GUILTY AR - Beverly Carter, 49, Little Rock, 25 Sep 2014 - #13

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

This is backwards sorry, this is Def Point of Appeal, the States Response is above then the Writ of Cert, after that the Def will file their Reply to the States Brief.

III. POINTS ON APPEAL https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS

pg 375/558
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADMITTING EVIDENCE
OBTAINED THROUGH ABUSE OF THE PROSECUTORIAL
SUBPOENA POWER
In the early stages of the investigation into Beverly Carter’s disappearance, prosecutor subpoenas were sent to companies including AT&T and Google. (Ab. 122; R. 851). Law enforcement then used the records it obtained from those
subpoenas to develop its investigation against Lewis. First, law enforcement used the records to determine that Carter communicated by phone with a particular 914 phone number on several occasions just before her disappearance. (Ab. 1; R. 540).
Based on those phone records, law enforcement determined that the number was associated with a TextMe account, a cell phone application that allows users to make phone calls using a “spoof” number. (Ab. 3; R. 548). Law enforcement
determined that the TextMe number was associated with Lewis’s wife Crystal Lowery based on those phone records. (Ab. 3; R. 546-51). Law enforcement then determined Lowery’s home address and determined that Lewis also lived there.
(Ab. 11; R. 605). Law enforcement then began to conduct surveillance on the home. (Ab. 3; R. 550-51). The entire resulting investigation was a product of those initial prosecutor subpoenas. Prosecutors have the power to issue subpoenas pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-43-212, but this power “must only be used for a prosecutor’s investigation.”
State v. Hamzy, 288 Ark. 561, 563, 709 S.W.2d 397, 398 (1986). The police do not have such subpoena power. Id. The prosecutor may only use the subpoena power to investigate and prepare for trial so long as the power is not abused. See Todd v.
State, 283 Ark. 492, 678 S.W.2d 345 (1984). This Court noted “a prosecutor abuses the subpoena power when he or she commands that records be produced for police agencies because such action amounts to giving the subpoena power to the
police.” Gulley v. State, 2012 Ark. 368, at *7-*8, 423 S.W.3d 569, 575 (citing Hamzy, 288 Ark. at 563).
 
This Court has held that a case will be reversed when “a prosecutor abuses the subpoena power.” Anderson v. State, 357 Ark. 180, 211, 163 S.W.3d 333, 349 (2004) (citing Echols v. State, 326 Ark. 917, 993, 936 S.W.2d 509, 549 (1996)). Appellant must show some prejudice from the misuse of the subpoena power in order for this Court to reverse a denial of a motion to suppress. Anderson, 357 Ark. at 208, 163 S.W.3d at 349. This Court has done just that by suppressing evidence obtained by prosecutorial abuse of this power on multiple occasions. See Foster v. State, 285 Ark. 363, 687 S.W.2d 829 (1985); Cook v. State, 274 Ark. 244, 623 S.W.2d 820 (1981). The use of the prosecutorial subpoenas in this case is clearly an example of the kind of case this Court has said it will reverse. There is little argument that the subpoenas were used for law enforcement’s, rather than the prosecutor’s,
investigation. This was a clear violation of the prosecutorial subpoena power. Arkansas law makes clear that this constitutes an abuse of the prosecutorial power, as mentioned above. Lewis could not have been more prejudiced by the products of this abuse. It was only due to the phone records obtained through law enforcement’s use of prosecutor subpoenas that Lewis was developed as a suspect in the first place. The trial court should have suppressed all information discovered as a result of this
obvious abuse of the prosecutorial subpoena power. Such action amounted to giving subpoena power to the police in violation of Arkansas law. Under established Arkansas caselaw, the prosecutorial abuse of subpoena in this case warrants reversal of Appellant’s conviction https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS
 
JMHO the Def is saying that Pros should not have issued a subpoena for the phone records at all. That a Judge should have. I have not understood why a Judge did not anyways. (Do in other cases and Judge issued the SWs in this case also other than the phone records) If were not for the Google subpoena then AL would not have been a Suspect.
Pros saying JMHO, that the phone records are not private. Two different issues being argued. So now the Ark Supreme Court is being asked which is correct in this case.

