Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

To the prosecutor all parties and counsel: Be advised: At the venue indicated in the caption above or at such other time as the court may designate, I will ask the court to suppress all evidence in this case for the reasons set for herein and other reasons as may be presented at that time.

The facts in this case are not clear yet. Discovery has not been completed. So far the facts sound like an episode of the Dukes of Hazard. We have a grand jury indictment rubber stamped without a date affixed. They name the wrong day (and the wrong guy). The magistrate who signed the warrant works at the sand quarry. He is the brother of the sheriff - and, truth be told - we haven not yet seen a signed warrant. The affidavit for the warrant is not signed - and is insufficient to justify a warrant. It accuses Jason of “slinging the dope” but nobody steps up to say that they actually saw Jason do anything. Since they have no quantity of methamphetamine, they arbitrarily pick a quantity of 4 grams - which, I suspect, has more to do with the words in a statute than the reading from a scale.

1. Jason Lisle, the innocent falsely accused defendant, is a 26 year old union apprentice electrician as is his father. Of the characters in this drama, Clint is the only one with a job and the only one who is not a crank user. On Saturday May, 2004, Jason was falsely arrested and falsely accused of manufacturing methamphetamine. On day of his arrest he was employed full time as an apprentice union electrician. Jason is one of 2 children. Jason’s older brother has an engineering degree and is employed professionally as an engineer. Jason’s Mom, Dad, and brother all support him in this case. Jason’s fingerprints were not found on any of the glassware of the alleged methamphetamine laboratory parts. He possessed no methamphetamine.

2. Curtis Pitman is 29 year old incompetent amateur crankster/ chemist who is trying to learn to manufacture methamphetamine. On June 4, nearly a month after this instant arrest, Curtis exploded his Mom’s house in Hartburg killing a woman. This woman died a slow agonizing death. Burns covered all her body. She struggled for 3 weeks before finally expiring. Curtis went to school with Jason, Clint, and Amy. He was only a casual acquaintance to Jason. Jason is 3 years younger than Curtis.

3. Marvin Clint Shepard a/k/a Clint Shepard is apparently an amateur manufacturer also. On or about this date of this arrest Clint’s trailer exploded in order to hide evidence or by mere act of incompetent chemical engineering.

4. Malita Nagle rented the home where the May 1 raid happened. She was subsequently arrested.

5. Amy crooks is an unemployed manipulative crankster opportunist. She has no car and no job. She has spent the previous night sleeping in a house formerly owned by Jason’s grandmother. Had she a care then Jason would not have had to drive her to the Malita Nagle house. She was romantically pursing Clint Shepard. That is why she was not there when Jason came to retrieve her at 2 pm. But for the manipulation of this destitute woman, Jason would not have been falsely arrested. It was her delay in returning from her tryst with Clint that cause Jason to be at the raided house at 8:15 pm when the raid happened. At that time Amy was on her way to the house, only to be intercepted by police and caught in possession of methamphetamine.

6. Magistrate Leonard Powell is an uneducated employee of a sand quarry. We do not yet know whether he signed the warrant or not. Leonard is the brother of Sheriff Powell which prevents Leonard from being a neutral and detached magistrate - which in turn voids any search warrant that he may or may not have sighed in this case. Even if he had been neutral and detached, the affidavit for the search warrant is insufficient.

7. Sheriff Powell is the congenial brother of Magistrate Leonard Powell. Jason’s parents met with Sheriff Powell on 7 May. He ordered the release of Mom’s car. He knew nothing about the warrant.

8. Robert Lunsford is a rogue deputy in the far south of the county. He is the driving force behind the raid. He wrote the defective application for a search warrant. Our copy is unsigned. The warrant is fatally defective and insufficient to trigger a search warrant.

On Saturday May 1, 2004 at approximately 9 a.m. Jason drove himself and Amy Crook to Malita Nagle’s home. He would eventually be arrested there later in the day. This house was then Malita Nagle’s house. They went there to visit Curtis Pitman and Clint Shepard who was a former schoolmate to Jason and others there. Curtis had been several years ahead of Jason in school. After 15 minutes Jason left leaving Amy behind. It rained that day. This was the first time that Jason had ever been to that house.

At 2 pm Jason returned to Malita’s house but Amy was not ready to leave. Jason departed.

