BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

INTRODUCTION

This brief seeks to support the suppression of evidence of the black plastic gun in the case against Megan Toronto (henceforth, the defendant). The defendant has been indicted in the Superior Court for the State of Washington Benton Country and charged with robbery in the first degree pursuant to RCWA § 9A.56.200 and RCWA § 9A.56.190. It is the submission of the defense, in this case, that subject to the interpretation of exigent circumstances in the US constitution and from past case precedents on cases of the same nature, the black plastic gun should not be allowed as part of the evidence in the case. It vital to indicate that the defense is not submitting this brief to question whether the probable cause was present, but this is limited to the interpretation of exigent circumstances in the law. A search must meet the “question of reasonableness,” and “ consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case” is a central tenet in the interpretation of the validity of searches in the jurisdiction. See State v. Orcutt, 22 Wn. App. 730, 591 P.2d 872 (1979). The variance in the interpretation of exigent circumstances in the law has caused various court prosecutors to contravene the rights of individuals. This Court needs to review the facts with neutrality with regard to this case.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The defendant has her premises searched, and she was arrested following an incident in which a female robbed a bank on December 16, 2019, at approximately 10:34 am. Details from the report indicate that two surveillance takes were taken from the scene of the accident showing “a medium build” suspect approaching and speaking to the bank teller before demanding money (Report). The first witness in the case who is the President of the Premier Trust Bank indicated that he “did not see the suspect” (Witness Statement). The second witness, a bank teller who was at the scene, indicated that the women who had demanded money from her “had black hair and was about 5’ 3” or 5’ 4” or so. She was wearing a dark blue sweater and black leggings and black sequined Ugg-type boots” (Witness Statement). However, another key fact is in the declaration of the manager of Walmart, who was at the bank to make deposits. The manager indicates that he didn’t see any gun” but “saw the teller hand the pillowcase (with money) back to a woman who left” (Witness Statement). Another witness (Madison Gomez), who was standing behind the suspected woman, indicates in his statement that the woman “was wearing a navy long-sleeved shirt” (Witness Statement). Jackson Thompson from Benton County Police Department indicated that all the three witnesses identified Megan Toronto as the suspect from a “mug shot” photograph. While the search warrant was given for the house of the suspect, the police proceeded to search a vehicle that was not within the defined scope of the warranty. This puts to question the legality of the evidence having been obtained without any proof of exigent circumstances that led to the search.

ARGUMENT

Without delving into the probable cause as an antecedent for issuing a search warrant, the defense argues that it would be unfair to allow the use of the black plastic gun as evidence in the case. The defense submits that the attribution of guilty with regard to searching the care outside the scope of warrant is not supported by any logic under the law. In the case of State v. Orcutt, it was observed that “registration for the certificate would have been reasonable under plain view doctrine, but doctrine would not be applicable to contraband not plainly visible.” See State v. Orcutt, 22 Wn. App. 730, 591 P.2d 872 (1979) (s 7(1). In this case, the police, determined to find an object that looks like a gun that would relate to the circumstances in the case, sought to obtain evidence from areas not covered within the warranty description. No exigent circumstance existed to justify the search of the vehicle without a warrant. Considering that the alleged vehicle was outside the scope of the warrant given before, it would be a breach of justice to allow the admission of the gun as evidence (Motion to Suppress Evidence). Drawing from the case of State v. Patterson 112 Wn. 2d 731, 774 P.2d 10 (1989) (majority opinion), it the submission of the defense that the prosecution might be hiding a ‘weapon’ and is determined to indict the suspect without a clear observation of the rational interpretations of the law. In the case of State v. Young 28 Wn. App. 412, 624 P.2d 725 (1981), the Court underscored that the investigators must have “emergent or exigent circumstances regarding the security and acquisition of incriminating evidence,” and which makes it impracticable to obtain a warrant before securing the evidence. This requirement and provision is not demonstrated in any of the submissions and evidence that the prosecution has placed in Court. The threshold issue in the case is whether the inspectors and police violated the provisions of the Fourth Amendment and whether they can prove that the exigent circumstances were evidence to support a warrantless car search.

CONCLUSION

Drawing from the best case precedents and the rational interpretation of the doctrines of warrantless searches, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the exigent circumstances that would support the admission of the black plastic gun as evidence in the case. The interpretation of the provisions in the law must not be skewed to incriminate individuals based on unreasonable and unjustifiable positions in the case. It is the submission of the defense, therefore that the Court suppresses the evidence of the black plastic gun used by the prosecution and considers any motion as a result null and void. It is the observation of the defense that the circumstances and the facts in the case may give rise to conflicting inferences but the rule of law and the spirit of legal provisions must inform the direction. Working on the premise of reliable case precedents, it is the humble appeal of the defense that Court considers the submission in this brief.

Date: February [##], 2020

By: ATTORNEY [###] ________________

Attorney for the State of Washington

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Attorney [###], the undersigned attorney, hereby attest that on February 6, 2020, I caused the foregoing Brief in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence to be filed electronically via the Court’s web portal system and that a copy of said document was electronically served upon all counsel of record via the web portal system.

Date: February 6, 2020

By ATTORNEY [###]

Attorney for the State of Washington