While on the way to his cousin’s house, QX was pulled over for driving while talking on a cell phone. QX has a restricted driving permit (hereafter ‘RDP’) due to a previous DUI conviction. The RDP limited him to driving privileges to and from work. QX explained to the police officers that he had gotten off work and was on the way to visit his cousin. The police officers believed this was a violation of his RDP. QX was asked to exit his vehicle and placed into custody. A search of his car was then conducted. The search revealed fraudulent IDs, forged US Treasury checks, and falsified credit cards. QX was charged with various offenses related to identity theft, illegal credit card possession, and driving violations. We filed a motion to suppress evidence and began our investigation.
On the day of the hearing the arresting officer testified that he arrested QX for driving outside the permissible scope of the RDP. When cross examined, the officer admitted he did not do a proper investigation to determine if the visit to QX’s cousin was legal. The judge ruled that the lack of proper investigation meant that the police officers did not have probable cause to make an arrest. As a result of the ruling, the evidence found during the search of the vehicle was “suppressed” pursuant to the exclusionary rule. The State’s attorney reviewed the Court’s ruling and DISMISSED the matter. MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE GRANTED – CASE DISMISSED.
