| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Stop wasting time looking for files and revisions. Connect your Gmail, DriveDropbox, and Slack accounts and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio will automatically organize all your file attachments. Learn more and claim your free account.

View
 

motion-to-suppress

Page history last edited by abogado 2 years, 4 months ago

Motion to Suppress - People v. Tommy Bruno & Mary Turner  

 

Instructions - Please carefully read and study information below

 

1.  Read the Facts of the Case

2.  Read the Bruno recorded statement - you should make an argument to exclude this statement in your motion to suppress

3.  Review the following cases which will support your arguments to Suppress the Evidence

4. Look at items of Evidence to Suppress

5. Look at a sample of a Motion to Suppress 


 Look at grading rubric for the Motion to Suppress

 

Look at below diagrams and watch each video explaining the diagrams

 

 

(remember to remove "instructions" from your final work)


 

1. Use the following word doc to word process your Motion to Suppress and submit under canvas

OR
 

2. Copy and paste the below Motion to Suppress, word process and then submit under canvas

 


Motion to Suppress

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

 

Tommy Bruno and Mary Turner

Defendants.

_______________________________

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

Penal Code Section 1538.5

 

1538.5. (a) (1) A defendant may move for the return of property or to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of a search or seizure on either of the following grounds: (A) The search or seizure without a warrant was unreasonable.

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

(instructions - fill in blanks with your own dates, hour, department)

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on _____________ (date), at the hour of _________ or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard in the courtroom of Department __ of the above-entitled court, the defendant will move for an order suppressing the following evidence (instructions: list all evidence you will seek to exclude here see list of evidence) (CLICK HERE FOR LIST OF EVIDENCE TO BE SUPPRESSED) _________ (state specifically evidence sought to be suppressed) 

 

This motion will be made on the ground that the search and seizure without a warrant was unreasonable in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

 

The motion will be based on this notice of motion, on the attached memorandum of points and authorities served and filed herewith, on such supplemental memoranda of points and authorities as my hereafter be filed with the court, or stated orally at the conclusion of the hearing, on all the papers and records on file in this action, and on such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion.

 

Dated ___________

 

______________________

Attorney for Defendant

(instructions: you are the attorney for Defendants)


 

MEMORANANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

 

Tommy Bruno and Mary Turner

Defendants.

_______________________________

 

Defendant submits the following points and authorities in support of the motion to suppress evidence:

 

(instructions: #1 and #2 below do not need any changes, just keep them "as is")

 

1. A DEFENDANT MAY MOVE TO SUPPRESS AS EVIDENCE ANY TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE THING OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH OR SEIZURE

 

Penal Code Section 1538.5 provides in part:

 

The grounds for suppressing evidence obtained as a result of an unreasonable search or seizure are:

 

(1) The search or seizure without a warrant was unreasonable.

 

(2) The search or seizure with a warrant was unreasonable because (I) the warrant is insufficient on its face; (ii) the property or evidence obtained is not that described in the warrant; (iii) there was not probable cause for the issuance of the warrant; (iv) the method of execution of the warrant violated federal or state constitutional standards; (v) there was any other violation of federal or state constitutional standards."

 

2. A SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT CAN NORMALLY BE CONDUCTED ONLY INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST

 

In the absence of an emergency or consent to search , a search without a warrant can be conducted only if it is incident to a lawful arrest and is restricted to the person of the arrestee or the area within the arrestee's immediate control. The search cannot exceed the area "beyond the petitioner's person and the area from within which he might have obtained either a weapon or something that could have been used as evidence against him." (Chimel v California (1969) 395 US 752, 23 L Ed 2d 685, 89 S Ct 2034.)

 

3. (Instructions: put Legal rule in all CAPS here - make a rule out of the legal principle in the case given, eg. here the Katz case, once you make the rule then follow it by the case and the case citation, and then explain the case to the court and then how the facts in Bruno require the court to follow the same court rule in the case given, eg. Katz case - remember to erase instructions from your final work, i.e. "MAKE A LEGAL POINT, etc.)


 

MAKE A LEGAL POINT, AND AUTHORITY HERE FOR SUPPRESSION OF RECORDED STATMENT OF TOMMY BRUNO AND MARY TURNER BECAUSE THE BI-DIRECTIONAL MICROPHONE WAS SIMILAR TO USE OR RECORDING DEVICE IN THE KATZ CASE.

