* If you want to update the article please login/register
Topeka, Kan. - Defense and prosecution attorneys are arguing whether Facebook messages and phone records sent back and forth between man charged with murder and other people should be suppress. Larry D. Huggins III, 19, is charged with felony first - degree murder of Owen Hughes, attempted aggravated robbery of three juveniles, conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary. Huggins hasn't been charged in connection with the shooting death of one of three gunmen, Reginald McKinney, 21. Any and all evidence obtained from unlawful search of cell phone be suppress, defense Attorney Gary Conwell wrote in motion to quash evidence in the Huggin case. In response, Deputy District Attorney Roger Luedke is asking the judge to deny the defense motion to suppress statements. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits general search warrants and requires that warrant describe with particularity place to be searched and persons or things to be seize. State of Kansas seeks and obtains broad warrant to search nearly entirety of following, one LG cell phone used by defendant, defense motion to suppress evidence say. Fruits of warrant in Huggin case should be suppressed because the warrant lacked probable cause and wasn't sufficiently special in what was to be search, how it was to be searched and over what time periods, defense motion say. Instead, warrant allows the state to rummage through Mr. Huggins entire electronic history sifting for evidence, which the Fourth Amendment protects, Conwell write. Facebook was also ordered to hand over information linked to accounts associated with Huggins and others, defense suppression motion say. After reviewing the contents of these searches, there is very little that the state does not know about Mr. Huggins ' life, suppression motion say. This was not the reason for search. It was not a search that was authorize. Fruits should be suppress. Remedy for overbroad search warrant is suppression of seized evidence, Conwell wrote in the defense motion. Suppression of all evidence is not the appropriate remedy in this case, Luedke write. Here, officers who obtained warrant and conducted searches had probable cause to believe that the defendant was communicating about crime on his cell phone and through Facebook, Luedke write. Officers rightly sought a search warrant and discovered highly incriminating text messages along with relevant calls, Luedke write. Evidence was directly responsive to probable cause articulate in warrant, Luedke write. Luedke contends any evidence obtained through overbreadth or wasn't related to probable cause isn't relevant and its admission is not sought by the state. This was not general exploratory rummaging through defendants ' personal belongings to find incriminating evidence. Nor was it a case where officers obtain warrant based on one thing and then go looking for something totally different, Luedke write. Evidence searched for by officers was based on specific facts used to establish probable cause, Luedke write.
* Please keep in mind that all text is machine-generated, we do not bear any responsibility, and you should always get advice from professionals before taking any actions.
Plex.page is an Online Knowledge, where all the summaries are written by a machine. We aim to collect all the knowledge the World Wide Web has to offer.
© All rights reserved
2021 made by Algoritmi Vision Inc.
If you believe that any of the summaries on our website lead to misinformation, don't hesitate to contact us. We will immediately review it and remove the summaries if necessary.
If your domain is listed as one of the sources on any summary, you can consider participating in the "Online Knowledge" program, if you want to proceed, please follow these instructions to apply.
However, if you still want us to remove all links leading to your domain from Plex.page and never use your website as a source, please follow these instructions.