Motion Practice and Unlawful Searches
Motion practice is an essential part of criminal law practice. The success
of particular motions can sometimes mean that the government can no longer
successfully prosecute a criminal case against an individual and may be forced
to dismiss the case. The attorneys at Nolan, Armstrong & Barton aggressively
litigate meritorious motions, including motions to suppress evidence obtained
unlawfully (Penal Code section 1538.5), motions to dismiss (Penal Code section
995), motions to exclude evidence obtained in violation of Miranda rights,
motions to exclude evidence obtained through coercion, motions to recuse
prosecutors, motions to dismiss for speedy trial violations, motions for
change of venue, motions regarding trial and pre-trial publicity, and motions
to disqualify judges.
Search Warrants:
The
Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution
of the State of California bar unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth
Amendment applies to government searches and seizures, not those done by
private citizens or organizations not acting on behalf of the government.
Absent exigent circumstances, any law enforcement entry into an individual’s
home always requires a warrant or the free and voluntary consent of the
individual in control of the property. A search warrant authorizes law
enforcement to search specified places or seize specified items upon a showing
of probable cause. To obtain a search warrant, law enforcement must first
prove to a magistrate or judge that probable cause exists that evidence of a
crime will be found in the location the warrant seeks to search.
Motions to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence can be brought on the basis
that there was not probable cause for the judge to issue a warrant. A motion
to suppress seeks to suppress the evidence that was seized as a result of the
improperly issued search warrant. If the motion is successful and the evidence
is suppressed, the evidence cannot be used against an individual in a criminal
case. Attorneys at Nolan, Armstrong & Barton, LLP have successfully litigated
motions to suppress evidence seized as a result of search warrants in
prosecutions for possession of child pornography, possession for sale and
cultivation of marijuana, real estate fraud, and weapons charges In many
instances, if the motion to suppress is successful, the prosecution will have
insufficient evidence to prosecute the case and will be forced to dismiss it.
Warrantless Searches:
Every individual has the
right to enjoy the use of public places without interference by law
enforcement. Therefore, in order to justify a detention of an individual, an
officer must be aware of specific articulable facts that activity related to a
crime is taking place and that the individual detained is connected to that
activity. The detention is otherwise unlawful and any evidence gathered as a
result of the detention is subject to suppression under California and federal
law.
Law enforcement agents are not required to obtain a search warrant
to search a vehicle which they have stopped if they have probable cause to
believe criminal activity is taking place. Further, police are not required to
obtain a search warrant to perform a limited search of an individual for
weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion to justify that intrusion. Once an
individual has been lawfully arrested, the arresting officers do not require
reasonable suspicion, probable cause or a search warrant to perform a complete
search of the individual.
The attorneys at Nolan, Armstrong & Barton
have successfully litigated motions to suppress in cases where individuals
have been stopped and they or their vehicle has been searched in DUI, drug
possession and sales, cultivation of marijuana and weapons cases.
Miranda Rights:
Under the Fifth Amendment of the
United States Constitution, an individual has the right not to incriminate
him- or herself. The United States Supreme Court has held that, in order to
comply with the Fifth Amendment, an individual who is in custody and being
interrogated must be provided their Miranda warnings.
If law
enforcement does not provide a defendant who is undergoing custodial
interrogation their Miranda warnings, the prosecution may not use any
statements derived from that custodial interrogation in the prosecution’s case
in chief at trial. Being in custody does not necessarily mean that an
individual is in handcuffs or at a police station. Whether a person is in
custody for purposes of Miranda is determined by whether a person has been
deprived of their freedom in a significant way. If law enforcement officers
have not complied with their obligations under Miranda, a defendant may bring
a motion to suppress the statements. If the motion to suppress is successful,
the statements cannot be used against a defendant in the prosecution’s case in
chief.
Even if a defendant has been abused of their Miranda rights,
any statement made by a defendant may not be introduced into evidence at trial
unless the statement was made voluntarily. A coerced confession may not be
used against a defendant. It is the prosecution’s burden to demonstrate that
an individual knowingly and intelligently waived their privilege against
self-incrimination. A motion to suppress can be brought on the basis that
either the waiver of Miranda rights was not voluntary, or that it was not
knowing and intelligent. Attorneys at Nolan, Armstrong & Barton have
successfully moved to suppress statements in murder cases, economic espionage,
homicide, petty theft, domestic violence and DUI cases.
Speedy
Trial:
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
guarantees individuals accused of crimes the right to a speedy trial. This
right is intended to ensure that defendants are not subject to unreasonably
lengthy custody prior to trial and to ensure that the state or federal
government brings a case to trial within a reasonable length of time. A delay
in the investigation or prosecution of a criminal matter may violate a
defendant’s Constitutional or statutory speedy trial rights.
Motions to
dismiss can be brought when a defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been
denied. A defendant can seek an order terminating a criminal action because of
the delay in the prosecution of the case. The violation of an individual’s
right to a speedy trial is usually raised in a pre-trial motion to dismiss.
These motions are very dependant on the facts of an individual’s case.
Attorneys at Nolan, Armstrong & Barton have successfully litigated numerous
motions to dismiss for violations of an individual’s right to a speedy trial.