AddressBlock

________________
________________
________________
________________
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF _______
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
_____________________,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MOTION TO SUPRESS EVIDENCE,

QUASH/TRAVERSE SEARCH
WARRANT (P.C. 1538.5);
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

TO THE BUTTE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AND BUTTE COUNTY DISTRICT

ATTORNEY, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY _______________:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on _________________ at the hour of ________am/pm,
or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the above-entitled Court, Defendant
______________ will move for an order to quash the search warrant authorized on __________,
by the Honorable Judge _________ in ____________ County Superior Court, for the property
located at __________________________, and suppress as evidence and restore to the defendant
all property seized under or during the execution of the warrant.
The Defendant moves to suppress (1) all evidence seized from the Defendants home and
property (2) all evidence seized from the Defendants storage facility (3) all evidence seized
pursuant to the search warrant and (4) all fruits thereof.
The motion will be made on the concurrently filed Memorandum of Points and
Authorities and any additional briefing or oral argument the Court may allow.

Dated: April 27, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
________________________
________________________
Attorney for Defendant,
________________________

AddressBlock
________________
________________
________________
________________
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF _______
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
_____________________,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
AND TO TRAVERSE /QUASH
SEARCH WARRANT

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MOTION
On June 18, 2013, a Search Warrant authored by Detective Matt Caulkins was signed by
Judge James Riley authorizing a search of the Defendants residence. The Statement of Probable
Cause for the warrant indicated that Detective Caulkins stated that the remains of three people,
two males and one female, were found inside a car that was fully engulfed in flames. Detective
Caulkins stated he believed that more than one person was involved in the disposal of the vehicle
(Search Warrant, Statement of Probable Cause, p. 8)
At the time the Search Warrant was written and presented to Judge Riley, autopsies had
not been completed on the victims. However, Dr. Thomas Resk reported that the victims had
been x-rayed and he opined that the victims had been shot. Dr. Resk further opined, as reported
in Detective Caulkins statement of probable cause, that the projectile located in the female victim
was of a different caliber and had come from a different type of firearm than the projectiles
located in the male victims (Search Warrant, Statement of Probable Cause, p. 9).

Detective Caulkins, through his investigation, determined that the vehicle the victims
were found in had been stolen from the Sacramento area on June 11, 2013. The owner of the
vehicle was unable to identify who may have stolen her vehicle (Search Warrant, Statement of
Probable Cause, p. 9).
On June 13, 2013, Ms. Felishia Moore contacted the Butte County Sheriffs Department
and reported that she had seen a news article regarding the vehicle fire and believed that one of
the victims may have been her son, Richard Jones, Jr, and his friends. Ms. Moore reported that
the three victims had left for the Chico area on June 11, 2013 in a similar vehicle (Search
Warrant, Statement of Probable Cause, p. 9).
Detective Caulkins and Detective Pat McNelis met with Ms. Moore at her Sacramento
home on June 13, 2013. Ms. Moore reported that Mr. Jones, Jr along with his friend, Roland
Lowe and Rolands mother, Coleen Lowe, had left for a ranch in the Chico area on June 11,
2013. She reported they were going to visit a friend, Eric Thibodeaux. (Search Warrant,
Statement of Probable Cause, p. 10) Ms. Moore reported that Richard intended to move back to
Mr. Thibodeauxs ranch, where it was reported the trio were going.
Ms. Moore told Detectives that she had called Mr. Thibodeaux several times On June 12,
2013 to see if the trio arrived at Mr. Thibodeauxs ranch. Ms. Moore told detectives that Mr.
Thibodeaux told her that the trio did not arrive at the ranch and then that he didnt know if they
arrived (Search Warrant, Statement of Probable Cause, p. 10).
Ms. Moore told detectives that on June 13, 2013 Mr. Thibodeaux told her that he had
spoken with someone on his ranch, Don, who told him that Mr. Jones, Jr and three people had
been to the ranch on June 12, 2013 and that Don told him that the four persons were going
swimming. Mr. Thibodeaux told Ms. Moore that Richard Jones, Jr. told Don that Richard
Jones, Jr. and his friends were then going to Atwater and Susanville to look for work (Search
Warrant, statement of Probable Cause, pgs. 10-11).
On June 13, 2013, Detectives Caulkins and McNelis also met with Malik Jones. Mr.
Jones told Detectives Caulkins and McNelis that Mr. Richard Jones, Jr. had previously lived with
Mr. Thibodeaux on Centerville Road in Chico, California. Mr. Jones told Detectives that Mr.