I find it odd that the Google subpoena for the Textme records which is what is at hand, the State did not even get on the Record. So now the Ark Supreme Court is being asked to issue an Order to get into the Record so the Def can argue it in their Reply back on the States brief.

3. While preparing Appellant/Cross-Appellee’s reply brief, undersigned counsel discovered that the prosecutor’s subpoena
commanding Google to disclose records associated with a particular TextMe account to members of the Pulaski County
Sheriff’s Office was not part of the record.https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS
 
In all of the State responses they say that even if they didn't have *advertiser censored* (all the points the Def is Appealing) they have CL testimony.
 
AARON MICHAEL LEWIS APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE
V. NO. CR 16-413
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT

RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
COMPLETE THE RECORD OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION
TO REMAND TO SETTLE THE RECORD

Comes now Appellee/Cross-Appellant, by and through counsel, Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General, and Kathryn Henry and Adam Jackson, Assistant Attorneys General, and for its response to Appellant/Cross-Appellee’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Complete the Record or, in the Alternative, Motion toRemand to Settle the Record, states:

Appellant/Cross-Appellee’s reply brief is due in this Court on February 13, 2017. On January 25, 2017, Appellant/Cross-Appellee filed a motion seeking to supplement the record on appeal with two items: 1) a prosecutor’s subpoena issued to Google to disclose information associated with a TextMe account; and 2) responses to interrogatories filed “in an unrelated federal case.” (Pet. at 1-2).

As to his second request—to supplement the record with responses to interrogatories in an unrelated federal case—his motion should be denied because those responses are outside the record. “This [C]ourt has long and consistently held that it cannot, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, receive testimony or consider anything outside of the record below.” See, e.g.,
Smith v. Hobbs, 2015 Ark. 312, 2-3, 468 S.W.3d 269, 272; Darrough v. State, 2013 Ark. 28, at 3 (per curiam). The responses to interrogatories were never before the circuit court in this case. Consequently, they are outside the record.
Therefore, to the extent Appellant/Cross-Appellee seeks a writ of certiorari to complete the record or to remand to settle the record with responses to interrogatories in an unrelated federal case, his request should be denied.

WHEREFORE, the State respectfully requests that this Court deny Appellant/Cross-Appellee’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Complete the Record or, in the Alternative, Motion to Remand to Settle the Record to the extent he seeks to supplement with documents outside the record below.

Respectfully submitted,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General
BY: /s/Adam Jackson
ADAM JACKSON
Arkansas Bar No. 2013176
Assistant Attorney General
BY: /s/Kathryn Henry
KATHRYN HENRY
Arkansas Bar No. 2005199
Assistant Attorney General https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS
 
For Ref:

10/01/2015 - MOTION SUPPRESS
MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BASED ON OVERREACHING USE OF
PROSECUTOR'S SUBPOENA POWER https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS

10/16/2015 RESPONSE TO MOTION
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OBTAINED THROUGH
PROSECUTOR’S PUBPOENA DUCES TECUM https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS

12/09/2015 JUDGES ORDER
PG 4/29 https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS
 
For Ref Appeal/ Cross Appeal

pg 375-378/558 III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADMITTING EVIDENCE
OBTAINED THROUGH ABUSE OF THE PROSECUTORIAL
SUBPOENA POWER https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS

12/15/16 Appellee's Brief Cross Appellant's Brief
pg 45/99 III. THE CIRCUIT COURT DID NOT ERR BY REJECTING
APPELLANT’S CHALLENGE TO THE USE OF PROSECUTOR’S
SUBPOENAS. https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS
 
Caught off guard with a notification from VINE earlier. AL has been moved from the Varner SuperMax in Grady, AR .IIRC Mariana AR where Brickley/East Ark Regional is located, is not far from where his Dad and Stepmom lived. Not sure if that has anything to do with anything. Appears his lawsuits still going so maybe moved him like they did from Tucker to Varner SuperMax. Who knows, just keeping the thread current.

