Steven-Patrick: Mitchell

2321 Cartwright Road

Reno Nevada (89721)
Sui Juris

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA
State of Nevada,
Plaintiff.

Case No. CR16-8068

Dept. No. 1

V.

Steven-Patrick: Mitchell,
Defendant.
_____________________________/

MOTION TO SUPPRESS
COMES NOW, the Defendant, Steven-Patrick: Mitchell hereby moves
to suppress all Evidence obtained as a result of his detention and
arrest on March 4, 2016. This Motion is based upon the attached points
and authorities and any testimony, documentary, and real evidence as
may be presented at the hearing on this matter.
I.

Facts

On March 4, 2016, Mr. Mitchell was asleep in his own conveyance

with reasonable expectation of privacy on Goldstone Road (a private
road) and Red Rock Road, in the Reno Township.

//

Mr. Mitchell was driving home via Rancho Haven, en

-route Mr. Mitchell was feeling increasingly tired and ill to the
point he removed himself from the road to rest. Mr. Mitchell was
awakened in his truck, which was parked off the shoulder
approximately a half mile up Goldstone Road (A private dirt road),
by Washoe County Deputy Jason Wood #2551 who dispatched himself at
the time was being investigated for OIS (Officer Involved Shooting)
(Deputy Woods #2551 fired 3 shots to the head and killed HAMPTON
over an $80 HEROIN DEAL by the UNR IN NOVEMBER 2014) k-9 40 the
Supervisor for the DRUG task force upon any contact with Mr.
Mitchell had requested Mr. Mitchells personalized plate to be ran
thru and the information was entered (k9 officer Jason Wood #2551
and k9 40 Supervisor are active participants of the interductry
narcotic task force}. K9 Officer Jason Wood #2551 upon receiving Mr.
Mitchells information dispatched himself. Upon being awoken by
Deputy Woods #2551 Mr. Mitchell had too open the door because there
was no keys in the ignition, therefore power windows were
inoperable. Mr. Mitchell opened his door enough to hear the Deputy
and address Deputy Woods #2551 questions about his health and if he
was in need of medical attention. Deputy Wood #2551 informed Mr.
Mitchell that they received a call from a concerned neighbor and
2

that there might be a possible need involving a medical situation.

Mr. Mitchell articulated that he didn't need medical attention and
informed Deputy Wood #2551 that he had pulled off Red Rock Road
earlier because he started feeling ill. Deputy Wood #2551 again
asked Mr. Mitchell if he needed any medical attention. Mr. Mitchell
again informed the Deputy there was no need of medical treatment.
Mr. Mitchell stated I'm just tired and going to rest for a little
while longer". Deputy Wood #2551 then cancelled the paramedics who
were responding to the call. Mr. Mitchell was preparing to return to
his slumber when Deputy Wood #2551 demanded Mr. Mitchell to exit his
personal conveyance, Deputy Wood #2551 made a statement that he
suspected Mr. Mitchell was possibly driving while under the
influence and made a snide remark as to whether or not the keys were
in the ignition. Under duress, Mr. Mitchell peacefully complied to
the DEMAND of Deputy Wood #2551. Upon exiting his conveyance, Mr.
Mitchell was again DEMANDED to submit to a "pat down for "weapons."
Mr. Mitchell, again, peacefully complied under duress however during
the "pat down Mr. Mitchell questioned the Deputy Wood #2551
intentions and asked Deputy Wood #2551 if he had done something
wrong. Deputy Wood #2551 did not answer the question, but instead
asked Mr. Mitchell to identify what was in his right front pocket,
as Deputy Wood #2551 could not immediately identify what was in Mr.
3

Mitchells pockets. Mr. Mitchell stated, "there aren't any weapons

and asked Deputy Wood #2551 to inform him of what crime he was being
investigated for. Deputy Wood proceeded to remove the contents of
Mr. Mitchells right pocket and remaining pocket where he announced
he had recovered an illicit device. Mr. Mitchell was now being
detained for " possession of paraphernalia.. Mr. Mitchell was then
told to stand firm and was moved to an awaiting patrol car that had
arrived earlier. Mr. Mitchell once more peacefully complied under
duress and waited on the hood of the patrol car with another WCSO
Sheriff, Deputy Jason Walker, who isnt mentioned in any of the
police reports or discovery of this case. Deputy Wood #2551 then
retrieved his canine from his vehicle and commenced with a canine
search where Mr. Mitchell witnessed, Deputy Wood #2551 throw a
tennis ball at the driver side door explaining that the canine had
"hit" on the vehicle. At this time two other Deputies, Deputy Tracy
#3678 and Deputy Coss #3161 that had previously arrived, begun
assisting in the search of Mr. Mitchells personal conveyance. During
the search Deputy Wood #2551 approached Mr. Mitchell and informed
him that he wasnt going to be arrested for a D.U.I since they
didn't find the keys in the ignition, however Mr. Mitchell would be
charged with possession of paraphernalia. Shortly after, Deputy
Tracy #3678 exited the vehicle claiming to have found an illicit
4

