Appellant Name: Rowin Lawson
Appellant Attorney(s): Rowin Lawson
Appellant Attorney(s): Rowin Lawson
Trial Docket Number: #23-CM-0111
Presiding Trial Judge: Judge Bret Hyland
Notice of Appeal Filed: MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL
Presiding Trial Judge: Judge Bret Hyland
Notice of Appeal Filed: MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL
- [X] Before Verdict
[ ] After Verdict
Reason for Notice of Appeal:
- [X] Motion to be overturned
[ ] Errors in the trials procedure
[ ] Errors in the judge's interpretation of the law
[ ] New evidence proving appellants innocence
- The defense argued a search was conducted without appropriate consent from Mr. Reyes, saying it lacked the requisite procedural steps to ensure compliance with constitutional protections against The Fourth Amendment which safeguards individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures and mandates that warrants be issued based on probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.
The reason for this appeal is that consent was given by Mr. Reyes. In Exhibit #2: Detective Coral Lafleur's Witness Statement, the following can be found.
Specifically noting the last sentence, "Kevin Reyes removes his pants at his own free will and when asked to put them back on, he refused". Removing his pants when asked to remove a different article of clothing should be attributed as compliance with the request. The removal of pants rather than a shirt could've been a misunderstanding by Mr. Reyes as we do not know his motive or thoughts in this situation. When asked to put his pants back on, Mr. Reyes refused to redress himself which displays further intent on remaining disrobed in front of law enforcement which could be seen as continued compliance. We have no evidence of Mr. Reyes verbally refusing the search, only that of his attorney at the time Jacob Schmidtt but the actions of a defendant speak louder than the words of an attorney."Due to the obstruction of the investigation that was shown by Jacob Schmidtt, Detectives used their totality of circumstances, with the evidence shown within the arrest report, bodycam and known knowledge about Kevin Reyes to determine there was more than enough probable cause to see Kevin Reyes tattoos to either gain the final piece of evidence, or to prove Kevin innocent. Kevin Reyes and Jacob Schmidtt were told the plan of which to remove Kevin Reyes from the area to a more private location so he can remove his shirt to see if said tattoos matches the individual in the bodycam footage saved, to which Kevin stated he did not want to leave that corridor we were within which was his own want of the situation.
As law enforcement detectives attempted to remove Kevin Reyes shirt as a lawful order due to probable cause given, Jacob Schmidtt began to interfere, refusing to remove out of the way of law enforcement, raising his voice and completely obstructing the justice of which officers were acting from their own internal policies to perform this act. It was mentioned multiple times that the 4th amendment was being broken, however as stated "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." There was reasonable probably cause against Kevin Reyes to have his shirt removed and tattoos to be seen, Kevin Reyes removes his pants at his own free will, and when asked to put them back on, he refused."
By the conclusion of all of the above, the prosecution urges the court to reconsider its decision to grant the Motion to Suppress in light of the consent originally given by Mr. Reyes through his actions as it still shows compliance with the request to disrobe.