Offender Name: LEWIS, AARON M
Custody Status: In Custody
Age: 36
Location: East Arkansas Region
Race: White
Contact Facility: Arkansas Department of Correction
 
Milestone Tracks

MILESTONE DESCRIPTION DUE DATE CHANGED DUE DATE FILING DATE
BRIEFING COMMENCED 05/11/2016 05/11/2016
APPELLANT'S BRIEF 06/20/2016 08/19/2016 08/19/2016
APPELLEE'S BRIEF 09/18/2016 11/22/2016 12/15/2016
REPLY BRIEF 12/30/2016 02/13/2017

01/24/2017
09:46 AM GRANTED - FINAL EXTENSION
Entry: Appellant's brief due February 13, 2017. Final Extension.
Images Final Brief Extension

01/25/2017
05:32 PM PET WRIT OF CERT TO COMP REC KAISER, MICHAEL KIEL
Entry: Appellant/cross-appellee's petition for writ of certiorari to complete the record, or, in the alternative, motion to remand to settle the record.
Images PETITION

02/02/2017
04:24 PM RESPONSE/REPLY HALL HENRY, KATHRYN ELIZABETH
Entry: Response to petition for writ of certiorari to complete the record or, in the alternative, motion to remand to settle the record.
Images RESPONSE

02/09/2017
09:00 AM MOTION SUBMITTED KAISER, MICHAEL KIEL
Entry: Appellant/cross-appellee's petition for writ of certiorari to complete the record or, in the alternative, motion to remand to settle the record.
Images No Images

02/13/2017
02:24 PM BRIEF TENDERED LEWIS, AARON MICHAEL
Entry: Pending Motion for Writ of Cert to Complete the Record
Images No Images

**Supreme Court Clerk/Judge has not ruled on the 01/25/2017 05:32 PM PET WRIT OF CERT TO COMP REC
which request a Stay in filing Brief, til the Record is complete https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...kto=P&case_id=CR-16-413&begin_date=&end_date=
 
02/13/2017
02:24 PM BRIEF TENDERED LEWIS, AARON MICHAEL
Entry: Pending Motion for Writ of Cert to Complete the Record
Images No Images

02/16/2017
09:00 AM LETTER ORDERS - SC KAISER, MICHAEL KIEL
Entry: Appellant/cross-appellee's petition for writ of certiorari to complete the record or, in the alternative, motion to remand to settle the record. Writ of certiorari to complete the record is granted in part and denied in part. Granted for the subpoena issued and denied as to the interrogatories. Complete record due in thirty days (March 18, 2017).
Images No Images

02/16/2017
09:00 AM WRIT OF CERTIORARI ISSUED KAISER, MICHAEL KIEL
Entry: Complete record due in thirty days (March 18, 2017).
Images No Images

02/16/2017
02:11 PM REPLY BRIEF KAISER, MICHAEL KIEL
Entry: Appellant's Reply Brief efiled by attorney. Paper copies due Feb 21, 2017
Images BRIEF

02/16/2017
02:11 PM REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT KAISER, MICHAEL KIEL
Entry: none.
Images OTHER

02/16/2017
02:11 PM EFILING NOTICE OF APPEARANCE KAISER, MICHAEL KIEL
Entry: none.
Images No Images https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...kto=P&case_id=CR-16-413&begin_date=&end_date=
 
arkansasmimi said:
34 pages

02/16/2017
02:11 PM REPLY BRIEF KAISER, MICHAEL KIEL
Entry: Appellant's Reply Brief efiled by attorney. Paper copies due Feb 21, 2017
Images BRIEF
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS

02/16/2017
02:11 PM REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT KAISER, MICHAEL KIEL
Entry: none.
Images OTHER https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS
View attachment 110164
Click to expand...


Whoo hoo may get to watch this one live stream! Or at least video :)

Watch an Oral Argument

The Supreme Court has been live-streaming and archiving its oral arguments since 2010. Click here to view the archive and select a video to watch!


What is an "Oral Argument?"

