant fails to support the motion of suppression.

Fruits of an Unlawful detention and warrantless search

The law allows officers to arrest individuals and search their premises and vehicles if the officers believe that they have committed an offense (Johnson and Stephens 1674). In this case, the law does not permit the suppression of evidence.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State Of Texas prays that the court deny Defendant’s Motion to Suppress.

Respectfully submitted,

Name

Works Cited

District Court. “Trial Court Cause No. CR11850.” 2004

GPO. “Sixth Amendment: Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions.” n.d.

Johnson, Charles W. and Debra L. Stephens. “Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2013 Update.” Seattle University Law Review, vol. 36, 2013, pp. 1581-1817.

U.S.Courts. “Facts and Case Summary-Miranda v. Arizona.” 1966.