Thibodeaux lives with another man identified only as Don (Search Warrant, Statement of
Probable Cause, p. 11).
On June 13, 2013, Detectives Caulkins and McNelis also met with Brianna Jones. Ms.
Jones told detectives that her brother, Richard Jones, Jr., was going to be traveling to Erics
residence in Chico, California with Roland and Coleen Lowe (Search Warrant, Statement of
Probable Cause, p. 12).
On June 14, 2013, Detectives Caulkins and McNelis spoke with Dale Ferguson,
boyfriend to Ms. Coleen Lowe. Mr. Ferguson told Detectives that Ms. Lowes phone does not
have any minutes on it but she is able to send emails if she is in an area that has wireless
internet service (WiFi). Mr. Ferguson showed Detectives an email he stated was from Ms. Lowe
sent on June 12, 2013 at 2:45 p.m. The email stated that they had just made it to Chico and
Dont ask, long story & ride. The email further stated Were out of gas & $ $ $ but I should
have a rabbit in my ass still. Mr. Ferguson stated that Ms. Lowe uses this phrase to mean that
she has a plan to get through a situation (Search Warrant, statement of probable cause, pgs. 1213).
Mr. Ferguson explained to Detectives Caulkins and McNelis that Richard Jones, Jr had a
friend who has a ranch in the Chico, California area. He stated that Richards friend grows
marijuana on the ranch and that Richard was going to go live there.
On June 15, 2013, Sargent Jason Hail and Detectives Phil Wysocki and McNelis met with
Ms. Felishia Moore, Mr. Malik Jones and Ms. Brianna Jones a second time. They were told that
Ms. AJ Murguia is the godmother to Richard Jones, Jr, Malik Jones and Brianna Jones. It was
reported that Ms. Murguia has a home in Sacramento, California and a ranch in the Centerville
area of Chico, California. Officers were told that Richard Jones, Jr. and Malik Jones met Eric
Thibodeaux through Ms. Murguia. It was further reported that Ms. Murguia grows marijuana on
Centerville Road and lives there during summer months.
Malik Jones told the officers that Richard Jones, Jr. had told him that he had a telephone
conversation with Eric Thibodeaux and that Mr. Thibodeaux told Richard Jones, Jr that it is not a
good time for Richard Jones, Jr to return to Mr. Thibodeauxs property because people are very

angry that Richard Jones, Jr had stolen marijuana and a firearm from Ms. Murguias residence.
Malik Jones further told officers that Richard Jones, Jr. had told him that Ms. Murguia had made
comments about Richard Jones Jr.s mother being a prostitute (Search Warrant, Statement of
Probable Cause, pgs 15-6).
Detective McNelis determined that Ms. Murguias property on Centerville Road was
adjacent to the Defendants. He further determined that Ms. Murguia accessed her property by
driving through the Defendants property and that there is no defined border or fence between the
two properties (Search Warrant, Statement of Probable Cause, pgs. 16-20).
Mr. Malik Jones told Detective McNelis that he had been to Ms. Murguias property on
Centerville Road in 2011. Mr. Malik Jones told Detective McNelis that he had observed Ms.
Murguia in possession of several firearms at that time. He described the weapons as numerous.
On June 19, 2014 the search warrant was executed. No fewer than 25 law enforcement
officers, including officers from the S.W.A.T. team, arriving in an armored car, converged on the
Defendants property. Ms. AJ Murguia was named in the search warrant. However, as evidenced
by the affidavit attached to the warrant, Detective Caulkins was aware that Ms. AJ Murguia did
not reside on the Defendants property and would not be present there.
II. ARGUMENT
DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO MOVE TO QUASH THE WARRANT
A Defendant may move to quash and traverse a search warrant and to suppress the
evidence obtained on the ground that the search and seizure was unreasonable because there was
not probable cause for issuance of the warrant (Illinois v. Gates (1983), 462 U.S. 213).
The affidavit in support of the search warrant in this case fails to establish probable cause
for its issuance, and a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the affidavit was
insufficient and would not have applied for a warrant (U.S. v. Leon (1984) 468 US 897, 82 L ed
2d 677, 104 S ct 3405; People v. Camarella (1991) 54 C3d 592, 602, 286 CR 780).