When a party appeals the ruling of a lower court to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, that party has the option to request an “oral argument.” The Justices do not have the grant the party’s request, but they will if an in-person oral argument will help them decide the case, or if the subject-matter of the case is likely to raise the interest of the public.

Unlike at the trial court level, when lawyers argue before the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, they do not question witnesses or present evidence. Instead, they explain why they think the law is on their client’s side and why they think the previous court erred. In most circumstances, the Court doesn’t get to hear the facts of the underlying case; they are concerned chiefly with the law.

Each side has 20 minutes to present their argument. The side that is appealing the earlier decision, the “appellant” or “petitioner,” will go first. 20 minutes sounds like a lot of time, but the Justices frequently interrupt the attorneys to ask questions about certain aspects of the lawyer’s argument which are of particular interest to that Justice. Lawyers arguing in front of the court must know their case, inside and out, to be anticipate and answer any questions which may arise. For this reason, attorneys spend days or even weeks preparing their cases for oral argument.

Supreme Court of Arkansas public education
https://courts.arkansas.gov/administration/public-education/learn/oral-argument
 
arkansasmimi said:
34 pages

02/16/2017
02:11 PM REPLY BRIEF KAISER, MICHAEL KIEL
Entry: Appellant's Reply Brief efiled by attorney. Paper copies due Feb 21, 2017
Images BRIEF
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS

02/16/2017
02:11 PM REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT KAISER, MICHAEL KIEL
Entry: none.
Images OTHER https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS
View attachment 110164
Click to expand...


03/09/2017
09:39 AM REQUEST FOR ORAL GRANTED
Entry: GRANTED
Images ORDER https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...kto=P&case_id=CR-16-413&begin_date=&end_date=

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
625 MARSHALL STREET
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201

MARCH 9,2017

RE: SUPREMECOURTCASENO.CR-I6413
ARRON MICHAEL LEWIS V. STATE OF ARKANSAS

ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

YOUR REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUEMENT HAS BEEN GRANTED. YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED AT
A LATER DATE OF THE TIME AND DATE OF YOUR ORAL ARGUMENT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, OR IF I CAN BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CONTACT
ME AT (501)682-6849. https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS

**this is in ref to State being allowed to play the recording of BC on AL phone that was played in the illegal interrogation. And the case referenced is Patane.... Per the Ar Supreme Court page above, we should be able to watch the oral argument.
 
This is on the Circuit Court case (the other is from Appeal/Cross Appeal from Ar Supreme Court docket)

03/07/2017
04:21 PM TRANSCRIPT
Entry: WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED 3-7-17 AT 3:53 P.M.
Images No Images https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...=P&case_id=60CR-14-3928&begin_date=&end_date=

This is the complete the recor One of the ponts on Appeal, the Pros was not suppose to issue a SW for the investigators case, only for the State case getting ready for trial (per Ar Statute) >3. While preparing Appellant/Cross-Appellee’s reply brief,undersigned counsel discovered that the prosecutor’s subpoena commanding Google to disclose records associated with a particular TextMe account to members of the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office was not part of the record. https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS


WRIT RETURNABLE IN 30 DAYS ON MARCH I8,20I7
CERTIORARI FOR COMPLETE RECORD
STATE OF ARKANSAS
SUPRE,ME COURT
60cR- 14-3928
)
)
)
SUPREME COURT CASE NO. CR-I6.4I3
THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
TO THE, CLERK AND COURT REPORTOR OF THE COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT, FOURTH DIVISION GREETINGS:
WHEREAS, IN A CASE PENDING IN SAID ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT,
WHEREIN
AARON MICHAEL LEWIS, APPELLANT AND
STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE

.]UDGMENT WAS RENDERED AGAINST APPELLANT AND HE PRAYED AN APPEAL FROM
SAID JUDGMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT. YOU ARE, THEREFORE, HEREBY
COMMANDED THAT YOU CERTIFY TO OUR SUPREME COURT, FORTHWITH, A FULL, TRUE
AND COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS OF SAID COURT OF
PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH DIVISION THAT OUR SUPREME COURT,
UPON CONSIDERATION OF A COMPLETE RE,CORD, MAY CAUSE TO BE DONE THEREIN
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE. HEREOF FAIL NOT AND MAKE DUE RETURN OF THIS WRIT
UNDER YOUR OFFICIAL SEAL.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,I, STACEY PECTOL, CLERK OF THE
SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS, HEREUNTO SET MY
HAND AND AFFIX THE SE,AL OF SAID COURT, AT MY OFFICE IN THE
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, THIS I6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2OI7.
 
