carter filing 1

1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS

FOURTH DIVISION

STATE OF ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF

v. CR 14-3928

AARON LEWIS DEFENDANT

RESPONSE TO STATE'S MOTION TO CONSIDER INVENTORY SEARCH

COMES NOW, Defendant, Aaron Lewis, by and through counsel, James Law Firm, and for his

response to State's motion to consider inventory search, states:

1. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the search of the Ford Fusion.

2. The State never argued in written or oral form that the search was permissible as

an inventory search.

3. A hearing was held on the motion and the State failed to elicit any evidence

concerning the alleged inventory search or inevitable discovery.

4. The State's motion now alleges that the PCSO conducted an inventory search and

would have inventoried the trunk.

5. There are three primary arguments against the State's contention.

6. First, the State's factual assertions have no support from the record. A hearing

was held and testimony was taken concerning the events culminating in the search of the vehicle.

No testimony was presented to support the State's assertions. The State's assertions in the motion

cannot be well-taken without evidentiary support.

7. Second, although the law permits vehicles to be towed in certain instances, the

tow of the vehicle did not follow the PCSO tow policy; thus, an inventory search was not

permissible. The vehicle should have never been towed nor should it have been towed to the

ELECTRONICALLY FILEDPulaski County Circuit Court

Larry Crane, Circuit/County Clerk

2015-Dec-16 10:30:2860CR-14-3928

C06D04 : 3 Pages

2

PCSO crime scene bay. Once again, the State's position on whether it followed policy is a fact-

question and there is no evidentiary support.

8. Third, this Court chose its words very carefully in the written order and stated, "If

the State can show that any items found in the vehicle that they seek to introduce were

discovered during an inventory search and not during the search pursuant to the illegal warrant,

this Court will consider admitting them."

9. The State has not shown, and has not even alleged to show, that the items "were

discovered during an inventory search." Instead, the State purports to show that the items could

have been discovered during an inventory search. This Court's wording makes it clear that it

would reconsider in light of a far different argument then the one the State is making.

Bill James: Are you searching that vehicle before you got a search warrant?

Investigator Jordan Ables: No, sir. No, sir. (Page 99)

WHEREFORE, Defendant, Aaron Lewis, respectfully requests this Court to deny the

State's motion.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ William O. “Bill” James, Jr.

WILLIAM O. “BILL” JAMES, JR.

JAMES LAW FIRM

1821 S. Broadway

Little Rock, AR 72206

wmjamesjr@aol.com

Bar # 1994-108

(501) 375-0900

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing document was electronically delivered to the

following:

Larry Jegley

Prosecuting Attorney

Sixth Judicial District

224 South Spring Street

Little Rock, AR 72201

/s/ William O. “Bill” James, Jr.

WILLIAM O. “BILL” JAMES, JR.

JAMES LAW FIRM

1821 S. Broadway

Little Rock, AR 72206

wmjamesjr@aol.com

Bar # 1994-108

(501) 375-0900