Jason returned at around 8 pm to pick up Amy but Amy was not there. Curtis Pitman was there. Jason was only in the living room. He was never in the kitchen, the bathroom, the bedroom or any other room until the police arrived. Curtis Pitman told Jason that the police were coming. Jason then went into the bathroom to look out the window to see if Curtis was playing a trick on him.

The police arrived at Matila’s house around 8:15 pm according to the report of Deputy Threadgill. Police entered without a warrant and found the paraphernalia and other equipment that the police characterized as a meth lab. Jason, having never been in the rooms where the equipment was found (until he looked out the bathroom window to see the police car), had no prior knowledge that there was a meth lab in his very midst. Jason was there to retrieve Amy; he had dropped her off there 11 hours earlier on this rainy day.

After the raid the police were looking for mechanical defects and other reasons to detain motor vehicles on the road to Malita’s house. This is standard procedure when police suspect drug activity but have insufficient evidence to search the car or obtain a search warrant

Amy was on her way back and would have met Jason had she not been stopped and arrested for possession of an illegal drug.

The prosecution has not provided us with any information on what happened to the several other people arrested that day.

The prosecution has not provided us with any test results indicating that the chemical in Malta’s house was indeed methamphetamine.

Clint Shepard’s mobile home exploded around the same time that Jason was arrested on May 1. A logical conclusion is the Clint Shepard and Curtis Pitman were manufacturing. Jason, their high school friend, had a full time job. He was no involved in the manufacturing.

On Friday May 7 the sheriff released Jason’s Mom’s car. Clint had been driving it the night that he was arrested.

On Friday May 7 Jason’s Mom and Dad paid a bail bondsman and obtained Jason’s release.

On June 3^rd , around a month after Jason and Curtis were arrested, Curtis’s Mom’s house exploded killing a woman. Curtis was there at the time his Mom’s house exploded.

On Friday September 17 Jason went to docket call. He was given a paper memorializing his indictment by the grand jury for violation of section 481.112 of the health and safety code, namely - manufacturing Meth on May 2. Jason was in jail on May 2; he did not manufacture meth in jail - or anywhere - on May 2.

Curiously the indictment bears no date. What tribunal performs a solemn function and then memorializes it without a date? The signature appears to be a rubber stamp. This scenario cries our for more investigation. We will be asking for a transcript of the grand jury proceedings.

Sometime around September 17 we received in discovery an application by Robert Lunsford, a peace officer for a search warrant. The application is undated and unsigned. The application is insufficient to justify a search warrant. The defects are so numerous that we have put them into an appendix.

We believe, on the basis of the documents that we have received, that there was no search warrant.

Magistrate Leonard Powell is alleged by Jason’s dad to have signed the search warrant but we have no paper copy of the search warrant.

Leonard Powell is a full time employee of a sand quarry. He has no legal education and is not qualified to analyze or approve a search warrant.

Therefore the warrant, if any, is void ab initio. The deputies are not entitled to rely on a warrant from a Powell. They know that he is not a lawyer and not qualified to issue a warrant.

Although a 1995 Texas statute attempts to authorize a warrant by an uneducated person, we contend that the statute is void ab initio as a violation of due process. Jason is entitled to the judgment of a person trained in the law.

Jason is accused of a quantity between 4 and 200 grams. Jason did not have possession of any meth. Nonetheless, the quantity described is insufficient quantity to justify indictment.

I, Jason Lisle, declare the following under penalty of perjury: I am an apprentice union electrician like my dad. My brother is a professional engineer. I went to school with Clint, Curtis, and Amy. Amy slept at my Gramma’s house on the night before the raid. She had no car. I drove her to Malita’s house around 9 a.m. so that she could visit Clint. She was romantically pursuing Clint. She wasted a good part of my day by delaying. But for her delay I would not have been there during the raid. I was merely there waiting for Amy. I possessed no drugs. I did not manufacture any drugs.

On May 1, 2004, about 9:00 a.m., Amy Crooks and I went down to Malita's house to visit Curtis Pitman and Clint Sheppard. After about 15 minutes I left the residence. I then went to Cindy's house to see if she had heard from her son, Daniel Smith. We talked for a while and then she asked me to go to the store to buy her some cigarettes. It was pouring down rain so I stayed until it slacked off. At about

2:00 I returned with her cigarettes and then went to Malita's house to see if Amy was ready to leave. She said no, so I returned home. At about 8:00, I returned to Malita's house to pick up Amy, but she wasn't there. As I was talking to Curtis the police showed up and arrested us.