Just as I thought all along. This case could set precedent on other cases. And the State and Pul County Pros are concerned.
Read the Cross Brief. JMHO thing is when asked the Investigators that wrote the SW for car and house, when asked is there anything that they couldn't have gotten... they answered NO, they could have gotten anything. Judge ruled they were "general warrants" fishing expedition

03/09/2017
09:39 AM REQUEST FOR ORAL GRANTED
Entry: GRANTED
Images ORDER

03/17/2017
02:31 PM CROSS-APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF HALL HENRY, KATHRYN ELIZABETH
Entry: Brief efiled by attorney. Paper copies filed this date
Images Cross Appellant's Reply Brief

03/20/2017
02:49 PM ENTRY OF APPEARANCE HALL HENRY, KATHRYN ELIZABETH
Entry: Entry of Nicholas Bronni, Deputy Solicitor General, on behalf of appellee.
Images OTHER


https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...kto=P&case_id=CR-16-413&begin_date=&end_date=
 
ARGUMENT
The circuit court erred as a matter of law in two pre-trial suppression
rulings—one as to search warrants and one as to inventories and inevitable
discovery. First, the circuit court misinterpreted the law on search warrants in
determining that a categorical listing of evidence that might be found in a
particular individual’s property relating to a crime is an impermissible general
warrant. Second, by suppressing evidence found in the trunk of Arron Lewis’s car,
the circuit court effectively created a per se rule that a pause in an inventory search
forecloses application of the inevitable-discovery doctrine. In response, Lewis
claims that the State’s cross-appeal does not merit consideration because the circuit
court’s conclusions are fact dependent. But contrary to that claim, the circuit
court’s creation of broad erroneous rules of general application that conflict with
precedent decisions requires this Court’s intervention to ensure the proper and
uniform administration of the law.
I. The circuit court misconstrued the standards for determining whether a
warrant is impermissibly general and whether United States v. Leon’s
good-faith exception applies.
1
A. This Court’s review is required to ensure the proper and uniform
interpretation of the law governing general warrants and the good-faith exception.
_______________
1
The State has responded to Lewis’s arguments in a structure that
corresponds to those in its own initial brief. https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS
 
7/19
The circuit court erred in suppressing numerous items—including jewelry, a
cell phone belonging to Lewis’s victim, Beverly Carter, a white envelope with
Google numbers on it, a Lowe’s receipt, a shovel, a white plastic bag containing 9-
millimeter shell casings, a disposable camera, green duct tape, and a tape lift
containing hair, fiber, trash, and foreign objects—that were obtained pursuant to
search warrants executed at Lewis’s Jacksonville residence and his 2012 Ford
Fusion. (R. 399, 901, 909; Add. 101; Supp. Add. 8, 16). As set forth in the State’s
response brief, this Court should resolve this issue because the circuit court’s
decision rested entirely upon its application of an incorrect legal standard to
determine whether the warrants at issue were impermissible general warrants.
Because the circuit court’s ruling hamstrings officers in future cases from pursuing
what appellate courts have previously recognized as lawful search warrants in
which the exact items to be seized are not known, this Court’s intervention is
warranted. In contending the contrary, Lewis argues that this Court lacks
jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 3 over the general-warrant issue because it involves
the application—rather than interpretation—of the law and because this Court has
previously determined that suppression issues are resolved on a case-by-case basis.
See Cross-Appellee’s Brief, at C.A. 2-3. Lewis is wrong

