Steven-Patrick: Mitchell

2321 Cartwright Road

Reno Nevada (89721)
Sui Juris

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA
State of Nevada,
Plaintiff.

Case No. CR16-0868

Dept. No. 1

V.

Steven-Patrick: Mitchell,
Defendant.
_____________________________/

DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLANTIFF OPPOSTION OF MOTION TO SUPRESS

Now comes Defendant, Mr. Steven-Patrick Mitchell (Mr.
Mitchell), Sui juris in the common law, and Moves for the
Suppression of Mr. Mitchells unlawfully obtained evidence. For
the reasons stated in the Brief in Support of this Motion,
Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant
his Motion to Suppress.
This Brief is based upon the attached Memorandum of Points
and Authorities, the materials contained on file herein, and any
evidence which may be received by the Court in this matter at a
hearing.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

On March 4th, 2016. Mr. Mitchell made a conscious decision to remove
himself from the road when he began to feel ill.

He parked his

personal conveyance approx. a half mile up on Goldstone road (a

private dirt road.) Mr. Mitchell was familiar with this area due to
the fact that he had just sold his house in the approximant
neighboring area in the previous months prior. Mr. Mitchell chose this
area because he knew it was not heavily traveled and Mr. Mitchell felt
he would be comfortable resting in his conveyance with the reasonable
expectation of privacy. Mr. Mitchell was resting in his personal
conveyance on March 4th on Goldstone Road. Mr. Mitchell was NOT in need
of medical assistance and there was no emergency that existed at that
time. Mr. Mitchell was not engaged in committing any crime or under
investigation or suspected of involvement of criminal activity.
Mitchell was (not) hindering anybody{s} travels or posing any kind of
threat to himself or anyone else. Mr. Mitchell was awoken by Deputy
Jason Wood #2551 K-9 handler and active participant for introductory
narcotic task force whom dispatched himself after hearing the 911
transmission of dispatch and upon receiving Mr. Mitchells information
that was requested by K9-40 supervisor for Washoe County k-9 unit to
be ran prior to any contact with Mr. Mitchell.

Deputy Jason Woods

role in this is in question from the start of whether or not he had

lawful legal authority at the time to even carry on a position of
community caretaker if indeed an emergency did really exist. Deputy
Jason Wood on March 4th 2016 was still under investigation for an

officer involved shooting that resulted in the homicide of Robert

Hampton III. Due to this kind of investigation the Deputy was placed
on administrative leave pending the conclusion of the death of Robert
Hampton III was justified or Not. The investigation was not officially
closed until two months later in the latter part of May, 2016. If
Deputy Jason Wood was in fact still under investigation and not
officially cleared would not only cause his participation in Mr.
Mitchells case unlawful but would also cause a community outrage of
why this deputy is allowed to be in an authoritative positon carrying
a weapon while not cleared of any wrong doing for the homicide of
Hampton in November 2014. The credibility of Deputy Wood should be
carefully examined and taken into consideration being a subject in an
investigation of homicide and the fact Deputy Jason wood was arrested
March 11th 2016 by the Reno Police Department for suspicion of driving
while intoxicated approx. a week after his encounter with Mr.
Mitchell. Clearly it is raises concerns for the welfare of the
community.
An anonymous caller called 911 to report a man down in a
vehicle. The caller had no factual evidence or firsthand knowledge
that an actual emergency existed.
ARGUMENT
The 911 caller , supplying information . . . a passer byer saw
a man sleeping in his conveyance and was uncertain if the subject was
asleep or in need of any medical assistance. the passer byer who
called 911, had no firsthand knowledge or evidence that an emergency

exists, this case should be analyzed under the anonymous informant

standard set by the United States Supreme Court.

An anonymous telephone call made to 911 identifying a person either by description,

location, or both, is insufficient to justify a warrantless Terry-stop. Florida v J.L., 529 U.S. 266,
(2000). In Adams v Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972), the United States Supreme Court stated an
anonymous informants tip can serve as a basis for a Terry stop if the top was give face-to-face
and the informant is personally known to the officer from past interaction. Id. It is apparent that
the distinction stems from the rationale that if the information turns out to be false, that the,
informant who is known can be prosecuted for providing false information to police, but the
anonymous informant cannot be.
Justice Kennedys statement in his concurring opinion in J.L supports this contention. If
the telephone call is truly anonymous, the informant has not placed ,his credibility at risk and can
lie with impunity. The reviewing court cannot judge the U.S. at 275 (emphasis added). In
Alabama v White, 496 U.S. 325, 329 (1990), police received an anonymous tip alleging that a
female was carrying cocaine and that this female would leave an apartment at a specific and
particularized time, get into a car matching a specific and particularized description, and drive to
a named hotel. The prior-mentioned facts standing alone would f have justified a Terry stop
the United States Supreme Court declared. Id. Only after police corroborated the allegations and
the informant had accurately depicted the womans movements did it become reasonable to think
that the anonymous informant had actual knowledge about the suspect and allegations; therefore,
finding the anonymous informants credible. Id. at 332.
Community caretaking
The prosecution is relying on the violation of Mr. Mitchells
fourth amendment justified due to the community caretaking
doctrine. Community Caretaking is a very valuable asset to the
care of the community when implemented the way it
was intended and the procedure is followed as required.
Since

