Suppression of Backpack Contents & Cocaine

There is a good chance that the motion to suppress will be granted and that a convincing case can be made that the contents of the backpack and the brown paper bag were acquired unlawfully. The grounds for the motion’s acceptance are the defendants’ rights, which may have been violated in a number of different ways.

The young men are approached by the officer, who questions them about why they are out so late when it is neither illegal nor cause for worry. Bob did not give the officer consent to search the backpack. At the time of the illegal search of the bag, the officer had no reason to suspect the two individuals that they are perpetrators of any crimes. There was absolutely no reason for them to be stopped and checked, other than they were walking through a high crime neighborhood. The officer was familiar with Bob from the area and purportedly seized him and his character in high regard.

Legal Explanation of the Law

Exclusionary rules forbid illegally gathered evidence to be utilized when it is a violation of search and seizure procedures. In essence, the evidence can be excluded or dismissed from the proceedings due to potential constitutional violations.

Application of Law to support the Conclusion

The application of the law, in this case, would be regarding whether the contents of the backpack were discovered or found legally. The officer asked for Bob’s consent to search the bag, and that consent was apparently not given by Bob. The police officer violated the rights of Bob when he did not receive the acquiescence by and searched the bag anyhow. With this said, it would provide the request for the suppression of this evidence merit. Bob and Pat were stopped without any particular suspicion of guilt, but just because they were walking down the street.

Counter Analysis

The motion could be rejected or discarded because even if the officer had not stopped Bob and Pat at the time that he did, after a few minutes he would have heard the call concerning the robbery come over the radio and he would have had the legal rationale for finding them and stopping them. After he had a valid reason for stopping them for suspicion of a crime, he would have been acting in good faith in attempting to search the backpack and the bushes where he saw an object being hurled.

Conclusion

The law is clearly on the side of the suspect as his rights were outraged regarding the search of property without consent or proper suspicion. The success of the motion will be based on the interpretation by the Judge of if the discovery was inevitable and if the officer was acting in good faith.

ISSUE #2: Suppression of Confession

Introduction

The revelation that Bob gave could be linked to the tainted procedure of his stop and search and has the potential to not be admissible due to the chain of events by the officer before the confession.

Relevant Facts

Bob placed both suspects under arrest after a questionable stop and searched which will be contested in the Motion to Suppress for the first issue. Additional relevant facts are that Bob has not properly read his the rights, so he was completely unaware of the effects of any statement that he made to the police officer.

Legal Explanation

The evidence of the confession was derived from an illegal action by the police officer and cannot be entered into court. Officers are needed to read the rights to the suspect before their questioning or interrogation. These rights being read would enable Bob to understand the situation completely.

Application of Law

If a suspect is not aware of his or her rights, then any statement including confessions may not be admissible in court. The officer was apparently trying to manipulate Bob based on their interaction before this incident. This manipulation and omission of reading the rights are a clear violation of the law.

Counter Analysis

The argument can be made that the confession was inevitable. Even if Bob acknowledged his constitutional right to silence, he could very well have still offered the confession because he believed that the officer was trying to help him.

Conclusion

The law is clearly on the side of the suspect as his rights were violated regarding the officer not reading Bob the Miranda rights before his confession. The success of the motion will be based on the Judge’s interpretation of if the disclosure was inevitable.

Respectfully submitted,

Name

Attorney for Defendant