Money and property that were confiscated during an arrest.

Question

This answer was rated:

★★★★★

Money and property that were confiscated during an arrest.

Money and property that...

Money and property that were confiscated during an arrest. ARS.13-120. Disposition of property taken from defendant; receiptsA. When money or other property is taken from a defendant arrested upon a charge of a crime or public offense, the officer taking it shall at the time make duplicate receipts therefor, specifying particularly the amount of money or the kind of property taken. The officer shall deliver one receipt to the defendant and shall file the other forthwith with the magistrate or clerk of the court to which the officer makes the return of arrest.B. When such money or property is taken by a police officer of an incorporated city or town, he shall deliver one receipt to the defendant and the other, with the property, forthwith to the clerk or other person in charge of the police office in the city or town. If the arresting officer or any other officer of the arresting agency. fail to make a receipt for confiscated property and or money which would be in violation of ARS. 13-120 is that sufficient reason to file a motion to suppress the evidence or can an officer take the stand and testify under oath that to which he had found but confiscated illegally

Lawyer's Assistant: What was he charged with exactly? Are there any upcoming court dates?

Miss Conduct With Weapons; Possession of dangerous Drugs; Possession of Drug Paraphernalia Yes there are upcoming court dates

Lawyer's Assistant: In what state did the possession of paraphernalia occur?

All charges were in Arizona

Lawyer's Assistant: Anything else you want the Lawyer to know before I connect you?

The defendant was the party who called the police because another party brought said weapon into his home and fired 2 rounds into the defendants computer. The party who fired the weapon had written text and verbally spoken about hearing voices commanding him to shoot and kill the defendant and defendants roommate who was present at the time of the incident but wasn't charged with any crime. the party who fired the weapon was charged with Miss Conduct with weapons but those charges were later declined by the prosecutor it was later made known to the defendant that the party who fired the weapon into the computer did so because of embarrassing pictures he had taken of himself and left them on the defendants computer and firing bullets into it was his attempt to destroy these pictures

Show Less

Ask Your Own Criminal Law Question

Customer reply replied 3 months ago

left out that defendant is a prohibited possessor

Answered in 1 hour by:

10/5/2019

Criminal Lawyer: James Daloisio,

replied 3 months ago

James Daloisio

Category: Criminal Law

Satisfied Customers: 4,173

Experience: Deputy District Attorney at Santa Barbara County District Attorney

Verified

Hi, my name is ***** ***** welcome to Just Answer.

No, a suppression motion is based upon the illegal seizure of property. Failing to provide a receipt as required by the statute has no bearing on the legality of the seizure. It is a statutory requirement, not a Constitutional violation under the 4th Amendment.

I do not see how they charged the defendant with Misconduct with Weapons. I don't know the facts of this case but from what you've posted the defendant certainly did not possess any weapons. Or perhaps he did, in his effort to disarm the attacker. That is not a basis for a misconduct charge.

But no, you do not have grounds for a suppression motion. Not knowing more about this incident I couldn't really give you any more specific information. However, it sounds like the police arrived, invited by the defendant, to investigate someone in the defendant's home with a firearm who'd shot the computer. The police are, therefore, legally on the scene, inside the house.

At that point, if they see anything in plain view that gives them probable cause to believe that what they see is something that is illegal to possess, they may seize it without a warrant.
If they investigate the original call and wind up arresting the defendant, that does not give them the right to search the home. It's one thing if the drugs and paraphernalia were in plain view; it's quite another if they searched for it. They had to get a warrant. The only "searching" the police are authorized to conduct when the make an arrest is the area within the defendant's immediate control, to safeguard against the destruction of evidence or the availability of weapons.

Let me know if this has answered your question. Please don't forget to rate this answer by clicking on those green stars at the top of your screen. Otherwise the site doesn't give me credit for answering. You may always return with follow up questions if you need more information. Thank you.