the

search

was

conducted

without

warrant,

the

prosecution must prove one of the following to legitimize the

search:

(1)

that

there

was

an

emergency

and

the

exigent

circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applied, or

(2)

some

exception

to

both

the

warrant

and

probable

cause

requirements applied.
(1) a showing of probable cause that the area to be searched
contained evidence that a crime has been or is being committed,
[nor]

(2)

an

actual

exigency

that

required

immediate

police

action, such as the risk to life and limb; a fleeing felon; or

risk of the destruction of evidence.

In Mr. Mitchells case, the community caretaker clause doesnt fit. The
caller of 911 had no knowledge of a true emergency there are no
supporting facts other than she saw someone asleep on a dirt road in
their personal conveyance. The Deputy violated the fourth amendment
when he arrived for an emergency and immediately realized that Mr.
Mitchell was not in need of help. At 9:13:02am The dispatch event
detail Reference # 160640338 entry 6K91 COMMENT: CXL FIRE AND MEDICAL
NO MEDICAL ISSUE POSS 10-55 SUBJ IS CONS/ALERT AND BREATHING.
There was clearly no emergency Deputy Wood confirms that there was no
emergency when he immediately upon contact with Mr. Mitchell cancelled
fire and medical.
Deputy Wood disregarded Mr. Mitchell rights by assuming there was
possible dui. Deputy Wood upon arrival of Mr. Mitchell had knowledge
of Mr. Mitchells information thru K9-40 whom had requested dispatch to
run Mr. Mitchells personal plate and enter it into the com center.
Dispatch

is

heard

on

the

911

detail

verifying

that

Mr.

Mitchells

information was entered in the com center per request of K9-40. K9-40

then inquires whether Mr. Mitchells address was in the area of Red
Rock and
Goldstone. Dispatch informs K9-40 that the address is out of Story
County.

Due

community

to

Mr.

caretaking

Mitchells
doctrine

pass
No

record
Dui

Deputy

was

made

Wood
no

abused
tests

the
were

administered to validate his suspicions.

Wright, 959 S.W.2d at 356 ,Wixom,947 P.2d at 1001.. Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58, 59, 87 S.Ct.
788, 790, 17 L.Ed.2d 730 (1967); Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331
(1977); Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 117 S.Ct. 882, 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997).

In the present case, the vehicle in which appellant was a passenger was not
stopped due to any violation of traffic laws or because it was suspected of
having been involved in any criminal activity. Therefore, the automobile
exception to the warrant requirement set forth in the above cases is not
applicable here.
Cady v. Dombrowski, 93 S.Ct. at 2531.

The search at issue in Cady v. Dombrowski was not conducted to uncover evidence of
criminal activity; it was conducted solely to locate and secure Dombroski's service
revolver out of concern that it might fall into the hands of the wrong people. Similarly, in
the present case, the car in which appellant was a passenger was stopped, not because of
any evidence of criminal activity, but out of concern fdr appellant's health. Thus, we must
determine if Deputy Tomlinson acted reasonably when he stopped the vehicle out of
concern for the welfare of appellant when he observed him leaning out the open rear
window and vomiting at 4:00 AM.
The Supreme Court expressly recognized that police officers do much more than
enforce the law, conduct investigations, and gather evidence to be used in
criminal proceedings. Part of their job is to investigate accidents-where
there is often no claim of criminal liability-to direct traffic and to perform
other duties that can be best described as community caretaking functions.
Cady v. Dombrowski, 93 S.Ct., at 2528. As part of his duty to serve and
protect, a police officer may stop and assist an individual whom a reasonable
person-given the totality of the circumstances-would believe is in need of
help. In determining whether a police officer acted reasonably in stopping

an individual to determine if he needs assistance, the following factors5 are

relevant to said determination:

(1) the nature and level of the distress exhibited by the individual;
(2) the location of the individual;
(3) whether or not the individual was alone and/or had access to assistance independent
of that offered by the officer; and
(4) to what extent the individual-if not assisted-presented a danger to himself or others.