For a Magistrate to have a substantial basis for concluding that an affidavit established
probable cause, the fact must be sufficient to justify a conclusion that that the property which is
the object of the search is probably on the premises to be searched at the time the warrant was
issued. (United States v. Greany (1991) 929 F.2d 523, 524-525, citing United States v.
Hendricks, (1984) 743 F.2d 653, 654). Although incapable of precise definition, the Supreme
Court gave guidance for determining what quantum of proof amounts to probable cause in
Illinois v. Gates (1983) 426 U.S. 213, 235: [I]t is clear that only the probability, and not a prima
facie showing, of criminal activity is the standard of probable cause. (Citing Spinelli v. United
States (1969) 393 U.S. 410, 419). In addition, Probable cause sufficient to support a warrant
exists where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable
prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found. (United States v.
Olson (2005) 408 F.3d 366, 370, citing Ornelas v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 690, 696.
Contained within the 28 page search warrant, Mr. Clarks name is stated in regard to the
investigation only three times:
1. Statement of Probable Cause, p. 10: Eric Thibodeaux tells Felishia Moore that Don saw
Richard Jones, Jr on the ranch with three other people around 1:00 p.m. on June 12, 2013.
Mr. Thibodeaux stated that Don told him that the four people were going swimming
and then leaving for the Atwater and Susanville area to look for work.
2. Statement of Probable Cause, p. 11: Malik Jones tells Detective McNelis and Detective
Caulkins that Richard Jones, Jr. had previously lived in Chico, California with Eric
Thibodeaux. Mr. Jones tells Detectives that Eric Thibodeaux lives on Centerville Road
with a male he only could identify as Don.
3. Statement of Probable Cause, p. 11: Detective McNelis showed Malik Jones a DMV
photograph of Donald Clark. Mr. Jones identified Mr. Clark as the person he was
referring to as Don.
The affidavit in support of the Search Warrant prepared by Detective Matt Caulkins relied
entirely on information provided by informants, whose information relied on speculation and
conjecture. Many, if not all of, the statements provided to the Detectives were hearsay, often
double and even triple hearsay. Detectives Matt Caulkins and Detective Pat McNelis conducted
an investigation and learned that Ms. AJ Murguia had a relationship with the victims, that at least

one of the victims had stolen guns and drugs from her and that the victims were not welcome at
her property. Ms. AJ Murguias property is adjacent to Mr. Clarks property. Throughout the
investigation, informants advise the Detectives that Ms. AJ Murguia engages in illegal activities
on her property, that she was angry at the victims, that she had firearms and illegal drugs on her
property, that Ms. AJ Murguia had referred to victim Richard Joness mother as a prostitute,
had stated the victims were not welcome at her property.
No information was provided in the search warrant or Statement of Probable Cause that Ms.
Murguia had any contact with, possession or control of or affiliation with the Mr. Clarks
property. The only hint of contact between Ms. Murguia and Mr. Clark is an easement through a
portion of Mr. Clarks property used by Ms. Murguia to access her property. No information is
contained within the search warrant to show that the Mr. Clark knows Ms. Murguia, that Ms.
Murguia visited with Mr. Clark or that she had any access to or control of his property. As the
Supreme Court stated in Ybarra v. Illinois (1991) 444 U.S. 85, 91, a persons mere propinquity
to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to
probable cause to search that person.
The search warrant affidavit and Statement of Probable Cause contains no direct or indirect
inferences of criminal activity at Mr. Clarks property or by Mr. Clark. Instead, it asked the
reviewing Judge to assume that because Ms. Murguia lived next door and utilized an easement
that criminal activity was afoot. The only information obtained, as reported in the affidavit and
Statement of Probable Cause, that Mr. Clark or his property were connected to the victims or
their disappearance was an unverified belief that the victims may have been driving to the area to
return to the ranch. Victim Colleen Lowe sent an email to her boyfriend in Sacramento that she
had arrived in Chico however she made no reference to Mr. Clarks property.
It should be noted that not much investigation would be required to learn that it would not
have been possible for victim Colleen Lowe to send the email referenced above from Mr. Clarks
property. There is no power at Mr. Clarks property nor is there internet access in which to
facilitate the transmission of email. Detective Caulkins had no evidence to support that the
victims had ever been present at Mr. Clarks property.

