Motion,Ex Parte: STATE OF OHIO vs ERIC DEMETRUS CHASE

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ~




                                         .
                                                                                       odoinn
                                        Woes,   hee         1
                                  PUNOY21 aM 3:2,
                    IN THE MONEG NERY cd UNTY                    COMMON PLEAS COURT
                                                        10 DIVISION




    State of Ohio                                               Case No. 11 CR 3364

                     Plaintiff,
                                                                Judge Gregory Singer
      -VS-
                                                                MOTION TO SUPRESS
    Eric Chase                                                  STOP, DETENTION, SEARCH
                                                                OF THE VEHICLE AND
                     Defendant.                                 STATMENTS




             Now comes Defendant, Eric Chase by and through counsel, and moves this honorable

    court to suppress all of the evidence in this case, in that it was unlawfully obtained due to the

    police not having cause to stop and detain Mr. Chase. Additionally the statements obtained from

    Mr. Spencer were done in violation of his rights.

             The police had no reason to stop and detain Mr. Chase. In order to seize an individual the

    police must have probable cause to arrest a person for a crime. Florida v. Royer (1983), 460

    USS. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229. In the case at bar the police did not have probable

    cause to stop Mr. Chase therefore the stop and dentition and search are in direct violation of Mr.

    Chase’s Constitutional rights. Thus any evidence obtained after the stop must be suppressed.

    Additionally the police had no justification to search the vehicle Mr. Chase was a passenger in.

             The statement made by Mr. Chase was taken in violation of his Miranda rights. A suspect

    must knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. The burden is on the

    prosecution to prove by a preponderance of evidence that a defendant waived his Miranda rights
~




    voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Colorado v. Connelly (1986), 479 U.S. 157, 168, 107

    S.Ct. 515, 522, 93 L.Ed.2d 473, 485. In the case at bar Mr. Chase did not knowingly and

    voluntarily waive those rights.

           For the above going reasons, Mr. Chase requests this honorable court to suppress all of

    the evidence against him.



                                                        Respectfully subrpitted,



                                                             LV
                                                        Eli ibet       cott #0076045
                                                        Attorney ff 1 Defendant
                                                        130 W. Second Street, Suite 1600
                                                        Dayton,     Ohio 45402
                                                        (937) 367-8858
                                                        (937) 222-7911 - fax