James Daloisio

Category: Criminal Law

Satisfied Customers: 4,173

Experience: Deputy District Attorney at Santa Barbara County District Attorney

Verified

James Daloisio and 87 other Criminal Law Specialists are ready to help you

Ask your own question now

Customer reply replied 3 months ago

if part of the evidence was in plain view and part of it was found by conducting a search without a search warrant is that a violation of defendants rights and grounds for a motion to suppress all of the evidence or just the evidence found without a search warrant. The suspect fled the scene and took the defendants vehicle without defendants permission in other words he stole the vehicle. The suspect then returned with the vehicle and the weapon which he had inside the vehicle after the police arrived on the scene.the weapon he shot inside the home was found in the defendants vehicle. the other weapons were found in the home after a search was conducted the drug paraphernalia was seen in plain view the police officer who searched the defendant did so after knowing the scene was secure and the search is what led to the arrest not as how the police said it happened. the police claim they arrested the defendant and then did a weapons search and somewhere after all of this a second look inside the defendants wallet the drugs were found . Can the police search the defendant before they arrested him and if the house was secured then why can they search the defendant and can the defendants roommate who witnessed the events and the chronological order in which they occured testify as to the accuracy of the police report also the defendants friend was on the telephone speaking to one of the officers and could hear the chronological order in which the events occurred also testify as to the accuracy of the police report.

Customer reply replied 3 months ago

the defendant is a prohibited possessor he never touched any of the weapons the weapons hes being charged with were found as a result of a search after discovering he was a prohibited possessor the weapons were found in the closet of a room that has a bed in it and the suspect and roomate called it the defendants bedroom the home is a four bedroom home and all the bedrooms have beds the defendant and his roommate are the only two people living in the home and the roommate sleeps on the couch in the family room the defendant can only sleep in one bedroom at a time all four bedrooms are part of his house therefore all rooms with beds in them are his bedroom and therefore under his direct control therefore he has control of the weapons found in one of the closets of one of the bedrooms in a four bedroom house which he is not the owner but does pay the mortgage after his mother passed away but the house has not been put in his name thats how they charged him with possession of a deadly weapon

Customer reply replied 3 months ago

finally does the defendant have any justification defense if he believed he was about to die because of the written and verbalization of threats to shoot the defendant prior to this incident?

Customer reply replied 3 months ago

THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ON PROBATION OR PAROLE. YES THERE WAS ONLY ONE VEHICLE INVOLVED THE DEFENDANTS THE SUSPECT FLED IN DEFENDANTS VEHICLE WHILE THE DEFENDANT WAS OUTSIDE WITH THE FIRST ARRIVING OFFICER THE SUSPECT RETURNED WITH THE VEHICLE AND THE WEAPON HE USED INSIDE THE VEHICLE THE SUSPECT WAS DETAINED AND LATER ARRESTED THE WEAPON HE USED WAS TAKEN FROM THE VEHICLE AND AT THAT POINT THE SCENE I BELIEVE WAS CALLED SECURED A SERGEANT ON HIS WAY TO THE SCENE TELEPHONED HIS DEPUTY'S AND RECEIVED THIS INFORMATION ON HIS WAY TO THE SCENE THE DEFENDANT CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE SUSPECT ARE WHAT CAUSED THE DEPUTY'S TO RETURN BACK INTO THE HOUSE TOGETHER WITH THE DRUG PARAPHERNALIA PROVOKED THEM TO START A NEGOTIATION WITH THE DEFENDANT TO OBTAIN CONSENT FROM THE DEFENDANT TO FURTHER SEARCH THE HOME THE DEFENDANT WAS THREATENED BY THE POLICE IF CONSENT WAS NOT GIVEN THEY WOULD OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT AND IN THE PROCESS OF SEARCHING PROMISED THE DEFENDANT THAT THEY WOULD COMPLETELY DETROY THE ENTIRE HOME RENDERING IT WORTHLESS WHILE IF THE DEFENDANT DID CONSENT TO THE SEARCH THE HOME WOULD REMAIN INTACT AND THE DEFENDANT WOULD NOT BE TAKEN TO JAIL DESPITE WHAT THE POLICE WROTE IN THEIR REPORT THE DEFENDANT NEVER GAVE CONSENT TO SEARCH THE HOUSE OR HIS PERSONAL SELF IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE DEFENDANT REFUSED TO GIVE THE DEPUTY'S THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE THEY BECAME ANGRY AND ASKED DEFENDANT WHAT WAS IN HIS POCKETS WHEN THE DEFENDANT WENT TO COOPERATE WITH THIER REQUEST BY SHOWING THE DEPUTIES THE CONTENTS OF HIS POCKETS THATS WHEN THEY COMMANDED HIM TO STOP AND HE DID STOP THEN THE DEPUTIES CONDUCTED THIER OWN SEARCH OF THE DEFENDANTS POCKETS. AND WHEN THEY PULLED OUT A JAR THAT WAS LABLED FOR PRESCRIPTION MARIJUANA BUT WAS COMPLETELY EMPTY THATS WHEN THEY PLACED THE DEFENDANT UNDER ARREST

