# Motion to Suppress — Outline

**Filed under:** G.S. 15A-974, G.S. 15A-977
**Target:** All evidence seized during April 15, 2026 search of 417 Charles Conner Dr

---

## Ground 1: Franks Hearing — Uncorroborated Hearsay & Reckless Omissions

**Note:** The warrant affidavit DID disclose the victim's intubation (*"Ms. Parson... was intubated, therefore no interview has been conducted"*). The Franks argument shifts to: (1) uncorroborated hearsay from biased sources lacking indicia of reliability, (2) affiant's reckless inclusion of third-party statements without credibility assessment, (3) failure to disclose witness bias.

### Facts
- Search warrant issued April 15, 2026 at 12:33 AM by Magistrate R.M. Wood
- Affiant: Det. C.T. Inman, Kernersville Police Department
- Warrant affidavit relied **solely on third-party hearsay** — no eyewitnesses to the alleged assault
- **Three hearsay sources, all with potential bias:**
  - **John Parson** (victim's brother) — reporting party, did not witness incident
  - **Krissy Koch** (victim's sister) — expressed relationship concerns, no factual basis
  - **Shane Grey Crews** (victim's ex-partner) — **bias not disclosed**, did not witness incident
- **None of the three witnesses were present** for the alleged assault
- The affidavit did not address witness credibility or disclose the ex-partner's potential animus

### Legal Standard
*Franks v. Delaware*, 438 U.S. 154 (1978): A warrant is invalid if the affidavit contains knowing or reckless material omissions or false statements that were necessary to probable cause.

*Illinois v. Gates*, 462 U.S. 213 (1983): Totality-of-circumstances test for hearsay; corroboration and indicia of reliability are critical factors.

*State v. Arrington*, 311 N.C. 633 (1984): NC follows Gates totality test; hearsay requires sufficient indicia of reliability.

### Argument
The affidavit was invalid because:
1. **Hearsay lacked indicia of reliability:** None of the three witnesses observed the alleged assault. The ex-partner (Crews) had inherent bias that was not disclosed. The siblings' statements were based on the victim's out-of-court statements (double hearsay). No independent corroboration existed.
2. **Affiant's reckless disregard:** Det. Inman failed to investigate witness credibility or disclose known biases before presenting hearsay as probable cause.
3. **Materiality:** Without the uncorroborated hearsay, the affidavit had no factual basis for probable cause — the remaining content (officer background, property description) is insufficient to support a warrant.

---

## Ground 2: Scope of Search Exceeded Warrant Justification

### Facts
| Location | Connection to Alleged Incident |
|----------|-------------------------------|
| Living room (front of house) | Where Jamie Parson was found — **directly relevant** |
| Mason's bedroom (near living room) | Where client said he was — **arguably relevant** |
| Master bedroom (opposite side) | Locked black box found — **no connection to incident** |

### The Search
- Officers searched the **entire house**
- The **master bedroom** is on the **opposite side of the house** from the living room
- A **locked black box** was opened in the back corner of the master bedroom closet
- Inside: cannabis, scale, jars — items with **no connection** to an alleged assault

### Legal Standard
The Fourth Amendment requires that search warrants describe with particularity both
the place to be searched and the items to be seized. The scope of a search is limited
to places where evidence of the alleged offense could reasonably be found.

### Argument
A warrant to search for evidence of an **assault in the living room** does not
reasonably extend to a **master bedroom on the opposite side of the house**.
There was no nexus between:
- The alleged offense (assault in living room)
- The location searched (master bedroom closet)
- The items seized (cannabis, personal use items)

---

## Ground 3: Good-Faith Exception Does Not Apply

*State v. Rogers*, No. 377PA22 (N.C. Oct. 17, 2025) adopted a limited good-faith
exception. The exception fails here because:

1. **Affiant misconduct:** Det. Inman included uncorroborated hearsay from biased
    sources without indicia of reliability, and included a 2020 incident reference
    without verifying its accuracy or expungement status
2. **Warrant lacking probable cause:** A warrant based solely on uncorroborated hearsay
    from interested third parties, none of whom witnessed the alleged incident, is
    facially deficient
3. **Scope unreasonableness:** No reasonable officer could believe a living room
    assault warrant justified searching a master bedroom on the opposite side of the house

---

## Ground 4: Involuntariness of Consent to Open Lockbox (April 15)

*Schneckloth v. Bustamonte*, 412 U.S. 218 (1973)

### Facts
- April 15, 2026: Search warrant executed; locked black box seized from master bedroom closet
- As officers were preparing to leave, a detective told client he **was not being arrested**
- Relying on this statement, client voluntarily provided the lock combination
- Client believed his cannabis was a legitimate medical supply; had nothing to hide
- Bodycam footage should capture this interaction

### Argument
1. Consent obtained after telling client he was **not being arrested** is involuntary under the totality of circumstances
2. The detective's assurance that he wasn't in trouble induced cooperation through deception
3. Client would not have provided the combination had he known charges were being pursued
4. The consent flowed directly from the illegal search (fruit of the poisonous tree under *Wong Sun v. United States*, 371 U.S. 471)