Until that day, I had never been at that residence. The only room I was in was the living room. I did go into the bathroom when Curtis said the cops were coming up the drive. I ran to the window to look and see if he was telling the truth. That day, I never passed Sgt. Ashworth as he pulled over on the side of the road. I did not see a meth lab inside of that house. My DOB 12/18/77. I had received no indictment as of 9/6/04
In the affidavit of probable cause it states that one jar of brown liquid found and two syringes with brown liquid found believed to be meth. Also one tub with scales, glass jars and tubes consistent with meth lab.

Aquilar v Texas (1964) 378 U.S. 108. "Affiants have received reliable information from a credible person and do believe that heroin, marijuana, barbiturates and other narcotics and narcotic paraphernalia are being kept at the above described premises for the purpose of sale and use contrary to the provisions of the law." - defective affidavit in Aquilar. 1

It is fundamental black letter law that an affidavit citing hearsay must allege some articulable indicia for reliability such “I have previously received reliable information from this informant. Otherwise a copy with a hunch becomes “the reliable information” thereby doing an end run around the constitutional mandate of probable cause.

Douglas Palaschak’s copy of the affidavit is unsigned. Jason asked the prosecutor in writing for the affidavit and warrant.

11. Please provide me with a signed copy of the affidavit for the search warrant.” - Our request for a copy of the affidavit and search warrant in our discovery letter depicted at: http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6569.html .

Based on our unsigned copy of the affidavit, and no evidence that there was a signed copy prior to the raid, we demand that all the evidence stemming from the raid be suppressed.

Based on the absence of evidence that there was a signed search warrant prior to the raid, we demand suppression of all evidence stemming from the raid and we demand dismissal of Jason Lisle’s case.

If the warrant was signed, it is nonetheless void. This case is even worse than Aguilar.

This case at hand can easily be easily dismissed. The case is nearly square on all fours with Aquilar v Texas (1964) 378 U.S. 108.

"Affiants have received reliable information from a credible person and do believe that heroin, marijuana, barbiturates and other narcotics and narcotic paraphernalia are being kept at the above described premises for the purpose of sale and use contrary to the provisions of the law." - defective affidavit in Aquilar.

Now let’s compare this to the defective affidavit in this case before us today:

“It is the belief of the affiants that said suspected party has possession of and is concealing at said suspected place the following property: controlled substances, including . . . methamphetamine , and other illegal drugs.. . . It has been reported by a credible informant on numerous occassions [sic] about the constant traffic in and out of the residence. The CI has also overheard telephone conversations where the occupants of the camp have stated ‘Yes I got your dope come and get it’ A few minutes after the conversation a vehicle will approach the camp. The operator ov the vehicle blows their car horn three times. Then a white/male will exit the camp enter the roadway and give something out of his pocket to the person in the car. The person in the war will give cash in return for the package that was given to them. On this date 5/10/04 Officer Ashworth of the Newton County sheriff’s office viewed Jason Lysle driving a gold in color four door car traveling on old hwy 87 in Deweyville. Sgt. Ashworth pulled off the roadway and Jason passed him. Minutes later Sgt. Ashworth was checking out thes area reported to us for drug trafficing [sic]. He witnessed the same vehicle that has passed him parked at the Cindy Feldshaw residence. Sgt. Ashworth returned to the office to get me so that I would have knowledge of what wasa going on. By the time we arrived back into Indain [sic] Lake jason’s car was I front of this above-mentioned address forming a link between the two residences. ”

2. Methamphetamine. They give no indication of why they believe it to be methamphetamine. There has been no controlled buy. Also, we have no indication that any methamphetamine was found at the raid.

3. The report on the traffic is vague and meaningless. What is heavy traffic? Traffic in itself is no indicatino of a crime.

4. Regarding the “overheard” telephone conversations they are not connected with anybody - unless the informant states that the speaker was in the house - and even so, there is no indication that such conversation took place today.

1. You have an informant who reliability is not proven to the magistrate. No history is stated.

2. You have a description of events in the past. How fast past? The informant should be talking about present possession.

