GRANTED MOTION TO SUPPRESS!
Marin Callaway and Holst Catsma represented 45-year old father who had lived in the Bay Area all his life. In January 2023, our client took a ride home in the car of a friend. During the ride, armed police officers stopped the vehicle and surrounded it. The driver and client were both ordered to leave the car at gunpoint. Our client was then handcuffed on the ground, prone. Officers carried our client handcuffed and stunned to a patrol car where he underwent a search. Officers found a small methamphetamine bag while emptying his pockets. Our client would only learn later that the license plate of his car had been tagged and reported stolen by an automatic plate reader.
Marin and Holst filed a 1538.5 motion for suppression and argued that the evidence from the search was suppressed because of two separate reasons. They argued, firstly, that our client had been functionally arrested by being handcuffed under threat of violence. This “defacto” arrest was unlawful because the police had no reason for suspecting our client. A mere passenger in an alleged stolen vehicle does not constitute probable cause for arrest on charges of car theft or possession of a stolen automobile. Marin and Holst also argued that the consent of our client was not voluntary, as it was forced. Our client was pressed to consent to a search of his body by officers just moments after he had been handcuffed, lying face-down on the asphalt with guns aimed at his chest and head. Seven different body cameras were used to record the entire terrifying incident.
Holst and Marin both cross-examined officers who were involved in the investigation. Together, they were able to successfully introduce multiple exhibits as well as body camera videos. Marin provided a concise closing argument. The judge cited passages in their brief to hold that our client was forced to comply with the officer’s search request. The motion to suppress the charges was granted because the consent was not voluntary.