In Sibron v. New York (1968) 392 U.S. 40, 62-63, the Supreme Court held that the fact that a
bartender at a tavern in Ybarra had been selling heroin in the bar did not give probable cause to
believe that the defendant, a patron at the bar, would possess heroin. The Court stated Where
the standard is probable cause, a search or seizure of a person must be supported by probable
cause particularized with respect to that person. This requirement cannot be undercut or avoided
by simply pointing to the fact that coincidentally there exists probable cause to search or seize
another or to search the premises where the person may happen to be. (Id. At 63). Here,
probable cause points to Ms. Murguia - she was angry at the victims, she had guns on her
property, she told them to stay away from her property after the victims stole drugs and weapons
from her, she slandered the victims mother and had a falling out with the family. Just because
Ms. Murguia lives next door to Mr. Clark and drives across his property to access her own does
not support an assertion that Mr. Clark was involved in criminal activity. As in Ybarra, the chain
of inferences is so attenuated as to have been insufficient to warrant a man of reasonable
prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found.
III. INSUFFICIENCY OF THE WARRANT
A reviewing Court assesses the totality of circumstances under which a warrant issued
and invalidates the warrant when those circumstances fail to establish probable cause (Illinois v.
Gates (1983) 462 U. S. 213; Massachusetts v. Upton (1984) 466 U.S. 727). Mere suspicion,
common rumor, or even strong reason to suspect are not enough to establish probable cause
(Henry v. United States (1959) 361 U.S. 98, 101). Sufficient information must be presented
must be presented to the magistrate to allow that official to determine probable cause; his action
cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others. (Illinois v. Gates, supra, 462
U.S. at 239). Additionally, there must be a sufficient likelihood that seizable property will be
found in a particular place. (Id. At 238).
Here, there is no reason to believe that officers would have decided to, or been able to,
obtain a search warrant for Mr. Clarks residence independent of the warrant for Ms. Murguias
property. The inevitable discovery exception requires the Court to determine, viewing affairs as
they existed at the instant before the unlawful search, what would have happened had the
unlawful search never occurred. (People v. Hughston (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1072). In

Hughston, the defendant was selling illegal drugs from inside a vehicle parked in a tent structure
hed built in the parking lot at a Mendocino County music festival. An undercover officer
observed the defendant make two hand-to-hand sales of what he suspected, based on his training
and experience, were narcotics. The officer arrested the defendant, and then located the vehicle
covered by a tarp structure. The officer entered the tarp structure and then the vehicle, where he
found narcotics. The Court suppressed the evidence as an illegal search of the tarp structure and
vehicle. It was not enough that there was probable cause to search the vehicle. Instead, to justify
application of the inevitable discovery exception, law enforcement must demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that, due to a separate line of investigation, application of routine
police procedures, or some other circumstance, the evidence would have been discovered by
lawful means. Id. The showing must be based not on speculation but on demonstrated historical
facts capable of ready verification or impeachment. (Hughston, supra. 168 Cal.App.4th at 1072,
citing Nix v. Williams (1998) 467 U.S. 431, 444-445, fn 5). The people have provided no
evidence that Mr. Clarks property would have been the subject of search if not for the
accompanying information regarding Ms. Murguia. There was no independent line of
investigation, routine police procedure, or other circumstance that would have led them to Mr.
Clark.
IV. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, the defense requests that this Court find the statements
discussed in the affidavit are insufficient to support a finding of probable cause and that this
motion should be granted, the search warrant quashed, and all evidence seized under the
authority of that warrant suppressed.
Mr. Clark requests permission to file a supplemental supporting memorandum after the
hearing on this motion, to address the testimony at that hearing, and the prosecutions
arguments.
Dated: April 27, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
________________________

________________________
Attorney for Defendant,
________________________
[Attach Certificate of Service]