carter filing 1
DESCRIPTION
Carter FilingTRANSCRIPT
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
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
Bar # 1994-108
(501) 375-0900