Good Afternoon your honor, I am filing a motion for the admissibility of Cameron Awbrey’s statement because there is clear signs of attenuation between the statement given and the arrest. I will prove my case by providing examples of precedent cases similar to the laws involved in Cameron's case.
In the precedent case Utah v. Strieff, the accused was survallinced over a short period of time, was subjected to an unlawful stop and arrest but later received a lawful arrest. The question was whether or not the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applied, which excludes evidence that is gained from an unlawful search or seizure. The courts ruled that it was not applicable under the doctrine. This is because the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine only applies where its deterrence benefits outweigh the substantial social cost. In our case the statement was not coerced from Cameron because there was never any questioning or any formal type of police interrogation, making it inapplicable under the Fruit of the
…show more content…
United States, an officer arrested and searched the accused because the officer believed that there was a warrant out for the accused. The admissibility of the evidence was at question. However, the court ruled that evidence found is admissible if the officer is acting out in good faith on an erroneous warrant. In our case Officer West was acting in good faith because he was acting on an erroneous warrant. It will be argued that Officer West was negligent toward the facts that were on the warrant, the description of the weight. However Cameron Awbrey was shouting at Officer West showing signs of being uncontrolled that made Officer West feel threatened, as anyone would feel, and arrested Cameron. Showing that West did not exhibit police misconduct rather he did it all in good faith based upon an erroneous warrant because Officer West ONLY arrested Cameron and then brought Cameron back after realizing that the warrant was