8/19
The circuit court incorrectly interpreted the law governing general warrants
and, accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to review this issue. While Lewis
claims that this Court lacks jurisdiction because the circuit court’s suppression
order rested on factual determinations, see Cross-Appellee’s Brief, at C.A. 3, he
ignores the fact that, as explained below, the circuit court applied the wrong legal
standard to the facts of this case. See infra at pp. 4-6. Indeed, this Court has
repeatedly exercised jurisdiction over State appeals where a circuit court
misinterpreted the law and applied the wrong legal standard. See, e.g., State v.
Harmon, 353 Ark. 568, 572-73, 113 S.W.3d 75, 77 (2003) (“[T]he State’s claim is
not that the circuit court applied the law incorrectly to the facts before it but rather
that the court interpreted the law wrongly, and then applied that flawed
interpretation of the law to suppress the seized [contraband].”); see also State v.
Harris, 372 Ark. 492, 496, 277 S.W.3d 568, 573 (2008) (same).
Lewis also argues that because “suppression of evidence pursuant to a
warrant is determined on a case-by-case basis,” the State’s appeal does not have
widespread ramifications. See Cross-Appellee’s Brief, at C.A. 3. But contrary to
that claim, the circuit court’s mistakenly broad reading of the prohibition on
general warrants created a legal standard inconsistent with precedent that if applied
 
9/19
by other courts could have widespread ramifications.
2
See, e.g., State v. Robinson,
2013 Ark. 425, at 3-4, 430 S.W.3d 105, 107-08; State v. Stites, 2009 Ark. 154, at 6,
300 S.W.3d 103, 107. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction to review the generalwarrant
issue.
B. The circuit court erred in suppressing evidence obtained pursuant to
warrants issued to search Lewis’s residence and car.
The circuit court erroneously suppressed numerous items, including jewelry,
a cell phone belonging to Beverly Carter, a white envelope with Google numbers
on it, a Lowe’s receipt, a shovel, green duct tape, and a tape lift containing hair,
_____________
2
Lewis further argues that any error in the suppression of evidence obtained
pursuant to the search warrants was harmless because he was convicted of both
crimes with which he was charged and given the maximum possible punishment
for each conviction. Thus, he avers, any error had no effect on the outcome of the
case. See Cross-Appellee’s Brief, at C.A. 12. Lewis misapprehends the purpose of
the State’s cross-appeal. The State seeks a declaration of error not simply because
the circuit court erred in this case, but because its error has widespread
ramifications. If the Court declares error, the opinion will provide guidance to
lower courts and law-enforcement officers as to the law on categorical listings of
items in warrants.

10/19
fiber, trash, and foreign objects, obtained as a result of a search of Lewis’s
residence and the trunk of his car. (R. 398, 901, 909; Add. 101; Supp. Add. 8, 16).
As explained in the State’s earlier briefing, in determining that the search warrant
for his residence was a “general warrant,” the court focused on the fact that “[t]he
warrant itself listed no particular item believed to be located at the address in
question—it simply listed a broad category of things that might be considered
evidence or lead to the discovery of additional evidence[.]” See Cross-Appellant’s
Brief, at C.A. 4. But the mere fact that a warrant contains a categorical listing of
evidence that might be found does not automatically render it a general warrant.
See, e.g., George v. State, 358 Ark. 269, 287, 189 S.W.3d 28, 39 (2004) (holding
“evidence associated with the producing, directing, or promoting sexual
performances and employing or consenting to [the] use of child in sexual
performances,” was sufficiently definite). Rather, courts have long held that when
the police have a basis for searching a particular individual’s property and the
“precise identity” of the goods or evidence that they expect to find cannot be
ascertained at the time the warrant is issued, they are permitted to list the generic
class of items that they anticipate may be found. United States v. Johnson, 541
F.2d 1311, 1313 (8th Cir. 1976). For example, United States v. Hibbard, 963 F.2d
1100, 1101 (8th Cir. 1992), upheld a warrant permitting the police to search a
defendant’s residence for “any [e]vidence or fruits of any crime that may have
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 271 more.
Total: 1,684 (members: 272, guests: 1,412)

Online statistics

Members online
272
Guests online
1,412
Total visitors
1,684
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,259
Messages
18,093,284
Members
230,835
Latest member
Owlsorflowers
Back
Top