GUILTY AR - Beverly Carter, 49, Little Rock, 25 Sep 2014 - #10

[111addict]

I figured it out.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Wow only took about an hour to go through all that stuff.
Couple thing that caught my eye .
That BC had concrete dust on her shoes , meaning she walking around the concrete plant.
Camera, I pad,Laptop, thumb drive. Stated taken without permission.

Wonder if that was the same ipad that allegedly gave CL black eye?

 

[arkansasmimi]

Ok, had to go get new keyboard counting one on laptop this is 3rd on this one case lol. Now going to read the new filings. Keep in mind all of this is procedural stuff. They have to get it filed/on record or all the cases I have followed and read up on.

 

[arkansasmimi]

I was under impression that the home at 165 Randall was searched on Sunday Sept 28, and Monday Sept 29 (from VI 1 and VI 2 where I got my impression from)? Appears or by odd dates so far that may have been more??

ETA: I will assume the warrants for for looking into the various pieces? not the warrant to get from where ever and and impound? Just now on 2nd so maybe there is explanation further on.
bbm that stood out to me

(1)
MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM FAULTY WARRANT FOR
FUJI CAMERA
1. On or about October 3, 2014, members of the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office
filed an affidavit for a search warrant of a Fuji camera.

6. Statements in the affidavit relating to the premises in which the objects were
found are mere conclusions based upon suspicions, with the grounds for the suspicion left
unstated. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 1140115, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, 84 S.Ct. 1509 (1964); See
also Black v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 13 L. Ed.2d 142, 85 S.Ct. 223 (1964); Whitely v. Warden,
Wyoming Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 28 L.Ed. 2d 306, 91 S.Ct. 1031 (1971).
8. The affidavit does not state any reasons why one should believe the camera
contains pictures of the alleged offense.
9. In addition, there are assertions in the affidavit that could only have been known
or obtained by illegal actions on the part of law enforcement; thus, those assertions must be
excised when considering whether the warrant has sufficient probable cause.
10. Also, Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 13.5 was not complied with in any
regard. Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 13.5 sets out very specific ways to handle
documentary evidence to avoid an invasion of privacy, which was not done here and should
require suppression of all evidence taken from the Laptop.
11. During the course of the warrantless search, certain items were illegally seized in
violation of the Defendant's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the Arkansas Rules of
Criminal Procedure, and the Arkansas Constitution.
12. Notwithstanding the validity of any searches of the Defendant or the Defendant’s
property, the Defendant denies that the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office found any contraband.

https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=Z0RWCDT3D9S8JB8A6OQ4MMN7LXYCKE

 

[arkansasmimi]

Rule 13.5. Execution And Return Of Warrants For Documents.
(a) If the warrant authorizes documentary seizure, the executing officer shall endeavor by all appropriate means to search for and identify the documents to be seized without examining the contents of documents not covered by the warrant.

(b) If the documents to be seized cannot be searched for or identified without examining the contents of other documents, or if they constitute items or entries in account books, diaries, or other documents containing matter not specified in the warrant, the executing officer shall not examine the documents but shall either impound them under appropriate protection where found, or seal and remove them for safekeeping.

(c) An executing officer who has impounded or removed documents pursuant to subsection (b) of this rule shall, as promptly as practicable, report the fact and circumstances of the impounding or removal to the issuing judicial officer. As soon thereafter as the interests of justice permit, and upon due and reasonable notice to all interested persons, a hearing shall be held before the issuing judicial officer or a judicial officer contemplated by Rule 13.4 (d), at which the person from whose possession or control the documents were taken, and any other person asserting any right or interest in the documents, may appear, in person or by counsel, and move either for the return of the documents or for specification of such conditions and limitations on the further search for the documents to be seized as may be appropriate to prevent unnecessary or unreasonable invasion of privacy. If the motion for the return of the documents is granted, in whole or in part, the documents covered by the granting order shall forthwith be returned or released from impoundment. If the motion is not granted, the search shall proceed under such conditions and limitations as the order shall prescribe, and at the conclusion of the search all documents other than those covered by the warrant, or otherwise subject to seizure, shall be returned or released from impoundment.