substance. Deputy Arron Wood # 2551 then informed Mr. Mitchell he

was being arrested for possession of paraphernalia and possession of
a controlled substance. Mr. Mitchell did not see where they found
the illicit substance nor did he have any knowledge of said
substance or any control of said substance. Mr. Mitchell was then
transported to the county jail. While waiting in Sheriff deputy
Aaron Tracys #3678 vehicle in the County jail parking lot Mr.
Mitchell was finally informed he would now be charged with
trafficking of Schedule 1 controlled substance as well. Upon
delivery to correctional officers at the Washoe County jail Mr.
Mitchell expressed out loud, that, at no time, during or after,
being detained had the deputies ever read him his "Maranda" rights.
At this point Mr. Mitchell, was placed under arrest for Felony
TRAFCK SCH 1 C/S, FLNTRZ/GHB, 4-14 GRM 3599NV POSS SCH 1,11,111,1V
C/S, 1ST/2ND 3599NV USE /POSS DRUG PARA

3550NV from a broken pipe

that was removed from his front right pants pocket pursuant to a
search incident to arrest.
11 ARGUMENT
Mr. Mitchell, asks this court to suppress the evidence retrieved
from his front I pocket based on a violation of his Fourth Amendment
right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The initial
contact with Mr. Mitchell was under the assumption due to his past
record was not to check on his welfare but was of making a dui arrest.
5

Mr. Mitchell was not under investigation of a crime nor was there any
probable cause or any indication of Mr. Mitchell being involved in any
crime or criminal activity. The initial contact was to check on Mr.
Mitchells welfare. Officer Wood #2551 by his own testimony in Justice
Court admitted to dispatching himself to the call after Mr. Mitchell
information was requested by k940 Supervisor to have dispatch run Mr.
Mitchells info and submit in the com center. After receiving Mr.
Mitchells info which Mr. Mitchell does not deny that he has
unfavorable criminal history, Mr. Mitchells criminal history is 10
yrs + and has learned from his past mistakes. Deputy Woods concern
wasnt the welfare of Mr. Mitchell he had a pre agenda due to Mr.
Mitchells past history. Mr. Mitchell was demanded out of his personal
conveyance without any probable cause. The Deputys suspicions or Mr.
Mitchells past record does not give probable cause. Deputy Wood #2551
DEMANDED Mr. Mitchell out of his vehicle. Mr. Mitchell had reasonable
expectation of privacy when he pulled off the main highway on to a
dirt road to rest. The initial pat-down check for weapons was
unjustified under Terry and Nevada revised Statute I71.I232 as
Deputy Wood #2551 did not have a reasonable belief that Mr. Mitchell,
was armed with a dangerous weapon or may have posed a danger to police
or others. A search of such nature requires a warrant and without such
the search is illegal. The exclusionary rule and NRS I71.1232 call
for the suppression of the evidence found in Mr. Mitchells pocket and
from his personal conveyance as its presence was unlawfully obtained.
a. Deputy Wood #2551 did not have a reasonable belief that Mr.
Mitchell, was armed with a dangerous weapon or posed a
threat to the safety of the officers or others and, thus,
6

the pat-down he performed was not justified resulting in an

unlawful search and the seizure of inadmissible evidence.
b. Under Oath in Reno Justice Court Deputy Wood #2551 said that
he didnt feel threatened at any time by Mr. Mitchell in
fact Deputy Wood said that he felt comfortable speaking with
Mr. Mitchell thus, the pat-down he performed was not
justified resulting in an unlawful search and the seizure of
inadmissible evidence.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people from
unreasonable searches and seizures. It provides that "the right of the
people to be secure in their peoples, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
US CONST. Am. IV "This inestimable right of personal security belongs
as much to the people on the streets of our cities as to the homeowner
closeted in his study to dispose of his secret affairs." Terry v.
Ohio, 392 U.S. 1,8-9 (1968). When a police officer accosts an
individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he is "seized"
within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 16. Likewise, even
a stop-and-frisk "pat-down" of a peoples clothing is a "search,"
governed by the framework of the Constitution. Id.