3. As to the allegations of methamphetamine, the standard procedure is a controlled buy. In this case it was mere conjecture on the part of the confidential informant. She could have at least given the reason for her conjecture. Oh yes. She did. Obviously she associates heavy traffic with methamphetamine sales. Plausible, but nowhere near “more likely than not”

4. No informant claims to have seen anything in the house - or to have seen drugs go into the house or come out.

5. No information claims to have seen the house or any drugs that day - or anytime.

The issue arose in the case of Wong Sun v U.S. (1963) 371 U.S. 471 a fascinating case written during the enlightened era of the Supreme Court. In Wong Sun they decided

“On the record in this case, there was neither reasonable grounds nor probable cause for Toy's arrest, since the information upon which it was based was too vague and came from too untested a source to accept it as probable cause for the issuance of an arrest warrant;”

Hom Way, who had not before been an informant, stated after his arrest that he had bought an ounce of heroin the night before from one known to him only as "Blackie Toy," proprietor of a laundry on Leavenworth Street.

About 6 a. m. that morning six or seven federal agents went to a laundry at 1733 Leavenworth Street. The sign [371 U.S. 471, 474] above the door of this establishment said "Oye's Laundry." It was operated by the petitioner James Wah Toy. There is, however, nothing in the record which identifies James Wah Toy and "Blackie Toy" as the same person. The other federal officers remained nearby out of sight while Agent Alton Wong, who was of Chinese ancestry, rang the bell. When petitioner Toy appeared and opened the door, Agent Wong told him that he was calling for laundry and dry cleaning. Toy replied that he didn't open until 8 o'clock and told the agent to come back at that time. Toy started to close the door. Agent Wong thereupon took his badge from his pocket and said, "I am a federal narcotics agent." Toy immediately "slammed the door and started running" down the hallway through the laundry to his living quarters at the back where his wife and child were sleeping in a bedroom. Agent Wong and the other federal officers broke open the door and followed Toy down the hallway to the living quarters and into the bedroom. Toy reached into a nightstand drawer. Agent Wong thereupon drew his pistol, pulled Toy's hand out of the drawer, placed him under arrest and handcuffed him. There was nothing in the drawer and a search of the premises uncovered no narcotics. .

Compare Wong Sun: Even when an untested informant claims to have purchased heroin, that is insufficient to prove “more likely than not” that there is more heroin as the source.

Getting back to the instant case. We are not told WHEN the traffic was heavy. Was traffic heavy today? They don’t say. That statement is completely unprobative. As to the white male delivering stuff to the car the informant does not say when it happened. It could have been last year. This is completely unprobative and therefore irrelevant. As to what was being handed to these people who drove up last year, it could have been catnip, ephedrine, baking soda, baklava, sugar, coffee, rare coins, coca puffs, silver polish, Amway stuff, whatever. Unless one makes a controlled buy, one does not know. Jason says that he ran an errand for Cindy because it was a rainy day. The actions described by the informant are consistent with normal activities. Even if the informant actually tells us the frequency of pickups and the day when they happened (which she did not) , we still have nothing probative. The informant merely states conjecture. She saw no dope anytime. She does not even specify methamphetamin..

Neither the affiants nor the confidential informants are named in this unsigned affidavit.

The following statement is interesting but completely unreliable and unprobative

“It is known that Jason Lysle, who has been pointed out as the man slinging the dope, was seen at this camp today. . .as well as being seen at the Feldshaw resident just a few minutes before that.”

So somebody said that Jason Lisle was at some unspecified time in the past, maybe last year, was at one time “slinging dope”. That person’s reliability is described in such as way as to be probative to the magistrate. Also, the informant apparently does not know what kind of “dope” that Jason was slinging. She apparently was not too close to the operation. Also, it is not stated WHEN he was slinging dope, nor WHERE, nor what kind of dope. Saying that he was “seen in the camp today” is no indicia of the commission of any crime. The test is that it must be “more likely than not” We don’t even approach “likely”, let alone “more likely “ and from a reliable informant.

The affidavit for the search warrant is very defective. This is immediately obvious to any lawyer - although not so obvious to Leonard Powell, employee at the sand quarry. There is a problem in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. This problem is that there are many Lot of “magistrates” and “justices” who need not even be high school graduates under the law. In Arizona they simply need to “be able to read English”.

The search and seizure was without a valid warrant. The police knew that they had a no valid warrant. This is not a good faith LEON mistake. Ignorance of the established law is NOT good faith. Good faith is

where the typist types “134 Main st.” and the affidavit said “143 Main st.”

1. I see no search warrant. Maybe they have one. They seem to imply that they have one.

2. I see no signature on the affidavit. Perhaps they gave you an unsigned copy. That happens.

4. The warrant may have been signed by a magistrate who is not a lawyer. That happens a lot in Texas. The warrant can be stricken retroactively nunc-pro-tunc (which means "now for then") or retroactively.

