Fill and Sign the Motion Suppress Hearing Form

STATE OF LOUISIANA : _______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT VS : PARISH OF _______ , LOUISIANA _______________ : DOCKET NO. _______ PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS HEARING MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: This matter comes before the Court on _______ ___ , 20 ___ , on a Motion to Suppress filed on behalf of the Defendant, _______________ , who respectfully represents the following: FACTS: On _______ ___ , 20 ___ , at _______ hours, on Interstate _______ , Milepost _______ , Tfc. _______________ observed a _______ van bearing Alabama License Plate Number _______ in the outside lane traveling at fifty (50) miles an hour. Trooper _______________ at that time observed a small juvenile kneeling on the rear seat, not wearing a seat belt. Trooper _______________ was traveling east on the inside lane behind the _______ van when he observed what he believed to be a violation of R.S. 32:295, Child Passenger Restraint System. Trooper _______________ then stopped the vehicle and identified the driver as _______________ of _______________ , Florida. Upon exiting the vehicle, _______________ handed Trooper _______________ her Florida State driver = s license. At that time, Trooper _______________ explained to _______________ that the reason she was stopped was for a violation of R.S. 32:295, Child Passenger Restraint System. Ultimately, 39.92 pounds of marijuana was found contained in twenty (20) packages of marijuana wrapped in duct tape inside of a spare tire in the rear of the vehicle. _______________ was arrested and charged with a violation of R.S. 32:295, Child Passenger Restraint System and R.S. 40:966, Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana. LAW AND ARGUMENT: ISSUE 1: Article 32:295. Child Passenger Restraint System. (A) Every resident of this state who transports a child or children under the age of thirteen years in a motor vehicle which is equipped with safety belts at the time of manufacture or assembly, or is currently equipped with safety belt, shall have the child property secured in accordance with the manufacturer = s instructions in an age or size appropriate passenger 1 restraint system which meets the applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect, except as provided in Subsections (C), (D), and (E). (B-H) (See attached.) It is the defendant = s position that Trooper _______________ had absolutely no probable cause to pull over and detain defendant. Sub-part A of R.S. 32:295 reads in pertinent part A Every resident who transports a child or children under the age of thirteen...shall have the child properly secured in accordance with the manufacture = s instructions in an age or size appropriate passenger restraint system... @ This statute, on its face, does not apply to the defendant. _______________ is a resident of the State of Florida with her physical address being _______________ , as indicated by her Florida State driver = s license. _______________ never was, is not presently, nor never intends to be a resident of the State of Louisiana. Furthermore, Trooper _______________ had no reason to assume that _______________ was a resident of Louisiana because the license plate on the vehicle _______________ was driving was Alabama License Plate No. _______ . It is defendant = s position that the language of the statute itself is very clear and unambiguous. It is well established that the task of statutory construction begins with an examination of the language of the statute itself. Touchard v. Williams, 617 So.2D 885 (La.1993). When the law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written, and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature. La. Civ.Code. Ann. Art. 9; Touchard, supra; Moore v. Gencorp, Inc. , 93-0814 (La.3/22/94), 633 So.2d 1268. Only where ambiguity exists within the body of the enacted legislation does it become necessary to look further than the text to determine the legislative intent. Green v. Louisiana Underwriters Ins. Co., 571 So.2d 610 (La.1990); Melancon v. Mizell , 216 La. 711, 44 So.2d 826 (La.1950); State ex rel. Thompson v. Department of City Civil Service, et al ., 214 La. 683, 38 So.2d 385 (La.1948); City of New Orleans v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, 193 La. 297, 190 So. 560 (La.1939). The defendant in this case argues that the law as written is clear and unambiguous. If the legislature had intended for any person other than a Louisiana resident to be in violation of this statute, it would have used the same language that it used in R.S. 32:295.1, Safety Belt Use. It reads in pertinent part that A Each driver ... in this state shall have a safety belt properly 2 fastened about his or her body at all times when the vehicle is in forward motion. @ (See attached.) ISSUE 2: The defendant argues that all law and argument in State v. Barbier, 1999 WL 694812, (La. 1999.) regarding detaining the inspection, detention, or searching of a vehicle, driver, or passenger, should be allowed solely because of a violation of this statute. Surely, if the legislature did not intend for a police officer to detain and search a vehicle or its occupants solely on the basis of a seatbelt violation, then it could not have intended for R.S. 32:295, Child Passenger Restraint Systems, to be used in any different manner. (See attached.) CONCLUSION: For the above-stated reasons, it is this defendant’s position that all evidence seized as a result of this illegal stop, detention, search and seizure should be suppressed. There was clearly no violation of R.S. 32:295, as defendant herein, _______________ , is a resident of the State of Florida. Furthermore, Trooper _______________ had no reason to believe that _______________ was a resident of the State of Louisiana because the vehicle she was driving was bearing Alabama License Plate No. _______ . A violation of R.S. 32:295 was the sole probable cause for stopping _______________ = s vehicle; that stop was illegal, and any evidence seized thereafter is tainted and is fruit of the poisonous tree and should, therefore, be suppressed. Respectfully Submitted, _____________________________ _______________ Attorney for Defendant _______________ _______ , LA _______ ( ___ ) _______ La. Roll No. _______ 3