Additional Motions
Motion for Probable Cause Hearing and Suppression of Evidence Based on Fourth Amendment Violations
Consistent with arguments presented in State v. Cockburn regarding similar circumstances, the defense will move for an evidentiary hearing to review the probable cause underlying the search and seizure in this matter. We will further argue that the evidence obtained should be suppressed due to violations of Mr. Chill's Fourth Amendment rights.
Items we would like to bring to the attention of the court:
Challenge to Exigency and the Initial Search Warrant: The initial search warrant targeted firearms specifically owned by Mr. Chill. A firearm lacking a serial number was discovered on Mr. Chill's person during his arrest, this weapon was not registered to him. This fact significantly undermines the asserted exigency for the raid and casts serious doubt on the likelihood that Mr. Chill possessed firearms connected to his name within the premises. This discrepancy should be given substantial weight in evaluating the validity of the exigency finding.
Fourth Amendment Violation - Unlawful Search of Private Property: The Fourth Amendment safeguards individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures in areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. While common areas in apartment buildings may generally have a lower expectation of privacy than a private dwelling, they are not entirely devoid of Fourth Amendment protection, particularly within the context of private property. Eclipse Towers, owned entirely by Dynasty 8, constitutes private property. Unlike the publicly accessible hotel at the mall, the elevators within Eclipse Towers serve primarily the residents, with access remaining open to facilitate property sales – a temporary condition that does not negate the building's private nature. At the time of the incident, all properties on the 8th floor were owned by Mr. Chill, indicating a high degree of possessory interest and expectation of privacy in that specific area.
Trespass and Revocation of Implied License: While an Officer like Elmer Quirk might possess an implied license to enter common areas for specific, legitimate purposes, this license is unequivocally revoked when their actual purpose contravenes the intended use of the area or infringes upon the residents' privacy. We accept that police officer's have a limited right to approach a private residence to knock – a right that does not extend to unwarranted intrusion or surveillance which were Elmer Quirk's actions. These actions exceeded the scope of any implied license and constituted a trespass. The principles articulated in Florida v. Jardines and United States v. Carloss, support the argument that unauthorised and intrusive presence on private property, beyond the scope of a legitimate purpose, violates the Fourth Amendment.