(d) Documents seized shall thereafter be handled and disposed of in accordance with the other provisions of this rule and Rules 15 and 16 hereof. No statements or testimony given in support of a motion made pursuant to this rule shall thereafter be received in evidence against the witness in any subsequent proceeding, other than for purposes of impeachment or in a prosecution for perjury or contempt in the giving of such statements or testimony.

Associated Court Rules:
Rules of Criminal Procedure
Group Title:
Article IV. Search and Seizure
https://courts.arkansas.gov/rules-a...e-135-execution-and-return-warrants-documents

 

[arkansasmimi]

2)
MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM FAULTY WARRANT FOR
BLACK IBM LAPTOP
1. On or about October 2, 2014, members of the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office
filed an affidavit for a search warrant of a Black Gateway Laptop.
4. The search warrant presented by the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office was based on
an affidavit that was insufficient as a matter of law and therefore was invalid.
6. Statements in the affidavit relating to the premises in which the objects were
found are mere conclusions based upon suspicions, with the grounds for the suspicion left
unstated. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 1140115, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, 84 S.Ct. 1509 (1964); See
also Black v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 13 L. Ed.2d 142, 85 S.Ct. 223 (1964); Whitely v. Warden,
Wyoming Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 28 L.Ed. 2d 306, 91 S.Ct. 1031 (1971).
8. Most importantly, the affidavit does not even state where the IBM laptop came
from, who owns it, who possessed it, or what it is alleged to contain.
9. In addition, there are assertions in the affidavit that could only have been known
or obtained by illegal actions on the part of law enforcement; thus, those assertions must be
excised when considering whether the warrant has sufficient probable cause.
10. Also, Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 13.5 was not complied with in any
regard. Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 13.5 sets out very specific ways to handle
documentary evidence to avoid an invasion of privacy, which was not done here and should
require suppression of all evidence taken from the Laptop.
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=TX1YILHMI3S5EJPYCSDSD7A2O30YTQ

 

[arkansasmimi]

3)
MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM FAULTY WARRANT FOR
SILVER IPHONE
COMES NOW, the Defendant, Aaron Lewis, by and through counsel, the James Law
Firm, and for the Defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence from faulty warrant, states:
1. On or about September 28, 2014, members of the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office
filed an affidavit for a search warrant of a Silver iPhone taken from Defendant's possession.
12. Defendant moves for the suppression of all evidence seized as a result of the
illegal search due to the violation of the Defendant’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights,
the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Arkansas Constitution.
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=1QJS13FFYCLUWBDZREKDV1VBRYVPFA

 

[arkansasmimi]

4)MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM FAULTY WARRANT FOR
2012 BLACK FORD FUSION
1. On or about September 28, 2014, members of the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office
filed an affidavit for a search warrant of Defendant's vehicle.

8. In addition, there are assertions in the affidavit that could only have been known
by illegal actions on the part of law enforcement; thus, those assertions must be excised when
considering whether the warrant has sufficient probable cause.

9. The affidavit for the search warrant is also so broad that it is effectively a general
warrant, which is what the Fourth Amendment was specifically created to protect against. The
search warrant authorizes “clothing,” “any electronic equipment or media storage,” "any item
that could be used as a weapon,” "DNA and biological evidence," and “any other physical
evidence and instrumentality's of criminal activity contributing to the furtherance of a crime.”
This is the definition of a general warrant.

10. The reason for the requirement in the Fourth Amendment “that things to be seized
be particularly described is to prevent a general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s
belongings. This is accomplished by removing from the officer executing the warrant all
discretion as to what is to be seized.” United States v. Torch, 609 F.2d 1088, 1089 (4th Cir.
1979) (internal citations omitted).

