Well, I bet it is complicated since it was illegal & unjust whatever it was & it was 4 cop cars that came in front of us from 2 different directions & for no reason at all. They even drew pistols & they told me they just wanted to talk to him & pulled him off in a different direction than me. I need to find out what happened because as soon as they done speaking to him is when they tried hard to scare me into saying I witnessed seeing him with something. Now, that would make a complicated case because it itself had no probable cause & something is not right here niether & thats why I put in the motions I did. Because from what I understand the D.A. is not supposed to prosecute a case with no probable cause. And with my motions then there is no doubt about it they know there was none.
So now they set it for trial & that court hearing nobody even seen & we know nothing about it. We have called the lawyer many times & there no responce back.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CF-2018-4243
) Judge Kendra Coleman )
RICHARD URRUTIA. )
)
Defendant. )
Motion to Suppress Evidence obtained against 4th amendment rights and dismiss charge of Count 2.
I, Richard Urrutia jr., come before the courts with the motion to suppress all evidence obtained during an illegal search and against my 4th amendment rights and to dismiss count 2. (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.)
Summary and Overview
On Sept. 2nd, 2018 an officer got a call from a man stating that he was the brother of someone who's truck had been stolen the day before. That he has spotted his brother's truck, and has been following it. That it has pulled into a small shopping center off SE 44th & High ave. in Oklahoma city.
By then the truck owner arrives at this location; as well as the officer on the call. The brother of truck owner then informs the officer he seen the guy get out and walk into the store across the complex, and he was a mexican man who was wearing a white shirt. The officer departs and walks over to the store leaving the witness and the truck owner behind.
Findings to support illegal detainment with lack of probable cause and suspension
Witnesses say that as soon the officer entered the store and seen Richard Urrutia standing right inside the doors that the officer called him out by his real name. That he had asked Richard what truck he was driving and the witnesses stated that Richard replied to the officer and then began to walk away. And at that time the officer threatened to tackle the defendant and they said Richard froze; whereas then the officer cuffed the defendant and searched the defendant before they ever left the counter.
It requires that officers have an objectively reasonable basis for suspecting criminal activity before detaining someone. In addition, before conducting a pat-down, officers must reasonably suspect that a subject is armed and dangerous. Officers can, however, ask people to stop and answer questions without reasonable suspicion.
One does not have probable cause unless he has information of facts which, if submitted to a magistrate, would require issuance of an arrest warrant. Mere suspicion is not enough. Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957).
An arrest is not justified if the person arresting acts only at the request of a third person who himself has only a mere suspicion of guilt of the arrestee, and does not have probable cause.1 Whitely v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971). 5 Am.Jur.2d, Arrest, § 45. The officers' "good faith is not enough to constitute probable cause. That faith must be grounded on facts . . . which in the judgment of the court would make his faith reasonable." Welch v. State, 30 Okl.Cr. 330, 236 P. 68, 70 (1925
Probable cause- It is also the standard by which grand juries issue criminal indictments. Enough proof that if you introduced it to a magistrate it would be enough for a search warrent to be issued.
The officer escorted Richard out to the squad car while he spoke to the truck owner and according to the truck owner he stated to me that he had told the officer that he had not wanted to file charges on Richard because he believed he had not known nothing about the truck and he also told me what Richard said to him as the officer was escorting him out. And he told me that he believed him.
In the United States, the exclusionary rule is a legal rule, based on constitutional law, that prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law.
The fact that afterwards contraband was discovered is not enough. An arrest is not justified by what the subsequent search discloses . . ." 361 U.S. at 103, 80 S.Ct. at 171.
¶6 Since the officers had observed no incriminating actions, and standing there in line at the registar as being outwardly innocent, the only basis for arrest was the informant's undisclosed report which was insufficient to establish probable cause. The details of the report concerning defendant and "the manner in which he was implicated remain unexplained and undefined. The rumor about him is therefore practically meaningless." 361 U.S. at 103, 80 S.Ct. at 171.
Even if probable cause had been provided by the informant, no exigent circumstances or compelling reasons existed. It is the rule that "no amount of probable cause can justify a warrantless search or seizure absent `exigent circumstances.'" Collidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).
Mere information from a third party, however, reliable, that a felony is being committed, without an effort to check its accuracy by personal observation, where discovery is anticipated, would of itself be insufficient to authorize either issuance of a warrant or a search without a warrant."
Taken into consideration that according to the cashier standing at the registar that day and the witness I spoke to who was standing directly behind Richard Urrutia in line, then the officer had automatically decided Richard had quilt before ever establoshing probable cause that efficent enough by the courts for his arrest that day. The officer searched him without probable cause and inside the store before taking Richard out and even discovering any facts from the actual truck owner and not soley his brother's word before he continued. During this search I was told the items were established according to the cashier who stated that then the officers had asked him if Richard had used cash or a credit card and he had replied that Richard never had a chance to pay for anything yet.
Taken into mind that probable cause was not found before or after the search making Count 2 invalid then I request the courts to suppress that evidence and dismiss this case.
Thanks, Richard Urrutia jr.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CF-2018-4243
) Judge Kendra Coleman )
RICHARD URRUTIA. )
)
Defendant. )
MOTION TO REDUCE CHARGES
On September 2nd the defendant Richard Urrutia was unknowingly approached and searched; and in his pocket was a single bag of narcotics with no other paraphernalia found, no scales, no extra baggies, no other types of narcotics. Nor does the defendant have any type of history of that kind and the defendant states that he was charged with Trafficking on that day of September 2nd solely because the weight of that bag barely touched the minimum grams needed in order for it to be filed as Trafficking if someone chose to do it that way. And the defendant chooses to file a motion in order to correct the charge to something it better implies.
SUPPORTING FACTS
At his arrest the defendant was at his local convenience store and not trying to sell, nor distribute, nor was he traveling or trying to conceal, or hide anything and especially not Trafficking or traveling outside of his own area. There are no supportive facts than show any other besides a simple possession and all facts show this is likely what it was. The defendant had no other narcotics present, nor did he have scales or other bags available, and the contents were in one single bag and no other paraphernalia was near. The defendant was not selling anything, nor did it appear he was, and there were no items used for manufacturing near him or on him.
The defendant has no criminal history towards previous charges of Trafficking, or towards intent to distribute, and all he has as a subsequent offence is the prior possession charge going back to the year 2012 and making that almost 8 years ago. The defendant has no recent cases established since and that case and it was closed in 2013.
The defendant swears all he has is a habit and the reason he had 24 grams in his pocket at the time was solely because he was maintaining a full time job and had another part time job he did on the side prior to being stopped that exact day of September 2nd,2018; and therefore was unable to go out each day in order to maintain his habit and so he purchased enough to get through the week.
The contents of that bag of norcartics according to records show it at 24.75 grams which is consistent with the amount likely used on a weekly basis and the defendant had no other narcotics, no other baggies which made the narcotics totaled up together, nor any scales in his pocket at the time. The defendant solely had one bag and nothing else which appeared to be nothing but an addiction problem, and a possession of narcotics used only for personal use, which weight of bag still did not even count for an ounce which is still under the rational amount for possession . Therefore it is most likely the defendant did indeed plan on using those narcotics for personal use only.
SUMMARY
Taking into consideration that the defendant was found with what seemed to be only a possession then we are petitioning the courts to lower the charge of Trafficking to a lesser charge of possession.
Signed by defendant
Richard Urrutia jr.
This 25th day of June 2019
