{"id":4256,"date":"2010-06-05T07:37:50","date_gmt":"2010-06-05T07:31:04","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-06-05T07:31:04","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4256","title":{"rendered":"DE: Conclusory motion to suppress denied without a response required"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A motion to suppress with no facts, no law, and only a conclusion is denied without a hearing or even a response from the state. <a href=\"http:\/\/courts.delaware.gov\/opinions\/%281irv5o45bey1uzz5hlkcmvqo%29\/download.aspx?ID=138510\">State v. Small<\/a>, 2010 Del. Super. LEXIS 221 (May 27, 2010):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The Court is in receipt of Defendant&#8217;s motion to suppress evidence filed on May 14, 2010, which reads in its entirety:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><center>MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE<\/center><\/p>\n<p>COMES NOW the defendant, above, by and through counsel, Joe Hurley, who moves to suppress all evidence found as a result of the defendant&#8217;s vehicle, and in support of such application, maintains that the defendant did not give consent to search his vehicle and, therefore, the putative consent cannot form the basis of validating the otherwise unlawful search of his vehicle.<\/p>\n<p>WHEREFORE, the defendant moves to suppress the evidence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>\u201cHere, Defendant was walking down a public street when he stated, \u2018What? Do you want to jump out on me? I&#8217;m 29 negative, I&#8217;m clean. Pat me down. Search me.\u2019 Defendant invited the Officers to pat him down. While perhaps unwise, the consent was explicit and completely voluntary. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that Defendant freely and unequivocally consented to the search.  &#8230; Here, Defendant consented to the search before the encounter rose to the level of a \u2018stop.\u2019\u201d If no consent, outcome would have been different. <a href=\"http:\/\/courts.delaware.gov\/opinions\/%281irv5o45bey1uzz5hlkcmvqo%29\/download.aspx?ID=121340\">State v. Watson<\/a>, 2009 Del. Super. LEXIS 518 (May 1, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4256\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4256","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4256","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4256"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4256\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4256"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4256"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4256"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}