11. Here, the warrant was so generalized that the officers were encouraged to use
their discretion and effectively seize anything they desired. This is a flagrant violation of the
Fourth Amendment, the Arkansas Constitution, and the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure,
which requires suppression of all of the evidence.
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=NFCB626U76Z601I2SMHZ3004VBQVEP

 

[arkansasmimi]

5)MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM FAULTY WARRANT AND
ILLEGAL SEARCH AT 165 RANDALL DRIVE, JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS

1. On or about September 28, 2014, members of the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office
filed an affidavit for a search warrant of Defendant's residence.

8. In addition, there are assertions in the affidavit that could only have been known
by illegal actions on the part of law enforcement; thus, those assertions must be excised when
considering whether the warrant has sufficient probable cause.

9. The affidavit for the search warrant is also so broad that it is effectively a general
warrant, which is what the Fourth Amendment was specifically created to protect against. The
search warrant authorizes “clothing,” “any electronic equipment or media storage,” "any item
that could be used as a weapon,” "DNA and biological evidence," and “any other physical
evidence and instrumentality's of criminal activity contributing to the furtherance of a crime.”
This is the definition of a general warrant.

11. Here, the warrant was so generalized that the officers were encouraged to use
their discretion and effectively seize anything they desired. This is a flagrant violation of the
Fourth Amendment, the Arkansas Constitution, and the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure,
which requires suppression of all of the evidence.

12. The officers also violated the scope of the warrant, which is almost impressive
considering the expansive scope of the warrant. The warrant did not authorize "assorted jewelry"
to be taken or a "white envelope with Google #'s."
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=43J7PUNWZMFXPFKMIEOMKKEXNBW374

 

[arkansasmimi]

6) MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS DURING INTERROGATION ON
SEPTEMBER 29-30, 2014
1. On or about September 29-30, 2014, members of the Pulaski County Sheriff's Office
conducted a detention or arrest of the Defendant.

2. An interrogation followed the arrest or detention, which was illegal as the police did
not have probable cause to arrest or detain the Defendant, and therefore, any statements which
are the fruits of such an illegal arrest, are inadmissible against the Defendant. U.S. Const. amend.
IV, IVX; Ark. Const. art. II, § 15; Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979); Brown v. Illinois,
422 U.S. 590 (1975); Griffin v. State, 347 Ark. 788; 67 S.W.3d 582 (2002).

3. Defendant was not properly advised of his constitutional rights in accordance with
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and any statement taken is inadmissible against the
Defendant.

4. Defendant did not knowingly, intelligently or voluntarily waive his constitutional right
against self-incrimination, and any statements taken are involuntary, and therefore, inadmissible
in either the State’s case-in-chief or use as impeachment. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385
(1978).

5. Defendant was denied his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to counsel during
such interrogation, and the fruits of any such interrogation are involuntary and inadmissible for
any purpose. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).

6. Any statements taken during said custodial interrogation were the result of coercion,
physical intimidation, and/or unauthorized promises of leniency by members of the arresting
police agency, and are therefore involuntary and inadmissible for any purpose.

7. The mere giving of Miranda warnings is insufficient to remove the taint of the illegal
arrest or detention. There was no intervening action of free will between the illegal arrest or
detention and the subsequent statement to remove the taint, and therefore, any statement taken is
inadmissible against the defendant. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1965); Woodard v.
State, 273 Ark. 235, 617 S.W.2d 861 (1981); Brewer v. State, 271 Ark. 810; 611 S.W.2d 179
(1981).

8. Defendant denies making any statements that would be admissible and demands the
introduction of any alleged statements at the hearing to determine the admissibility.
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=7CL9FYEKK8LLKKVWNESLDGOR7DLU5H

 

[arkansasmimi]

7)MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM VEHICLE ACCIDENT
1. On or about September 28, 2014, members of the Pulaski County Sheriff's Office
illegally detained the Defendant and conducted a search and seizure of the Defendant and his property.

2. Such detention violated Defendant’s constitutional right, “[t]he right of the people of
this State to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures shall not be violated and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause…” U. S.
Const. amend. IV; Ark. Const. art. II, § 15.