In this case, Deputy Wood #2551 did not have a reasonable belief
that would justify a pat-down search for weapons. Mr. Mitchell was
approached due to possible need of medical treatment. The nature of
the contact was in no way a violent act nor did it indicate in any way
that Mr. Mitchell was armed with a dangerous weapon or a threat to
anyone's safety. In fact, Mr. Mitchell was asleep in his truck without
the keys in the ignition when the Sheriff made contact with Mr.
Mitchell. This act indicates that Mr. Mitchell had no intention of
leaving the scene, was not presenting any "fight or flight" behavior
7

that would indicate the need for a pat-down search. See Rice v. State,
113 Nev. 425 (1997) (court found situation where defendant remained on
his bicycle, showed signs he had been drinking, refused to identify
himself, and raised his voice, presented sufficient evidence that
defendant may be dangerous or may try to escape and substantiated the
officer's reasonable belief that a pat-down was
necessary). Mr. Mitchell provided the officers with his name and
followed the request of the officer." He did not raise his voice and
presented no indication that he was dangerous or attempting to
flee.
Deputy Wood #2551 relies on his 'training and experience' that
an automobile may contain a dangerous weapon to form the reasonable
belief that Mr. Mitchell's automobile may have contained the same.
Though valuable to every officer in the field, 'training and
experience' is woefully insufficient to establish the specific
articulable facts necessary to justify a reasonable
belief that a person is armed with a dangerous weapon. Law enforcement
does not have leave to pat-down every person they detain that happens
to be sleeping in their own personal conveyance on a private road. In
this case, Mr. Mitchell was on the side of a road sleeping because he
had begun to feel ill and made a decision to pull off the road rather
than put himself or others in a possible dangerous situation.
Again, the Deputy must be able to point to specific articulable
facts that Mr. Mitchell was armed with a dangerous weapon and was a
threat to the safety of the officer or others, He is unable to do so
as there are no facts that would indicate any such weapon and danger.
8

In fact, the officer reveals his true disregard for the Fourth
Amendment when he demands Mr. Mitchell to exit his personal conveyance
without having any valid and particularized basis for a legal search.
Thus, the pat-down search of Mr. Mitchell was unlawful and the
information gained from it, i.e., the presence of the illicit
substance must be suppressed pursuant to NRS 171.1232(2) and the
exclusionary rule.
b. Deputy Wood #2551 subsequent touching of Mr. Mitchells right
front pocket constitutes a search and without a legitimate warrant
exception it was un-lawful and any evidence obtained from said search
must be suppressed.

The Terry Court stated, "it is nothing less than sheer torture of the
English language to suggest that a careful exploration of the outer
surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is not a
'search.'" Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16 (1968). As such, the
subsequent touching of Mr. Mitchell's pockets requires a warrant or an
exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment. "Time
and again, [the Supreme Court of tile United States] has observed that
searches and seizures '' conducted outside the judicial process,
without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable
under the Fourth Amendment - subject only to a few specifically
established and well delineated exceptions. ,,", Minnesota v.
Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 372 (1993) (quoting Thompson v.
Louisiana.L69 U.S. 17,19-20 (1984) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389
U.S. 347, 357 (1967) (footnotes omitted)).
Here, Deputy Wood #2551 placed his hand on the outside of Mitchells
pants pocket to feel for a weapon. This search occurred post pat-down
9

and without a warrant or legitimate exception to the warrant

requirement. Thus, the evidence gained from this unlawful search must
be suppressed.
c. The Plain Feel Doctrine sanitizes neither the pat-down
search nor the subsequent search of Mr. Mitchells pocket.
The Supreme Court of the United States in Minnesota v. Dickerson
recognizes the corollary to the plain view doctrine when analyzing a
Terry pat-down and the subsequent suppression of illicit
device/substance that the search revealed. 508 U.S. 366 (1993). In
setting out the requirements for the plain feel doctrine, the
Dickerson Court made clear that the initial pat-down must be lawful
under Terry.

Id. at 375. Further, the search must not go "beyond

what is necessary to determine if the suspect is armed, [ ... ]" and

if it does so, "it is no longer valid under Terry and its fruits will
be suppressed." ld. at 373. By analogy to the plain view doctrine,
"[i)f a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing
and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity
immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect's
privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer's search for
weapons; [and] if the object is illegal, its warrantless seizure
would be justified [ ... ]." Id. at 375-: 176 (emphasis added).
However, the object's incriminating character must be immediately,
apparent, and if not, its seizure is not justified by the plain view
nor the plain feel doc trine. Id. at 375. Further, the officer must
have probable cause to believe that the item is illicit and this
probable cause may not be generated through an unlawful Terry pat10

down. Id. at: 176-377 footnote 4 citing Ybarra v. lllinois,444 U.S.

85 (1979. (See also Arizona v. Hicks, ~80 U.S. 321 (1987) holding
that seizure of stolen stereo equipment found during a valid search
for other evidence was invalid because incriminating character of
stereo equipment was not immediately apparent; i.e., probable cause
to believe that the equipment was stolen arose only as a result of a
further search removing the equipment to read its serial numbers).

