Motion to Dismiss Based on Outrageous Government Conduct

Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss for Outrageous Government Conduct to Suppress All Evidence Seized Pursuant to Search Warrants 5192 and 5196 and in the Alternative to Continue the Trial Excerpts: Serving a search warrant this close to trial constitutes outrageous government conduct and an abuse of the search warrant process. The use of a search warrant at all for this purpose was unnecessary. The District Attorney specifically sought the warrants in defiance of the express admonition by the Court. (pg 3) ————— Neither historians nor jurists would find authority for the government to obtain over 100 warrants and invade the client’s home five times in what should be a garden variety case. The idea that the prosecution could once again invade the home of Mr. Jackson on the eve of trial for matter that were properly the subject of noticed motions would offend the authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. (pg 5) ———– However, it is the Court, not Mr. Sneddon, who has the ultimate say as to what constitutes an abuse of the search warrant process. It is the Court, not Mr. Sneddon, who decides when the government has gone too far. It is the Court, not Mr. Sneddon, who decides whether or not the prosecution’s behavior deprives Mr. Jackson of his constitutional rights. Here, the prosecution has gone too far and it has done so after more than fair warning by this Court. (pg 9) ———— Now, on December 3 2004, two months before trial, Mr. Sneddon and the Santa Barbara Sheriff conduct another early morning raid with no purpose other than to shock and intimidate Mr. Jackson and to disorient his legal team. The materials sought were not critical to the prosecution of the case and could just as well be obtained in an orderly fashion by noticed motion. Furthermore, the warrant for the search of Mr. Jackson’s home was issued on November 24 2004, yet the prosecution chose to wait until December 3 2004 to execute it. This date was not coincidentally the last business day before the discovery deadline defense counsel was required to provide its discovery and witness list. The prosecution well knew it would be an extremely busy time for the defense. They also knew this would be an optimal time to shock and demoralize Mr. Jackson and his family. (pg 6) ——————– Here the District Attorney has gone too far. Michael Jackson is entitled to no more, but also no less, protection than anyone else in this country. The execution of over 100 warrants in this case is an abuse of the warrant process under the Fourth Amendment. The execution of multiple warrants to invade Mr. Jackson’s home without exigent circumstances and where other means were available exacerbates that abuse. (pg 7) ——— The search warrants were executed the Friday, December 3 2004, before the Monday, December 6 2004, reciprocal discovery deadline. It could only have been calculated to upset the defense effort to meet this difficult deadline and to force the defense to request that the Court continue a trial date. Furthermore, Search Warrant ______ was issued on November 24 2004, and Search Warrant ____ was issued on November 30 2004. The District Attorney and law enforcement held off on seeking the warrants, and further delayed executing the searches, until the last possible moment before the discovery cutoff. (pg 7) ——————— The District Attorney has presented the defense with more than 15,000 pages of discovery in the last two months. These materials include a large volume of ___________ and documents related to the [redacted info]. Much of this material is not new and could have been provided to defense counsel months ago. (pg 7) ——————– The Court, at the hearing held on September 16 2004, expressed its concern that the ongoing issuance of search warrants would result in the “dumping of huge quantities of material” on the defense at the last minute as we approach trial. This is precisely what has occurred. (pg 7-8) —————- The Court has noted that its view on the issuance of search warrant affidavits is that it is to make a finding of probable cause, not to review the number or the timing of the search warrants. It is now appropriate, however, for the Court to consider the number and timing of the search warrant particularly in light of the trial date. At the hearing on October 14 2004, the Court warned the District Attorney that, “…the investigation has to stop somewhere,” and that, “…at some point we need to stop gathering and start organizing and be ready for trial.” … The District Attorney has clearly ignored the Court’s warnings and the objections of the defense. It is now up to the Court to remedy the problem. (pg 8) ————- The Court is obligated to assure that a person facing criminal charges is provided a fair trial, due process of law, the right to have the effective assistance of counsel, the right to equal protection and the right to privileges and immunities under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Sections 1, 7, 15 and 16 of the California Constitution. Here, the actions of the government have interfered with those rights. The defendant has a limited right to use the cumbersome subpoena process to gather information. This is no match for the government’s power when armed with a search warrant. However, when the search warrant becomes a sword rather than a legitimate tool to obtain evidence, that awesome power of the state becomes a weapon to shock and intimidate a defendant into submission. When used at this late stage in the proceedings, it also has a deleterious effect on the ability [of] counsel for Mr. Jackson to prepare for trial and to render effective assistance. Once again, Mr. Jackson is entitled to equal protection and to the same privileged and immunities as anyone else in the country. (pg 8) DOWNLOAD :navMotion to Dismissed Based on Outrageous Government Conduct