4. During the course of the warrantless search, certain items, including a cellular phone,
were illegally seized in violation of the Defendant's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=MXTBG9FNI37TN7Z8GT0443SQKR92Y8

 

[arkansasmimi]

8)MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT FROM VEHICLE ACCIDENT
1. On or about September 28, 2014, members of the Pulaski County Sheriff's Office
conducted a detention or arrest of the Defendant.

2. An interrogation followed the arrest or detention, which was illegal as the police did
not have probable cause to arrest or detain the Defendant, and therefore, any statements which
are the fruits of such an illegal arrest, are inadmissible against the Defendant. U.S. Const. amend.
IV, IVX; Ark. Const. art. II, § 15; Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979); Brown v. Illinois,
422 U.S. 590 (1975); Griffin v. State, 347 Ark. 788; 67 S.W.3d 582 (2002).

3. Defendant was not properly advised of his constitutional rights in accordance with
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and any statement taken is inadmissible against the
Defendant.

4. Defendant did not knowingly, intelligently or voluntarily waive his constitutional right
against self-incrimination, and any statements taken are involuntary, and therefore, inadmissible
in either the State’s case-in-chief or use as impeachment. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385
(1978).

5. Defendant was denied his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to counsel during
such interrogation, and the fruits of any such interrogation are involuntary and inadmissible for
any purpose. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).

6. Any statements taken during said custodial interrogation were the result of coercion,
physical intimidation, and/or unauthorized promises of leniency by members of the arresting
police agency, and are therefore involuntary and inadmissible for any purpose.

7. The mere giving of Miranda warnings is insufficient to remove the taint of the illegal
arrest or detention. There was no intervening action of free will between the illegal arrest or
detention and the subsequent statement to remove the taint, and therefore, any statement taken is
inadmissible against the defendant. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1965); Woodard v.
State, 273 Ark. 235, 617 S.W.2d 861 (1981); Brewer v. State, 271 Ark. 810; 611 S.W.2d 179
(1981).

8. Defendant denies making any statements that would be admissible and demands the
introduction of any alleged statements at the hearing to determine the admissibility.
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=QYIVPMW79QFSFM0A9OFDVQ4PSWSQAL

 

[arkansasmimi]

9)MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF CRIMINAL HISTORY AND DISCLOSURE OF
PLEA AGREEMENTS OR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF WITNESSES

COMES NOW, the Defendant, Aaron Lewis, by and through counsel, the James Law
Firm, and respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an Order directing the Prosecuting
attorney or any appropriate party to provide the Defendant with following records of any and all
persons whom the State intends to call as a witness at trial or any related proceeding herein:

1. Certified copies of criminal convictions and adjudications of delinquency. See Ark. R.
Evid. 609.

2. Certified copies of arrests and criminal investigations, criminal and/or juvenile charges
now pending and parole and/or probationary status. See Ark. R. Evid. 609.

3. The history and status of all bargains, plea discussions or agreements, and the like, the
Prosecuting Attorney or any one in his office has had with any co-defendants, witness, informant
or others.

4 All of such conversations, discussions or agreements referenced in Paragraph 3 are
prejudicial to the defendant and should be disclosed in advance of trial so that the Defendant may
pursue her investigation of this case.

5. The government has a continuing obligation to disclose any and all consideration held
out to a witness or which any witness anticipates receiving.

6. In further support, the Defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth
Amendment to the United States Constitution also require disclosure of all requested information
for the use in cross-examination of any State witness in the issue of bias. Alford v. United States,
282 U.S. 687 (1931).