In Mr. Mitchells case, as argued above, Deputy Wood #2551 did

not have a lawful justification for a Terry pat-down. Assuming
arguendo that the court finds the pat-down lawful, the plain feel
doctrine does not permit the seizure of the illicit device/substance
by the deputy. Deputy Wood #2551 asked Mr. Mitchell during the process
of the Terry Pat down to identify was in his right front pocket, while
Deputy Arron Tracy #3678 reported the item to be broken and
identifiable by sight: however, Deputy Wood #2551 in no way could
determine the objects incriminating character or whether it was
illicit by this initial pat down. Indeed, this conduct is clearly
unrelated to the sole justification of the search [under Terry:)..the
protection of the Sheriff Deputy and others nearby. Dickerson at 378
(citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1,26 (1984). Similar to the facts in
Arizona V. Hicks cited above, Deputy Wood #2551 probable cause to
believe the object in Mr. Mitchells pocket was illicit only arose as
a result of a further search that was not authorized by a search
warrant or any exception to the warrant requirement and the evidence
thus gained must be suppressed.
11

At the suppression /preliminary hearing administered in Reno Justice

Court heard by Judge Cliffton. Deputy Wood #2551 under oath during
cross examination could not articulate the words Mr. Mitchell used
that alleges consent to any type of search. Total of three deputies
testified under oath in Judge Clifftons court on the events that
occurred on Red Rock Road and Goldstone Road on March 4th, Deputy Jason
Wood, Deputy Jason Walker and Deputy Aaron Tracy. All 3 Deputies had
conflicting accounts of events that led up to Mr. Mitchells arrest.
During examination of the 911/ dispatch logs that were subpoenaed that
pertained to Mr. Mitchells arrest on March 4th. K-940 which is not
referenced on any of the written transcripts but clearly heard on the
actual recorded dispatch log, is heard requesting to run Mr. Mitchells
information and entering it in system before any contact with Mr.
Mitchell. Thus, leads to believe that there was a hidden agenda in
place due to Mr. Mitchells past before making contact with Mr.
Mitchell. The Washoe County Sheriff Office was dispatched with a
concern of the health of a subject down in a vehicle. At no time upon
contact with Mr. Mitchells was his health checked by the Remsa, nor
the fire department that was dispatched nor by the Sheriff Department.
Deputy Jason Wood #2551 under his own testimony dispatched himself
after receiving information by k940 on Mr. Mitchell. Deputy Jason Wood
#2551 the time of the encounter with Mr, Mitchell was under an open
investigation for an OIS (officer involved shooting) that killed a man
by firing 3 shots to the head over an $80.00 heroin drug deal, Deputy
Wood #2551 should not of been active in the field until the OIS
investigation was officially cleared of any wrong doing and the
12

investigation was officially closed. The case for the OIS wasnt
closed officially until May of 2016.

Deputy Jason Wood #2551 was

arrested himself by the Reno Police Department for suspicion of a dui

on or about March 11th a little over a week after the incident with Mr.
Mitchell. Thus, the foundation of Mr. Mitchells arrest is tainted and
thus, the evidence should be suppressed.
III Conclusion
Based on the above, Mr. Mitchell respectfully requests that the
court grants his motion to suppress the evidence and the fruits
thereof obtained via violations of his Fourth Amendment rights through
illegal searches of him and his personal conveyance.

Date

12th day of September 2016

Next friend

Melissa Hudson
Steven-Patrick:Mitchell
Sui juris

NV Rev Stat 171.1231 (2013)

At any time after the onset of the detention pursuant to NRS 171.123, the person so
detained shall be arrested if probable cause for an arrest appears. If, after inquiry into
the circumstances which prompted the detention, no probable cause for arrest appears,
such person shall be released.
A detention for a traffic citation can turn into a consensual encounter only
when a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe he was free to
13

leave or disregard the officers request for information. United States v. GuerreroEspinoza, 462 F.3d 1302, 1308 (10 Cir. 2006).

While returning a drivers documents is necessary to show a police-citizen the

encounter is consensual, it alone is not always sufficient. United States v. Bradford,
423 F.3d 1149, 1158 (10 Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMATION PURSUANT TO NRS 239.030

The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document
does not contain the social security number of any person.
Dated this 12th day of September, 2016.

Next friend

By: Melissa Hudson

Steven Patrick Mitchell

Sui juris

14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am next friend for Steven Patrick
Mitchell and that on this date electronically filed the foregoing
with the clerk of the court by using the EFC system which will
send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
Deputy District Attorney
Via EFC system
DATED this 12th day of September, 2016
Next friend Melissa Hudson
Steven-Patrick:Mitchell
Sui Juris

15