 

4. (Instructions: see #3 above)

 

MAKE A LEGAL POINT, AND AUTHORITY HERE FOR SUPPRESSION OF ZIPPERED BAG AND CONTENTS THEREIN BASED UPON ARGUMENT "NOT WITHIN CONTROL OR POSSESSION" UNDER THE CHIMEL CASE AND ONCE BRUNO AND TURNER WERE REMOVED FROM CAR BY THE POLICE, THE ZIPPERED BAG IS NO LONGER UNDER THEIR "CONTROL AND POSSESSION" SEE RECENT USSC CASE ARIZONA V. GANT TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT (COURTESY OF F.C.).

 

5. (Instructions: see #3 above)

 

MAKE A LEGAL POINT, AND AUTHORITY HERE FOR SUPPRESSION OF SEARCH OF MARY TURNER'S ROOM BECAUSE LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE IMPLIED AUTHORITY FROM TENANT (I.E. MARY) TO CONSENT TO SEARCH - use the following law cited:

 

(Instructions: use the case law below to support your arguments)

 

An owner of premises has the right to consent if no other persons are legitimately in occupation of the property. ( People v. Carr (1972) 8 C.3d 287, 298, 104 C.R. 705, 502 P.2d 513.) Where a tenant is in possession of the premises the landlord has no authority to consent to a search. (See Chapman v. United States (1961) 365 U.S. 610, 81 S.Ct. 776, 778, 780, 5 L.Ed.2d 828, 832, 834, (for opposition argument see: The head of a household may also give consent to search a room occupied by another. (See People v. Munoz (1972) 24 C.A.3d 900, 907, 101 C.R. 265 (M had consented to search of S's bedroom; officers could reasonably have believed M was head of household and owned house and all furniture); People v. Robinson (1974) 41 C.A.3d 658, 667, 116 C.R. 455 (defendant's sister, with whom he had been staying, consented to search of area he had occupied and as to which he could have had no expectation of privacy; police properly seized closed suitcases and detained them while obtaining a warrant to search their interiors); People v. Daniels (1971) 16 C.A.3d 36, 42, 93 C.R. 628 (defendant, an adult, lived with his mother, owner of the home; she could validly consent to a search of his bedroom, there being no circumstances to show that he had been given exclusive control over it); 3 La Fave 3d, §8.4; 1 Hall 2d, §8:37 et seq.)

 

6. (Instructions: see #3 above)

 

MAKE A LEGAL POINT AND AUTHORITY FOR SUPPRESSION OF ALL EVIDENCE FOLLOWING THE ARREST OF TOMMY BRUNO AND MARY TURNER AT THE PARK FOR "EXPOSING THEMSELVES" BECAUSE THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19-470 WHICH MADE IT A MISDEMEANOR TO "EXPOSE ONE'S SELF "WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL DUE TO VAGUENESS - use the following law cited:

 

(Instructions: use following case law read information here, but erase from your final work)

- (use the following cases in your argument)

New standard. From the requirement of former P.C. 290 that persons convicted of violating P.C. 647(a) had to register as sex offenders, it was clear that the Legislature intended that the terms "lewd" and "dissolute" refer to sexually motivated conduct. (25 C.3d 255.) However, to avoid unconstitutional overbreadth, the proscribed sexual conduct must be limited to conduct that is likely to offend. And, because the gist of the offense is the actual or potential presence of someone to be offended, the conduct must be likely to be observed. (25 C.3d 256.) Hence: "The terms 'lewd' and 'dissolute' ... are synonymous, and refer to conduct which involves the touching of the .... for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, annoyance or offense, if the actor knows or should know of the presence of persons who may be offended by his conduct." (25 C.3d 256.) (See 32 Hastings L. J. 461 Pryor; CALJIC (6th ed.), No. 16.400 (1997 revision) (lewd conduct).)

 

California Penal Code Section 647 (a) : Argue that prosecution for "lewd conduct" must show that a 3rd person or party "must be offended" - if police were at a distance using a microphone to record statement, and Bruno/Turner were in a parked car on a deserted road in the park,  one could argue that probably no 3rd person or party in park "was offended" by their conduct in the car (i.e. lewd conduct/"exposing oneself")

 

also: Vague statutory language creates the danger that police, prosecutors, judges, and juries will lack sufficient standards to reach their decisions, thus opening the door to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement of the law

 

Pryor v. Mun. Court for L.A. Judicial Dist., 25 Cal. 3d 238 (1979)

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

_______________________________

Name of Attorney

Attorney for Tommy Bruno and Mary Turner

 

updated: 3/2/17

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.