LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER DENIES THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Shown below is the second installment of the MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ON THE GROUNDS OF PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL BAD FAITH AND MISCONDUCT, which LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER and the Republicrats at the Medina County Courthouse, Mosque & Railroad Station do not want you, the citizens, to see.  You can cross-reference any exhibits to the List of Exhibits by "CLICKING" on the link shown directly below "PAGES" at the upper right-hand corner of the web page:

2.         Trial Court I Denied Defendant’s Motion to Suppress On the Disingenuous

Rationale That an Indictment Cures Violations of the Fourth Amendment by Police.

 

Matthew Hartman filed a Motion to Suppress in Trial Court I [LAPDOG COLLIER] on July 30, 2009, requesting an evidentiary hearing.  Mr. Hartman filed his Supplement to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress on August 20, 2012.

As a preliminary matter, the criminal complaint in support of the arrest warrant did not contain a statement of essential facts, as the Fourth Amendment and Ohio Crim.R. 3 require.  Moreover, Deputy Douglas Clinage did not swear to the criminal complaint, also in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Ohio Crim R. 3.  Deputy Clinage conceded in his suppression hearing testimony that he  had not  sworn to the criminal complaint. (Suppression Hearing Tr. at 242).  The unsworn criminal complaint, the arrest warrant, and the seizure of any purported evidence flowing directly therefrom are constitutionally defective and invalid. Copies of the unsworn criminal complaint and arrest warrant are attached as Exhibit Fifty-Five.  Page 242 of the transcript of the suppression hearing testimony of Deputy Douglas Clinage conceding that he had not sworn to the criminal complaint is attached as Exhibit Fifty-Six.

Moreover, the State failed to meet its burden at the suppression hearing and demanded that the defense present its case prior to the time that the State produced its witnesses. (Suppression Hearing Tr. at 5).  A copy of Page 5 of the transcript of the suppression hearing is attached as Exhibit Fifty-Seven.

Following the suppression testimony of Deputy Frank Telatko and during the cross-examination of Deputy Clinage, who was the only witnesses the State belatedly produced at the suppression hearing after Judge Collier granted several continuances to accommodate the State, defense counsel properly argued the law to Judge Collier:

MS. CRAMER:          But at the time of arrest, he [Matthew Hartman] was arrested without probable cause.  The testimony corroborates the arresting officer didn’t even know what he [Matthew Hartman] was being arrested for.

THE COURT:             What you’re saying - -

MS. CRAMER:          Matthew Hartman is asking what the charge is.  Now, We’re looking at the stage - -  they did it wrong every step of the way.  Now we’re looking at the stage of obtaining the arrest warrant and what was - - what was done to have a warrant issued.  And to have a warrant issued there has to be a sworn affidavit under the Fourth Amendment.  There has to be a sworn affidavit under Ohio Rule 3.  I believe it has to be an affidavit with the specific facts - -

THE COURT:             Right.

MS CRAMER:           - - and there was no affidavit.

THE COURT:             What’s your remedy?

MS. CRAMER:          The remedy is that it’s an invalid warrant.

THE COURT:             And - -

MS. CRAMER:          So that everything incident to the arrest - - incident to the arrest has to be thrown out. . . The subsequent indictment can’t validate an illegal arrest warrant, an illegal arrest before that ….

(Suppression Hearing Tr. at 241-242).

Matthew Hartman, in his briefs, cited to controlling authorities including, but not limited to,  Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S 213, 215 (1983) (Under the ‘totality of the circumstances’ analysis, corroboration of details of an informant’s tip by independent police work is of significant value); California v. Hodari D, 499 U.S. 621, 625 (1991) (it has been long understood that the Fourth Amendment’s protections  against unreasonable seizure include seizures of the person); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 479 (1963) (It is basic that an arrest with or without a warrant must stand upon firmer ground than mere suspicion); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968) ( the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures protects people, not places and applies as much to citizens on the streets as well as at home); Whitely v. Warden Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 565-569 (1971) (criminal complaint consisting of no more than the complainant’s conclusion that the individual named in the complaint perpetrated the offense identified therein could not support a finding of probable cause); Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 486,  (1958) (judicial officer should not accept without question the complainant’s mere conclusion that the person whose arrest is sought has committed a crime); Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 119 (1997) (the evidentiary component of an application for arrest  is a distinct and essential predicate for a finding of probable cause).  Even properly trained and competent law enforcement officers,[excluding Medina County sheriff's deputies who have no comprehension of the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence] who are not lawyers or trained extensively in the law, are aware of the holding in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) and its progenitors, barring admission of evidence that has been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.   See also Matthew Hartman’s Motion to Suppress.

Moreover, the State failed to file any opposition to Mr. Hartman’s briefs and his motion to suppress had, therefore, gone unopposed.

Notwithstanding the extensive briefing on the controlling law and the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing, and in spite of the deliberately altered transcript of the suppression hearing, infra, there is no question that Trial Court I erred when it improperly denied  Mr. Hartman’s motion to suppress.

The denial of Mr. Hartman’s motion to suppress by Trial Court I, all the while turning a blind eye to the testimony of the State’s witnesses (whose testimony failed to support probable cause for the arrest) and deliberately ignoring the most basic and common tenets of longstanding Fourth Amendment jurisprudence presents incontrovertible evidence of bad faith by trial Court I [LAPDOG COLLIER].

LAPDOG COLLIER, WHO IS IN DINO HOEMAN'S HIP POCKET, COMPLETELY IGNORED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AS IF IT DID NOT EXIST, AS WELL AS THE CONTROLLING LAW DECIDED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.  THAT IS THE WAY HE MAINTAINS AN UNOPPOSED, LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COMPLIMENTS OF DINO HOEMAN AND THE MEDINA REPUBLICRATS.