No Guarantees for Cooperation: Appellate Court Affirms Decision that Defendant was Promised Any Special Treatment in Exchange for his Cooperation.

In Dermio v. State, the district court affirmed the lower court's ruling, denying the defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence. The initial contact occurred as defendant was approached by a sheriff's deputy. Defendant was located inside of the vehicle with the windows up & the engine was still running. The deputy noticed that defendant appeared to be asleep.

The officer asked the defendant to roll down the defendant's window, but defendant didn't act in response. After the police officer gave a third request for defendant to lower the window with no response and because the defendant seemed to be incoherent, the deputy opened the door on the motor vehicle since she was concerned for defendant's wellbeing. Upon opening the car door, the officer noticed the small of cannabis as well as observed a metal pipe situated on the middle console. In due course, the defendant's car was searched, and in addition to the pipe, a handgun, marijuana, and varying sorts and amounts of other drugs were found.

In the motion to suppress, the defendant claimed that the investigator explained to him in the event that he told truthful statements, the investigator could help defendant. This investigator later testified she had advised the defendant that "depending on what information he gave, . . . I might be able to talk to the judge" and that the officer might have the ability to "help [him] out with something." The investigator testified that the sheriff's office protocol was to "let [defendants] know if there's anything that we can do that comes of the information [they] give us, then we will talk at a sentencing hearing." Nevertheless, the detective clarified that she did not make any promises to defendant and expressly stated to him that there were "[n]o promises." The detective testified she did not make any representations to the defendant regarding what type of punishment the defendant might receive. The lower court rejected defendant's motion to suppress. The district court concurred, and affirmed the lower court's rejection of the motion to suppress.

Comments? Questions? Email Here

© HowtoAdvice.com

How to Advice .com