7. The Defendant further moves this Honorable Court to order the attorney for the State
to disclose to counsel for the Defendant any knowledge he or any one of his assistants have, or upon the exercise of due diligence, may have, which pertain to Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above.
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=ERVEE4IGFX8HS8I9J5PTC8L3BWQR9P

 

[arkansasmimi]

10)MOTION TO SEVER FELON IN POSSESSION
COMES NOW, the Defendant, Aaron Lewis, by and through counsel, James Law Firm,
and for his motion to sever felon in possession, states:

1. Defendant is charged with capital murder, kidnapping, and felon in possession of
a firearm.

2. Defendant requests this Court sever his felon in possession charge from the
remaining charges.

3. Defendant is entitled to sever the felon in possession charge. See Sutton v. State,
311 Ark. 435, 844 S.W.2d 350 (1993).

4. It is ineffective assistance of counsel to fail to sever the felon in possession
charge. See Burton v. State, 367 Ark. 109, 238 S.W.3d 111 (2006).
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Aaron Lewis, respectfully requests this Court to sever the
felon in possession charge.
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=UEEWBRHHZ2Z9YZB9GJLLVME8POJ8ZV

 

[arkansasmimi]

11)MOTION TO RETURN THUMB DRIVE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT
1. A thumb drive was seized from the Defendant or his residence.

2. The thumb drive was not subject to seizure, was unlawfully seized, and to the
Defendant's knowledge the thumb drive is not being used as evidence. Thus, the thumb drive
should be returned to the Defendant or a designated person by the Defendant. Ark. R. Crim. P.
15.2.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant moves this Court to return the thumb drive taken from
Defendant pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 15.2.
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=JO0LMRC7J13YDQESAJ0V9I1DSJ1MV7

 

[arkansasmimi]

12) MOTION TO RETURN WATCH SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT
1. A Bulova watch was seized from the Defendant.

2. The watch was not subject to seizure, was unlawfully seized, and to the Defendant's
knowledge the watch is not being used as evidence. Thus, the watch should be returned to the
Defendant or a designated person by the Defendant. Ark. R. Crim. P. 15.2.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant moves this Court to return the watch taken from
Defendant pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 15.2
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=X49XWP7XCOCLAUOYVLIORKJY55H2L0

 

[arkansasmimi]

13) MOTION TO RETURN GATEWAY LAPTOP SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT
1. A Gateway laptop was seized from Defendant's residence.

2. The Gateway laptop was not subject to seizure, was unlawfully seized, and to the
Defendant's knowledge the Gateway laptop is not being used as evidence. Thus, the Gateway
laptop should be returned to the Defendant or a designated person by the Defendant. Ark. R.
Crim. P. 15.2.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant moves this Court to return the Gateway laptop taken from
Defendant's residence pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 15.2
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=J65ZZTQ371GXSGXNGIKBYRP7PPXPJ2

 

[arkansasmimi]

14) MOTION TO RETURN IPAD SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT
1. An iPad was seized from Defendant's residence.

2. The iPad was not subject to seizure, was unlawfully seized, and to the Defendant's
knowledge the iPad is not being used as evidence. Thus, the iPad should be returned to the
Defendant or a designated person by the Defendant. Ark. R. Crim. P. 15.2.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant moves this Court to return the iPad taken from
Defendant's residence pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 15.2.
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=90TRZZPVCSEQZ8XI26BBTTQ8C8VQN3

 

[arkansasmimi]

15) MOTION TO RETURN CELL PHONE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT
1. A cellular phone was taken from Defendant at the time of a car accident by law
enforcement acting without a warrant or probable cause.

2. The cell phone was not subject to seizure, was unlawfully seized, and to the
Defendant's knowledge the phone is not being used as evidence. Thus, the cell phone should be
returned to the Defendant or a designated person by the Defendant. Ark. R. Crim. P. 15.2.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant moves this Court to return the cell phone taken from
Defendant at the time of the car accident pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 15.2.
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=1N44WHCMA8AE6QY3S56XFAPM33O2OD

 

[arkansasmimi]

motion in limine
(limb-in-nay) n. from Latin for "threshold," a motion made at the start of a trial requesting that the judge rule that certain evidence may not be introduced in trial. This is most common in criminal trials where evidence is subject to constitutional limitations, such as statements made without the Miranda warnings (reading their rights).
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/motion+in+limine