FL - Sarah Boone, 42, charged with murdering boyfriend Jorge Torres, 42, by leaving him locked in suitcase, Winter Park, Feb 2020

[Cool Cats]

I guess accessing her phone without a warrant may be wrong, but I think it's reasonable to confiscate the phone based on her explanation and eventually a warrant will be approved because she's a suspect. IMO

Wait....I am sure LE asked if they could search her phone and she said yes and handed it over. No Warrant necessary. Warrants are only necessary when a suspect refuses permission for searches:

Like "No, you can't search my car."

"No, you cannot search my house."

" No, you cannot search my purse. "

"But here is my phone, you can look at it, you can search it.."

I will look for when Sarah gives LE her phone which should prove that no Search Warrant was/is needed. Look, if LE took Sarah's phone without Sarah's permission then her phone could not be used as evidence before the jury.

Very likely the judge would throw the phone evidence out, thus, under these circumstances Sarah would probably have a chance to be found not guilty because it is the footage Sarah recorded that shows she did intend to let Jorge suffocate.

She says "It wasn't intentional" but her phone video shows she deliberately left Jorge in the suitcase and she even flipped the suitcase upside down with the zipper on the carpet, completely covering the zipper.

2 Cents

 

[sasha17]

Wait....I am sure LE asked if they could search her phone and she said yes and handed it over. No Warrant necessary. Warrants are only necessary when a suspect refuses permission for searches:

Like "No, you can't search my car."

"No, you cannot search my house."

" No, you cannot search my purse. "

"But here is my phone, you can look at it, you can search it.."

I will look for where she gives them her phone which should prove that no Search Warrant was/is needed. Look, if LE took Sarah's phone without Sarah's permission then her phone could not be used as evidence before the jury.

Very likely the judge would throw the phone evidence out. Thus, Sarah would probably have a chance to be found not guilty because it is the footage Sarah recorded that shows she did intend to let Jorge suffocate. She says "It wasn't intentional but her phone video shows she deliberately left Jorge in the suitcase and she even flipped the suitcase upside down with the zipper on the carpet, completely covering the zipper.

2 Cents

I think if the phone search wasn't done properly (either with Sarah's permission or with a search warrant), we would have heard about that by now from Owens. He's not asking to suppress anything to do with Sarah's phone. Just the 2 hour interrogation video (and possibly verbal statements Sarah made to another officer on the scene).

Editing to add (BBM): "After allowing investigators to search her phone, Boone drove herself to the sheriff’s office on Feb. 25, 2020, for a follow-up interview, during which she was shown one of two noteworthy videos found on the device."

8 attorneys later, Florida woman accused of letting boyfriend die in suitcase must represent herself

An Orlando woman facing trial for second-degree murder in the death of a man she’s accused of zipping inside of a suitcase must now represent herself after forfeiting her right to a court-appointed attorney due to her behavior.

www.clickorlando.com

 

[arielilane]

Iirc, SB voluntarily handed her phone over to LE. This allowed LE access to her phone w/o having to get a search warrant. jmo As indicated by @Cool Cats.

In addition, it isn't advisable to hand over your phone to LE, if asked for your driver's license and you have conveniently uploaded your DL to either (not all states have this option) Apple Wallet or Google Wallet, it is much better to physically hand over the DL. just saying... moo

 

[Cool Cats]

Iirc, SB voluntarily handed her phone over to LE. This allowed LE access to her phone w/o having to get a search warrant. jmo As indicated by @Cool Cats.

In addition, it isn't advisable to hand over your phone to LE, if asked for your driver's license and you have conveniently uploaded your DL to either (not all states have this option) Apple Wallet or Google Wallet, it is much better to physically hand over the DL. just saying... moo

Yes. Phone evidence will be presented at trial. No grounds to not submit the relevent phone
evidence that defendant voluntary submits. Anyone who specifically volunteers phone evidence to the police after Miranda Warnings can expect to hear their phone evidence at trial.

I have seen this happen with recorded jail phone calls where the Prosecution plays remarks that are not helpful to the defense.

2 Cents

 

[sasha17]

At the last hearing, the judge gave Owens until 11:59pm on Friday to file any motions to suppress statements or video. As of my checking the court records website today, no motions to suppress have been filed by the defense (beyond the first one he filed last week regarding the two hour interrogation).

However, I do see two interesting things filed over the weekend:

1. The state filed a motion asking the judge NOT to suppress the statements Sarah gave on scene (both on the sidewalk and in the patrol car) and giving their reasons and legal citations as to why. I'm guessing this was just as insurance in case Owens ended up filing a motion to ask for these to be suppressed.

