BASIC FACTS:  A police officer saw a driver seated in his car with the engine running near an ATM.  The officer considered this to be a “high crime area” because he had made 2 drug arrests in the vicinity over a 6 month time frame.  The officer snuck up behind the defendant and reported that he saw the driver make “an assertive movement” with his hand toward the center console area of his car. (Later when he testified the officer changed his description of the driver’s movements from “an assertive movement” to “a furtive movement” to more accurately parrot routine police jargon used to describe almost all hand movements inside a vehicle).     

            The officer snuck up on the driver and drew his gun because the officer “feared for his life” based on the driver’s “furtive” hand movement.  The officer then ordered the driver to place his hands on the steering wheel and roll down his window.  Once the driver complied with the order to roll down his window, the officer testified that he smelled a “cloud of non-burning marijuana smell” coming from the driver’s vehicle.  The officer ordered the driver out of his car and searched the car, finding marijuana.  He arrested the driver for possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor, and transporting marijuana in a motor vehicle.

            The officer then handcuffed and “searched the (driver) for weapons”.  After this search for weapons the officer then “searched the (driver) for drugs”.  This latter search involved emptying the driver’s pockets, searching all his money and papers, and even a search of the driver’s socks.  The search yielded no further drugs.  After his arrival at the police station, and after the driver had gotten out of the police car, the officer discovered a packet of cocaine in the back seat of the patrol car that he was sure belonged to the driver.

            The driver was then also charged with a felony for the possession of cocaine, a controlled drug. 

            The driver hired Attorney Stevens to fight the charge.

DEFENSE:    Attorney Stevens filed a motion to suppress all evidence of the stop of the driver, which he argued was illegal under both the state and federal constitutions because the driver did not commit any violation of the motor vehicle code and the officer had no reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver had committed a crime when he first approached the car.  After a hearing at which Attorney Stevens cross examined the officer, the Court agreed, and suppressed all evidence against the defendant. All evidence in the case was excluded (thrown out) because the officer violated the constitution.

RESULT:       MOTION TO SUPPRESS GRANTED IN FULL.  ALL EVIDENCE IN THE CASE THROWN OUT.

            Attorney Stevens thanks God for this successful defense!!!

            “Therefore, rejecting all falsity and being done now with it, let everyone express the truth with his neighbor, for we are all parts of one body and members one of another.”  Ephesians 4:25.

          “These are the things that you shall do: speak every man the truth with his neighbor; render the truth and pronounce the judgment or verdict that makes for peace in the courts at your gates.”  Zechariah 8:16.

Contact Information:
If you leave a voice message or send an email, please include ONLY the following information:

• Date of any alleged offense you have been charged with.
• The court in which you have been told to appear.
• The date and time you have been told to appear.

Information in this column should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Mark Stevens Law Office, nor any attorney associated with the Mark Stevens Law Office. The information contained herein is of a general nature and may not apply to any particular set of facts and circumstances. Please bear in mind that laws change frequently. We will make an effort to update the information on a regular basis, but are under no obligation to do so. No part of this document, nor any information contained in this website, may be disseminated without this paragraph. This may be considered legal advertising.