(1) Mr. Mitchell was asleep in his pickup and did not
exhibit any sign of distress.
(2) Mr. Mitchell was on a private dirt road that is not
heavily travelled and his vehicle was not askew on public
roadway. In fact; the Deputies locked Mr. Mitchells truck and
left it exactly how Mr. Mitchell parked it.
(3) Mr. Mitchell had a working cell phone and had
independent access other than the officer.
(4) Mr. Mitchell made a conscious decision to remove
himself from the road when he started to feel ill. He made this
decision to prevent any possible dangers to others or himself.
Clearly the community caretaker doctrine does not apply.

The Unlawful Seizure

The Fourth Amendment provides that the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against [both] unreasonable searches and seizures shall not
be violated . . . . Terry v Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968) (quoting U.S. CONST. amend. IV)
(emphasis added). This inestimable right of [ones] personal security belongs as much to the
citizen of the streets of our cities as to the homeowner closeted in his study to dispose of his
secret affairs. Terry, 392 U.S. at 9 (emphasis added). In our case, Mr. Mitchells Fourth
Amendment rights to be secure in his person and in his effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures have been violated according to our Constitution.
Deputy Wood had no reasonable suspicion that any criminal activity was afoot at
the time the seizure occurred. There is no indication that Mr. Mr. Mitchell was intoxicated prior
to unlawful seizure occurring. There is no indication that Mr. Mitchell was going to even receive
a traffic citation. There is no indication whatsoever that Mr. Mr. Mitchell was driving poorly
period. Significant to note, Deputy Wood did not even ask Mr. Mr. Mitchell to submit to any
field sobriety testing. The fact of the matter remains, Deputy Wood had no reasonable suspicion
to order Mr. Mitchell out of his personal conveyance. Therefore, an unlawful seizure occurred.
Accordingly, any evidence against Mr. Mitchell after the initial, unlawful seizure (when he is
accosted by Deputy Wood) should be inadmissible as evidence under the Exclusionary Rule.

The Peoples Response

Although the Prosecution may assert that a knife was open on the defendants floor board
of his personal conveyance should be taken into consideration when evaluating the totality-ofcircumstances it should not. Deputy Wood did not enter knife into evidence, how can the
knife be the basis for the seizure?
Furthermore, even assuming that this Honorable Court allows the alleged watery, blood
shot eyes be given weight when analyzing the totality-of-circumstances, Deputy Woods
testimony on May12, 2016, should dispel any correlation between Mr. Mitchells eyes and any or
suspicion that Deputy Wood may have had. Deputy Wood testified that Mr. Mitchells eyes were
bloodshot and watery Next, Deputy Wood testified during his cross examination, There [was]
no [dui] test administered. Deputy Wood has no evidence to support his claim of Mitchell being
intoxicated.
Community caretaker as argued by the prosecution only exists if there is an actually emergency
and the person is in need of help or a threat to himself or others. There is no evidence of an
emergency in this case therefore community caretaker cannot exist as legal basis that Deputy
Wood was lawfully intruding in Mr. Mitchells right to be secure in his persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against [both] unreasonable searches and
seizures shall not be violated.

the affidavit is so lacking in probable cause to render

official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable; or 4) the
officers reliance on his mere suspicion of a possible dui was
neither in good faith nor objectively reasonable. Id. At *5-*6
(citing Leon, 468 U.S. at 923) (emphasis added). Blacks Law
Dictionary defines reckless as: a gross deviation from what a
reasonable person would do. Blacks Law Dictionary (online) 9th
Edition (2009). A gross deviation from procedural safeguards set
up by the United States Constitution is what exactly what
occurred in this matter. The following facts and circumstances,
when taken into consideration with the totality of-circumstances,
illustrate reckless, or grossly negligent (at the least), conduct
by the Sheriff Deputies involved in this case:

The Unlawful Seizure

The Fourth Amendment provides that the right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against [both] unreasonable searches and seizures shall not

be violated . . . . Terry v Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968)

(quoting U.S. CONST. amend. IV) (emphasis added).

This

inestimable right of [ones] personal security belongs as much to

the citizen of the streets of our cities as to the homeowner
closeted in his study to dispose of his secret affairs.
392 U.S. at 9 (emphasis added).

Terry,

In our case, Mr. Mitchells

Fourth Amendment rights to be secure in his person and in his

effects against unreasonable searches and seizures have been
violated according to our Constitution.
Deputy Wood had no reasonable suspicion that any criminal
activity was afoot at the time the seizure occurred.

There is no

indication that Mr. Mitchell was intoxicated prior to

unlawful seizure occurring.

There is no indication that Mr.

Mitchell was going to even receive a traffic citation.