2. Owens filed the defense witness list. It's not viewable to the public, but the state then filed a response and includes some of the detail from it. Their response says: "The Defendant, in her Third Amended Witness List, has listed the following “people” as witnesses: a. Custodian of Records, Orange County Office of the State Attorney, b. Domestic Violence supervisor for the Office of the State Attorney, 9th Judicial Circuit, Orange County, c. Victim Advocate supervisor for the Office of the State Attorney, 9th Judicial Circuit, Orange County, d. Misdemeanor Supervisor for the Office of the State Attorney, 9th Judicial Circuit, Orange County."

The state lists lots of case law and citations why the above people, as employees of the state attorney's office, are protected by law and "anything these witnesses could say about the Defendant and the decedent would be protected by the work product privilege." The state says: "If the Defendant wants public records from the State Attorney’s Office, she should do whatever everyone else has to do—file a public records request... The State is at a loss for what non-privileged testimony any of the “people” listed above could provide in this case. Therefore, the State is requesting the Court to enter a protective order to prevent any employee of the State Attorney’s Office from being a witness in this case."

Orange County Clerk of Courts Records Search

If Websleuths supported adding GIFs to posts, I'd add a dumpster fire GIF here!

 

[sasha17]

It seems like Owens's MO is to file a motion that is incomplete in order to get something filed, and then amend the motion later after being called out on it for it being incomplete or not making sense.

Late today, he filed an amended motion for suppression of the two hour interrogation video. I asked ChatGPT to find the differences for me between his first motion and today's amended motion. Here's what it gave me:

• In Section 3, Text Two specifies that Deputy Rodriguez "realized a death had occurred" upon arrival, while Text One simply states she "realized a death had occurred."
• In Section 5, Text One states the defendant "stayed outside of her apartment for approximately 14 hours," while Text Two mentions she stayed for "several hours until the investigation was completed."
• In Section 6, Text Two uses "told" instead of "asked" in the context of the defendant getting into the vehicle.
• In Section 7, Text Two mentions that the defendant told the detective her phone was "on the kitchen counter," whereas Text One does not include this detail.
• In Section 10, Text Two specifies the defendant called "on her cell phone," while Text One simply states she called using her ex-husband's phone.
• Text Two adds a new detail in Section 12: "Upon information and belief, a judge had signed a search warrant for the defendant’s phone, just nine (9) minutes before she arrived at the sheriff’s department."
• In Section 13, Text Two notes that Detective Lowen "wore his firearm on his waist during this entire event," a detail not present in Text One.

Text One = the originally filed motion from last week
Text Two = the amended motion filed today

Again, I am not a lawyer but I'm wondering what Owens is getting at with these amendments. The state's issues with the original motion were that "the Defendant has not cited even a single case that authorizes the Court to grant her the relief she is requesting. The State is left in the dark about what specific issue or issues the Defendant is claiming and what legal authority there might be for the Court to grant the relief she requests. State v. Butterfield, 285 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). The Court should strike the motion as legally insufficient."

The amended motion filed by Owens today doesn't add any case law or legal authority under which to ask for this motion to be granted. He doesn't seem to be very good at this, IMO!

Orange County Clerk of Courts Records Search

 

[Lilibet]

The amended motion filed by Owens today doesn't add any case law or legal authority under which to ask for this motion to be granted. He doesn't seem to be very good at this, IMO!

Is he deliberately setting her up to appeal on the basis of an incompetent defense?

 

[Trebor5591]

The amended motion filed by Owens today doesn't add any case law or legal authority under which to ask for this motion to be granted. He doesn't seem to be very good at this, IMO!

Orange County Clerk of Courts Records Search

It's not that he isn't good, in my opinion. He just doesn't have enough time. He took the case at "the last minute" and doesn't have time enough to have complete motions filed.

I know Boone has been through too many attorneys, and the judge is determined to move forward as he stipulated "on schedule", but all the judge is doing, in my opinion, is creating a situation where Boone's likely conviction will probably be vacated and a new trial ordered. This before the first trial has even started!

 

[legalmomma]

https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/CaseDetails?cItem=j0k4Rcc5aRmQYXmUlsd5Vb987%2B1PJ4vBk3dDRy7LwE9Ug0fpPEpZR4zA%2F123EgAn%2FDfqh0Qu9IYufOn24A4KDiYiUxJ62Mi3nSS7Laf7r3I%3D

10/07/2024 HEARING - Trial - Kraynick, Michael S

10/02/2024 HEARING - Motion - Kraynick, Michael S

10/02/2024 HEARING - Motion - Kraynick, Michael S

​

 

[legalmomma]

Although I have been following this case, I didn't realize the extent of Jorge's injuries until I read this. I knew about the scratches but not the left skull and forehead contusions, combined with left shoulder bruising. Was this from the suitcase being tossed down the stairs?

https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/CaseDetails?cItem=j0k4Rcc5aRmQYXmUlsd5Vb987%2B1PJ4vBk3dDRy7LwE9Ug0fpPEpZR4zA%2F123EgAn%2FDfqh0Qu9IYufOn24A4KDiYiUxJ62Mi3nSS7Laf7r3I%3D