Power Politics News

Successful Suppression Ruling

I recently was successful with a motion to suppress evidence in a case involving a woman named Cassandra who was charged with possession of a controlled substance.

I met Cassandra just before she was to have a trial so I was unable to put in any motions or make any type of pre-trial move.  I told her to tell her story just as she had told it to me because it seemed like a sound defense.

As it turned out, she convinced three people to vote not-guilty and the jury was hung.  Her story was basically that she loaned her pair of pants to her girlfriend who was the one who left the “drugs” in the coin pocket of her pants.

After this the assistant D.A. decided to refile the charges and this gave me the opportunity to file a motion to suppress.  The motion was heard on September 12 of 2013 and the ruling is found here.

After the ruling, the deputy D.A. decided to appeal the decision of the judge and the hearing on appeal is set for January 31, 2014.  Stay tuned!

Related Categories: Liberty Watch - Newsletters - Personal Defense.

2 Responses to Successful Suppression Ruling

  1. Thomas says:

    “Plain Smell Doctrine?” That’s a new one for me…. I had to look that one up & I got


    Interesting point, & one that brings us to the wonderful “Terry Stop.” That opened the door for everything, didn’t it? Is it even remotely possible to defeat that, or is it simply a matter of “the way things are?”

    FWIW – You can’t blame the ADA for appealing, as the above link shows it’s kind of up for debate. I’m surprised the judge ruled as they did….. that would never happen here in Michigan….. but, as you say, the plaintiff always wins… interesting stuff!

    • Zeke says:

      Here is the latest case law on the “Plain Smell Doctrine.”


      As for the “Terry Stop”, although the judge in our case said the Terry Stop was valid, we disagreed. However, we won because when he assumed the Terry stop was valid, he then was bound by that decision which said any evidence found during a Terry search,”pat down”, other than a weapon, may not be used as evidence because the pat down was ONLY for weapons, and anything else found during this “narrow search”, without a warrant, is inadmissible.

      On the same day of the appeal, we have a “demurrer” being heard in the Superior court and I will report upon that as soon as we get the ruling.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>