There is

no indication whatsoever that Mr. Mitchell was driving poorly

period. Significant to note, Deputy Wood did not even ask Mr.
Mitchell to submit to any field Sobriety testing.
The fact of the matter remains, Deputy Wood had no FACTUAL
ARTICULATE REASONABLE SUSPICION LET ALONE PROBABLE CAUSE to order
Mr. Mitchell to exit his conveyance. Therefore, an unlawful
seizure occurred.

Accordingly, any evidence against Mr. Mitchell

after the initial, unlawful seizure (when he is accosted by

Deputy Wood) should Not be admissible as evidence under the
Exclusionary Rule.

The Unlawful Arrest

Deputy Wood had no probable cause to arrest Mr. Mitchell without an
arrest warrant because he did not corroborate any suspicion that he
may even have had triggered by the alleged appearance of Mr. Mitchell
eyes as being watery and bloodshot.

Deputy Wood never witnessed any

indication of bad driving by Mr. Mitchell.

conduct any field-sobriety tests.

Deputy Wood failed to

Although Deputy Wood mistakenly

claims that Mr. Mitchell consented to Deputy Woods demands. Deputy

Wood in court under oath could not articulate Mr. Mitchells alleged
consent, the fact of the matter remains, there was no PBT conducted.
Deputy Wood had no probable cause to lawfully arrest Mr. Mitchell
without an arrest warrant. The question at hand is whether or not
Deputy Wood was on administrative leave at this particular time while
the investigation of the death caused by Deputy Woods of Robert
Hampton 111 on November 14th 2014 was still open and active. Deputy
Walker testified under oath on at the preliminary hearing administered
heard by Judge David Clifton, that Mr. Mitchell didnt appear to be
intoxicated or nor did he smell any odor of alcohol on Mr. Mitchells
person while engaged in conversation with Mr. Mitchell during the
illegal search of Mr. Mitchells conveyance. The prosecutions argues
that the free air sniff by Deputy Woods k-9 was justifiable, the
Deputy collaborated Mr. Mitchells statement that Deputy Wood thru a
tennis ball at Mr. Mitchell conveyance to indicate that his partner
Ronny made a positive hit on Mr. Mitchells truck. Deputy Wood does
not deny throwing an object at the truck, Deputy Wood does in fact
argue that it was a reward toy that he threw not a tennis ball. If

Ronny Deputy Woods partner did in fact make a positive alert why
was the reward toy thrown at Mr. Mitchells truck in the exact spot
where the dog allegedly made a positive alert. Mr. Mitchell had no
personal knowledge of any illicit substance that the K9 handler an
active participant in the Narcotic Interductry task force that
admitted to dispatching himself allegedly found. I find it hard to
believe that throwing the reward toy at the truck instead of to the
dog would be a normal practice.

It is downright disturbing that a

Seasoned Prosecutor such as Katherine Lyon is abusing her authority,

tax payer money and the resources of the judicial system given the
fact and the totality of the circumstances to continue to prosecute
this case lacking any factual hard evidence.

Public Policy Demands Suppression of the Evidence Unconstitutionally Obtained

Ever since its inception, the rule excluding evidence seized in violation of the Fourth
Amendment has been recognized as a principal mode of discouraging lawless police conduct.
Terry, 392 U.S. at 12 (emphasis added). [E]xperience has taught that it is the only effective
deterrent to police misconduct in the criminal context, and that without it the constitutional
guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures would be a mere form of words. Id.
(quoting Mapp v Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961)) (emphasis added). Courts which sit under our
Constitution cannot and will not be made party to lawless invasions of the constitutional rights of
citizens by permitting unhindered governmental use of the fruits of such invasions. Terry, 392
U.S. at 12 (emphasis added). The facts and circumstances of this case do not even by
implication begin to give rise to even a reasonable suspicion, let alone to the higher standard of
probable cause. If the type of police conduct in this case were generally permitted, then

Americans would be subjected to both unlawful searches and unlawful seizures without any
suspicion. The degree of intrusion regarding Mr. Mitchells privacy rights substantially
outweighs any, if existing, governmental interest in invading Mr. Mitchells fundamental
constitutional rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
In sum, if this Honorable Court allows the admission of the unconstitutionally obtained
evidence, or takes into consideration any of the statements made by Mr. Mitchell after his initial,
unlawful seizure coupled with never being Mirandized, then public policy would be outraged. To
tolerate such unconstitutional violations would not only be detrimental to Mr. Mitchell alone, but
also to every American that is protected by the United States Constitution then could be
subjected to unconstitutional violations. WHEREFORE, the Defense moves that this Honorable
Court grant the Defendants Motion to Suppress the Evidence.
Respectfully Submitted:
Steven-Patrick: Mitchell
Sui Juris