SCOTT ROESTENBURG

Robert L Booker, Bar #5667

Barbara A.Barton, Bar #8045
BOOKER AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
New England Plaza, Suite 550
349 South Second East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone: (801) 521-3044
Telecopier: (801) 521-0664

IN AND FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF UTAH, SANDY DIVISION

State of Utah
Plaintiff,
Vs
Michael Cordova
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

DEFENDANTS MOTION AND

SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM TO
SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

Case No. 001400270

Judge: Lindberg

Michael Cordova, as defendant, by and through the direction

of Robert L. Booker and Barbara A. Barton from Booker and
Associates, P.C., hereby submits this Motion and Supporting
Memorandum to Suppress Evidence.
Defendant respectfully requests to the court to review
defendants motion to suppress all evidence from the July fourth
2014 search and seizure at his residence with fair and equitable
consideration. Defendants motion is made pursuant to Rule 121(d) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. Requested motion is
based upon and further supported by the following Memorandum.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS

SUMMARY OF FACTS
#1 On June 4th, 2014, officers were dispatched to 1776
declaration way to respond to a report of a loud party.
#2 Absence of a response from the front door, officers
proceeded to the back yard where the odor of marijuana was
perceived.
#3 Officers noticed through the window of the residence,
four adults seated in the assumed kitchen.
#4 One of the adults was later identified as Marvin Jones.
#5 Officers witnessed through the window a verbal
altercation between one of the adults and Jones stemming from
Jones poking others chest with his finger.
#6 The officer, after witnessing an altercation between
Jones and one of the adults, entered the residence, prompting
three of the adults to run.
#7 During this event, Mr. Jones attempted to destroy the
marijuana by stuffing it down the disposal.
#8 Officers, after pursuing one of the individuals, discover
a marijuana growing operation in basement of residence.
#9 Marvin Jones was subsequently arrested for Possession of
a controlled substance with intent to distribute.

Argument
1. Defendant has standing to challenge the evidence seized
under unlawful pretenses after the unlawful entry into his
residence. Standing consists of but not limited to the unlawful
gathering of evidence and therefore invites the court to suppress

all evidence obtained in the unreasonable search and seizure of

his home without a warrant.
It is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that
searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are
presumptively unreasonable. Brigham City V. Stuart 547 U.S. 398,
403 (2006). (citing Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551,559 (2004)).
Because the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is
reasonableness, the warrant requirement is subject to certain
exceptions, such as when the exigencies of a situation make the
needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless
search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Id.
In the instant case, there was no sufficiently exigent
circumstance to justify the officers warrantless entry into and
search of Mr. Jones home.
One exigency that is required is the need to assist persons
who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury. The
need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is
justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an
exigency or emergency.

Wayne v. United States, 318 F. 2d

205,212 (CADC 1963) (Burger, J.)) Accordingly, law enforcement

officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency
assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from
imminent injury.
However, we challenge that the exigency did not exist when
officers entered Mr. Jones residence and simply was fueled or
motivated by the desire to initiate arrests rather than quelling
violence.

2.

The altercation between Mr. Jones and his guest was nowhere

near a level that constituted an immediate entrance by officers.

The fact that there was a mild altercation between Mr.
Cordova and his quest simply does justify the illegal entrance to
Mr. Cordovas home by officers and certainly not the subsequent
search of the residence. The finger poking along with the verbal
resistance was not terroristic in any manner and did not portray
any type of life threatening dialog, or did they portray any
probability of serious injury. It was simply a low level
argument.
3. The grow room was discovered through the opening of the door
to Mr. Jones residence during unreasonable search and seizure.
Because the grow room was discovered only by the pursuit of
the other house quests, we also add the evidence to the
defendants motion to suppress.
It has been held that law enforcement officers may make a
warrantless entry onto private property to fight a fire and
investigate its cause, Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499,509
(1978), to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, Ker v.
California, 374 U.S. 23,40 (1963), or to engage in hot pursuit of
a fleeing suspect. United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38,42,43
(1976).
However, the officers warrantless and unreasonable entrance
was initiated before the houseguests began to flee, therefore
rendering any and all evidence seized or discovered after said
entrance inadmissable.

Conclusion
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests a hearing on this
Motion to suppress the evidence from the search of his home.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this _______ day of July 2014.

BOOKER & ASSOCIATES

_____________________
Robert L. Booker
Barbara A. Barton
Attorneys for Marvin Jones