Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Danny 341

Danny 341

Ratings: (0)|Views: 32|Likes:
Published by briley

More info:

Published by: briley on Mar 30, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/16/2009

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIREUNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.Cr. No. 07-189-01-GZSDANIEL RILEY
MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOW COMES the accused, Daniel Riley, by and through counsel, and moves thisHonorable Court to suppress any custodial statements made by him following his unlawful arreston June 6, 2007. He also moves to suppress any other evidence gathered as a result of that arrestand any subsequent fruits of unlawful seizure, search, and/or questioning.In support of this motion, the following is stated:1. On June 7, 2007, law enforcement agents, including personnel from the Marshall’sService and officers employed by the New Hampshire State Police, assaulted, injured, detained,and arrested the accused on private property in or near Plainfield, New Hampshire. These agentsof the Government had no arrest warrant, search warrant, probable cause, or basis for awarrentless arrest relating to Mr. Riley. The Government has, as recently as the end of last week,indicated its intention to present evidence relating to this incident, including statements purportedmade by Mr. Riley while in custody, at trial of this matter.2. While he was in custody after this unlawful arrest, Mr. Riley insisted on his right toremain silent and, he submits, at least twice refused to sign forms seeking waiver of his rights.Moreover, he submits that he invoked his right to counsel by informing the Government’s agentsthat he 1. That the stop of his motor vehicle was unjustified;3. Furthermore, to the extent that they had any arguable grounds to detain the accused,the Government agents who effected the detention or arrest exceeded the bounds of any lawfulthreshold inquiry and any seizure or search of the accused was not justified by probable cause.Moreover the agents acted without a warrant or any legal exception to the warrant requirement.
 
4. Moreover, the seizure and search of the accused's person was not justified and he didnot consent to any such seizure, search, or interrogation.5. The undersigned was recently appointed, pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, to actas the accused’s attorney in this case, after a period when the accused sought to representhimself. During that earlier period, the undersigned was appointed to act as the standby counselfor the accused, over the repeated objections by the accused to the appointment or involvement of any other person as his counsel, standby or otherwise (and after the prior appointment of another attorney for the accused in this case). During the period prior to being appointed as full trialcounsel, the undersigned also experienced prolonged difficulty in meeting and consulting withthe accused, due in large part to official failures to recognize and respect the accused’s desire andattempts to act as his own counsel. See, Motion to Dismiss , Continue, or Delay Start of Trial,document 334 on this Court’s docket.7. As the undersigned has also informed the Court and other counsel, he feels that it isnecessary for him, in attempting to be an effective counsel for the accused under thesecircumstances, to review the previous pleading filed by his client during the time that he wasacting as his own counsel, and to reassert and/or resubmit some of those motions based on hisown judgment of their validity and merit. By doing so (selectively submitting new motions), theundersigned does not intend to denigrate, dismiss, or waive any of the issues raised by theaccused while acting as his own counsel. In particular, with respect to the instant motion, theaccused, through counsel, draws this Court’s attention to his previous motions identified on thedocket of this case as documents 324 (Motion to Suppress Affidavit of Andre Labier Used asBasis for a Criminal Complaint), and 136 (Motion to Suppress Evidence Unlawful SearchWarrant). The accused restates the factual allegations contained therein and incorporates themherein by reference.8. The accused submits that, in addition to the other violations of his rights (to be freefrom unreasonable searches and seizures pursuant to the Fourth Amendment and Part I, Article19 of the New Hampshire Constitution) that occurred during the June 7 warrantless arrest, he wasnot properly advised of the Miranda warnings at the time of his arrest, during transport, during
 
 booking, or during the subsequent questioning. During transport, during the booking process,and during the subsequent custodial interrogation, the Government’s agents inquired about many potentially inculpatory issues. Moreover, the accused submits that the agents variouslythreatened, accused, and otherwise induced him to make statements contrary to his interests. Hesubmits that, despite being informed that he did not wish to speak and that he had counsel, theytold him that they would be his best attorneys and that he had no other choice but to cooperate.In addition to presenting him with dire consequences for not waiving his rights and cooperating,they urged him to act as their agent to help in investigating and capturing other individuals, evenoffering him a monetary payment to do so. Under the circumstances, his responses were notvoluntary. Furthermore, any purported waiver of his rights was not fully knowing, intelligent, or voluntary. The defendant did not make a valid Miranda waiver.9. The Government’s agents have essentially conceded that the arrest and their subsequent actions relating to Mr. Riley on June 7, 2008 were not taken pursuant to a warrant. Itis also apparent that the Government agents were not acting pursuant to any reasonablearticulable suspicion of criminal activity by the accused at the time of the arrest. The statementsof the United States Marshall, Stephen Monier, made in a televised press conference on the dateof the illegal arrest support the accused’s contentions. See, e.g., Exhibit G (ID) (Video of Marshall’s press conference of 6/7/07) on the accused’s First Amended Exhibit List. During that press conference, the Marshall indicated that the Government agents (including both federal andstate officers) were in the area to execute search warrants relating to the Brown’s commercial properties in West Lebanon, New Hampshire. He described Mr. Riley as a supporter of theBrowns who had been encountered by the Government agents and detained. He indicated thatthe agents were “surveilling the property”(in Plainfield) in anticipation of serving the warrants.“In the context of doing that, at about 8 this morning, we had an encounter, a chance encounter, between U.S. Marshals Service personnel and one his supporters and we had to take that personinto custody, which is why you are all here. The New Hampshire State Police supported us inthat effort. They provided assistance to us and backed us up in our surveillance operations.” Areporter then asked what the supporter was being charged with and the Marshall said, “Um, I

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->