## Ground 5: Involuntariness of April 21 Statements

*Schneckloth v. Bustamonte*, 412 U.S. 218 (1973)
*Dickerson v. United States*, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)
*State v. Hammonds*, 370 N.C. 158 (2017)

### Facts
- April 21, 2026: Detectives arrived at 417 Charles Conner Dr
- Told client he **"was not in trouble"** and **"just wanted to talk"**
- Once inside, issued an **ultimatum** demanding information on additional criminal activity
- Any statements (or refusal to speak) were made under coercive circumstances

### Argument
The detectives' deception (claiming he wasn't in trouble) followed by an ultimatum
rendered any statements involuntary under the totality-of-circumstances test.

---

## Procedural Requirements (GS 15A-977)

| Requirement | Detail |
|-------------|--------|
| **Filing deadline** | Prior to trial / disposition hearing |
| **Writing required** | Motion must be in writing and served on the State |
| **Supporting affidavit** | Required under G.S. 15A-977(a) — must contain facts supporting motion |
| **Grounds** | Must specifically state each legal ground |
| **Summary denial risk** | Judge may summarily deny if affidavit does not support ground alleged (GS 15A-977(c)(2)) — ensure thoroughness |
| **Evidentiary hearing** | If not summarily denied, judge MUST hold hearing (GS 15A-977(d)) |
| **Franks / truthfulness challenge** | Invoke GS 15A-978 — defendant may contest truthfulness of warrant testimony by cross-examination or evidence |
| **Key witnesses** | Det. C.T. Inman (affiant credibility), Magistrate R.M. Wood (warrant issuance), Jamie Parson (exoneration) |

---

## Alternative: Motion to Dismiss — Independent Grounds

Even if suppression is denied, the defense should move to dismiss all charges on **independent grounds** that do not depend on suppression of evidence:

### A. Victim Exoneration — No Probable Cause Exists
Jamie Parson has **fully exonerated** Matthew, confirming his account that no assault occurred. The State cannot prove any element of any charge without the physical evidence. The continued prosecution after exoneration is:
- **Vindictive prosecution** — charges filed despite the victim's exculpatory statement
- **Bad faith** — the entire basis for the warrant (an alleged assault) evaporated
- **Waste of judicial resources** — no reasonable possibility of conviction

### B. The State Cannot Prove Possession Without the Physical Evidence
Even if the evidence is not suppressed, the State's case rests entirely on the seized items. Without the cannabis, scale, and containers, the State cannot prove:
- **Count 1:** That Matthew possessed any controlled substance
- **Count 2:** That the dwelling was used for keeping/selling CS (no CS, no charge)
- **Count 3:** PWISD — no cannabis, no intent
- **Count 4:** Paraphernalia — no cannabis to use with the paraphernalia

**If any one count fails, all counts should be consolidated and dismissed.**

### C. Medical Necessity — Complete Affirmative Defense
*State v. Hudgins*, 167 N.C. App. 705 (2005) recognizes medical necessity as a complete defense. All three elements are met:
1. Clear and imminent danger: 30+ documented diagnoses
2. No legal alternative: All treatments failed; NC has no medical cannabis program
3. Harm avoided > harm caused: Personal possession vs. severe suffering

### D. No Distribution — PWISD Cannot Stand
*State v. Carruthers*, 251 N.C. App. 325 (2016) requires proof of intent beyond mere quantity. Zero distribution indicia exist here (no cash, no ledgers, no packaging, no sales evidence). Physical impossibility to distribute (documented driving limitations).

## Effect of Suppression

| If Suppressed | Result |
|--------------|--------|
| Cannabis (371.28g) | Inadmissible |
| Digital scale | Inadmissible |
| Containers/bags/jars | Inadmissible |
| Pillow and glasses | Inadmissible |
| **Count 1** (Felony Possession) | **Collapses** — no physical evidence |
| **Count 2** (Maintaining Dwelling) | **Collapses** — no physical evidence |
| **Count 3** (PWISD) | **Collapses** — no physical evidence |
| **Count 4** (Paraphernalia) | **Collapses** — no physical evidence |

## Conclusion

**If physical evidence is suppressed, all four charges must be dismissed** because the State cannot prove any element of any charge without the seized items.

**If suppression is denied, the Court should dismiss on independent grounds** because:
1. The victim has exonerated the defendant
2. Medical necessity provides a complete defense
3. No evidence of distribution exists
4. Continued prosecution after exoneration is vindictive and bad faith

**The evidence seized was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment** through:
- A warrant based solely on uncorroborated hearsay (Ground 1)
- A search exceeding the warrant's scope (Ground 2)
- A warrant so deficient that the good-faith exception cannot save it (Ground 3)
- Consent obtained through police deception (Ground 4)
- Statements obtained through deception (Ground 5)

**The motion should be granted, and all charges dismissed with prejudice.**