Customer reply replied 3 months ago

It should be noted the version the police wrote in their report differs with regards ***** ***** chronological order of the search of the defendants pockets and wallet and his arrest they wrote they arrested the defendant and then searched him as incident to the arrest however that is not how it happened they searched the defendant and the arrested him as incident to the search thus my question as to if the roommate who witnessed the chain of events and the friend on the telephone who could hear the order in which the event occured testify to the true order of events. thats if the order makes any difference with regards ***** ***** defendants rights

Customer reply replied 3 months ago

another notation in this case is if the deputies had truly done there job they should have collected the shell casings and the computer that had two bullet holes in it as evidence if they were going to make a case against the suspect. they did not take the computer with the bullet holes as evidence nor did they investigate the defendants complaint any further. the suspect told them a couple of lies about the defendant. and the suspect was later released from custody and the prosecutor declined to prosecute the suspect. one further notation the suspect told the defendant while in lockup together the reason he shot the computer was because it contained embarrassing pictures of him and he wanted them destroyed

Customer reply replied 3 months ago

a justification defence

Customer reply replied 3 months ago

can the roommate also take the stand and testify to what he saw and heard and can the friend who heard this over the phone testify as to what she heard in support of this motionmiss conduct with weapons possession of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia

Customer reply replied 3 months ago

they found two guns in the closet what right did they have searching the closet for these guns if they had deemed the house secure and already had in their possessio.n the weapon and shooter that gave cause for the defendants original complaint

Customer reply replied 3 months ago

thank you so much for speaking with me and helping me sort out these questions that I have had. You have given me a lot of information to digest and consider and I am extremely grateful for that I'm sure I will have a question or two left still to ask so the ability to reply to the answers you receive is truly a tremendous option to include

Customer reply replied 1 month ago

how does one go about impeaching the testimony of the police what they wrote in their report is inaccurate there was one other person who witnessed the police's actions and knows what was written in their report is inaccurate and one person who overheard what was taking place she may not be able to identify specific names but she can identify in what order she heard certain events occur for example if you hear the police ask you wha is in your pockets and ask you to take your hands out of your pockets so they can search them she can hear my voice protesting their search then she hears ok your under arrest and the police wrote in their report they placed the defendant under arrest and then conducted a search of the defendant for weapons and thats how they found the drugs. furthermore the officer who did the search already knew the scene was secure I was already checked for weapons the report is filled with inaccuraciesalso is it standard practice for the prosecution to withdraw their plea offer if you choose to challenge the actions of the police by filing a motion to suppress and if so how do you protect your right without being penalized for doing so.

Customer reply replied 1 month ago

The defendant has been diligent in trying to secure the services of a good attorney as well as one that will work with him on his very limited income. He was given 60 days to find a private attorney and couldn't find one that could work with his terms so he dismissed the public defender and was assigned another attorney who turned out to be even less helpful then the first so he asked for another continu.action and now he has to go back and ask once again for another attorney because the one he has now doesn't we ant to file the motion so I certainly can't trust him to do the work needed to win on the suppression motion so what can he ask the Judge to gain the time he needs to find an attorney that will work with him

Was this answer helpful?

Yes

No

How JustAnswer works

Describe your issueThe assistant will guide you

Chat 1:1 with a criminal lawyerLicensed Experts are available 24/7

100% satisfaction guaranteeGet all the answers you need

Criminal Lawyer: James Daloisio, replied 3 months ago · Answer 1

First: Was the defendant on probation or parole at the time? Need to know that.