There was insufficient probable cause to search Malta’s house where police arrested Jason.

Jason is entitled to due process. Due Process includes having the application analyzed by a person with legal training.

The relatively new law (1995?) that permits an uneducated magistrate to analyze an application for a search warrant is unconstitutional.

I, _________________ , declare the following under penalty of perjury: On Friday, December 17, 2004 I personally delivered this motion #6642, upgraded version of #6566 to the hand of the prosecutor. Thereafter I filed it with the court clerk

1. Peace Officer Robert Lunsford describes a "suspected place" but he does not tell us how he found the place to be suspect. Oh. It is mere boilerplate. How much of the warrant is mere boilerplate. Had he said that a reliable informant made a controlled purchase, well that would be a different story. Here in this 2 page affidavit there is no testimony of any percipient witness as to the commission of a crime. There is a real nice description of the "camp" and a real firm description that Lunsford believes that Jason is on control - but he gives no FACT. What he might have said is "I saw the suspect open the door with his key" or "the manager told me that the room was rented to Jason Lisle" but we have no such thing.

2. Here is the standard as it has evolved from the 4th amendment: In order for probable cause to exist, the police must prove "more likely than not" that a crime was committed and that the named suspect committed it. This is the 51% likely standard. The 4th amendment says that no warrant shall issue except on probable cause specifying the items to be seized. That is because the only exception in days gone by was to recover stolen property or property on which the excise tax had not been paid. Therefore one would know what one was looking for.

3. "It is known that Jason Lisle (their spelling) who has been pointed out as the man slinging the dope was seen at this camp today . . ." The phrase "it is known that" just is not adequate. The magistrate must be able to weigh the veracity and see if it is more likely than not that a crime was committed and somebody in the house did it. They magistrate cannot weigh the veracity because he does not know who pointed him out. Had the affidavit said

"Our confidential informant who has proven reliable on a previous occasion told me that he saw Jason Lisle handing methamphetamine to a purchaser" . . .

then the magistrate would have some indication that the information was reliable - but nobody said that! Also we don't have any indication of who the informant was. We don't know if he is reliable.

4. Next problematic statement: "It is the belief of the affiant that . .. .has possession and is concealing. . . . methamphetamine". Once again the magistrate must be able to weigh the veracity of the affiant. Therefore the affiant must give the reasons for his belief. If we had a controlled buy and a drug test then there would be a step in the right direction, but this affiant Lunsford has no witness saying anything.

5. "option to be used if applicable" tells us that this affiant cop is using a prefabricated drug form.

6. I see many cases from Texas where small town uneducated cops simply don't know how to legally obtain a search warrant. Then they take the defective application to a magistrate who is not a lawyer - and he signs it. You have a remedy for this wrong.

7. "Affiant has probable cause". That is a conclusion to be made by the magistrate. Now the affiant states the law. An affidavit is not the place to state the law. The affidavit is a place to state the bald facts. This affidavit is really bad. High school kids could have done better.

8. "It has been reported by a credible information on numerous occassions (spelled wrong) about the constant traffic. . .. " This statement is worthless because it is NOT for the affiant to weigh the credibility of the information. That job is for the magistrate based on FACTS from the affiant - not conclusions. Also, traffic is not a crime. It is not a 51% inference that a crime has been committed.

9. This CI (confidential informant) has also overheard telephone conversations. . . "yes I got your dope come and get it". The affiant did not say WHO said the incriminating words - or what connection the words have with this particular address. With some expertise this confidential information might have provided sufficient evidence, but this affidavit is defective.

10. The statements in the affidavit are all hearsay! Hearsay is no evidence at all! That is what the supreme court said recently quoting a case from 1769. Here is the link to that recent case which contains the 1769 reference: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/craw3.html

11. So now we have Jason's car driving up. The affiant says that Jason controls the place - but the magistrate has no way to know how much truth is in that statement. The affiant did not know that of his own accord nor does he state who told him that Jason controlled the premises.

12. Now the affiant relays hearsay from Sgt. Ashworth. He proves that a car passed him on the road and that very car is right here at the suspect house.

13. Here is what may have happened: They likely had a confidential informant who DID INDEED make a controlled buy - but they don’t want to waste that information, so they try to get a search warrant using NOTHING! This magistrate would not know a good affidavit from a good watermelon!