Second: It sounds like you are saying the the shooter took the firearm he used, and put it inside the defendant's vehicle. I suppose the police didn't have the brains to preserve it for DNA or fingerprints. There are a lot of questions here:

I don't understand your comment about the suspect fleeing the scene in the defendant's vehicle, then returning, the weapon he used was found in the defendant's vehicle. I think you mean that there was only one vehicle involved here, the defendant's, and the suspect just left the gun inside of it. That would give the police enough justification to look in the vehicle for the weapon.
Once they find the weapon and decide to arrest the defendant, there is no longer any justification to search the residence. They are allowed to search the contents of his wallet when he is arrested assuming it's on him. The legal issue is whether they have the right to search the home without a warrant because the charge involved a firearm seized from his vehicle. If only the defendant was being removed from the residence, and others were staying behind, then I'd say they were probably justified in doing a protective sweep for weapons. The gun in the closet was probably legally seized; but I also think it's close enough to make a suppression motion.
When they find paraphernalia in plain view under circumstances where they are present for another reason, they can seize the paraphernalia, secure the premises, and get a warrant. There has to be a clear cut exception to the warrant requirement. Plain view is one. But once you have probable cause to believe more drugs or paraphernalia may be present, that's not an exception to the warrant requirement. That just gives you the information necessary to GET the warrant.
Just because you are a "prohibited possessor" doesn't mean you can't defend yourself by disarming an opponent.

Criminal Lawyer: James Daloisio, replied 3 months ago · Answer 2

well...

He needs a good lawyer. The police do that a lot. They tell you hey, just consent cause we'll just go get a warrant....

That's ok. Because it's true, if they have probable cause. But in his case, I doubt that they did. The rest of the stuff about trashing the house, etc., constitutes coercion and negates the consent. That's a bad, bad search. And he should make a motion to suppress, and take the stand, and tell that whole story in excruciating detail.

And I didn't think there were any people left on the planet that are still dumb enough to think that putting a couple of bullet holes in a computer could remove its memory. Whatever was on there, is still on there. His lawyer should take that computer and safeguard it before it disappears. If he can get the hard drive imaged and find those pictures, it would corroborate his defense.

Criminal Lawyer: James Daloisio, replied 3 months ago · Answer 3

Justification for what? What is he charged with?

Criminal Lawyer: James Daloisio, replied 3 months ago · Answer 4

You mentioned a gun in a closet. That's a problem.

The drugs and paraphernalia aren't really defensible; you have to deal with the 4th Amendment issues to try and get rid of those.

Criminal Lawyer: James Daloisio, replied 3 months ago · Answer 5

I wasn't there so I can't tell you whether that closet search was legal. There are many possibilities. For example: if those weapons were purchased by a resident of the household, it's just a phone call for the cops to find the sales information and figure out that there's probably guns in the house. That would have provided probable cause for the search but they'd have still needed a warrant. I do not see any exigency there.

Someone could have simply stated yes there's a couple of guns in the closet, not understanding that "possession" is satisfied despite the guns not belonging to the prohibited possessor.

And I don't know what the police said. Sometimes their reports sound like they were on a different planet....

Criminal Lawyer: James Daloisio, replied 1 month ago · Answer 6

1. Impeachment. When a witness testifies, and they make a statement that conflicts with your evidence, then on cross examination you ask them: "Isn't it true that you searched inside of the defendant's pockets without probable cause before you arrested the defendant?" And then you would testify that that's what happened, and call your witness to corroborate your testimony.

2. The prosecution usually makes an offer based on the proceedings as they exist at the moment the offer is made. If you want to litigate some aspect of the case, offers made prior to that event are usually withdrawn.

Criminal Lawyer: James Daloisio, replied 1 month ago · Answer 7

I don't know the facts of your case. So I can't tell you if your attorney is refusing to file a suppression motion because it would be deemed frivolous, or because he's lazy. If the undisputed facts are such that you couldn't possibly win a suppression motion, no attorney is going to file it. From reading your posts here, it sounds more like coercion is an issue as well as whether there was justification for the search of your pockets.

Money and property that were confiscated during an arrest.

How JustAnswer works

JustAnswer in the News:

What Customers are Saying:

Meet the Experts: