Legal Analysis of Evidence by Cassie DeTar
GC 7020 - Human Genetics
University of Cincinnati
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
As Quiet’s defense lawyer I would first like to start with the definition of probable
cause.Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search or seizure of a person by the
officer. This being said Detective Paynindeaz had probable cause to arrest Breth with
information that hewas a cocaine dealer. Detective Paynindeaz also stated that he had no idea
what Breth actually looked like, he just knew that Quiet had fit the “general” description of the
man the team was going after. In this instance, Detective and his team had no probable cause
against Quiet and did not seem to notice that they had the wrong man walking into the home.
There was also no probable cause due to the fact that Quiet’s name was not on the warrant.
Without a warrant or suspicion a cop cannot stop and frisk a person. Therefore, Quiet should
not have been arrested onthe count that the cocaine on the floor was near him. In this case the
cocaine on the floor could have been Reply’s seeing as though the department knew that this
informant had ties with the drug dealing business. It was also said that “later” in the search a
similar bag had been found on Quiet. This can not be used against him because the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion of the Quiet having drugs on his person at the time of the arrest,
information found after can no longer be used seeing as though it was not found at the time of
the arrest at the home. This happened in a similar situation in the US supreme court case of
Rodriguez v. United States. An officer had pulled over Rodriguez and later found cocaine on
his person, when taken to court the case had been thrown out due to the ruling that the drugs
found were unrelated to the traffic stop that had occurred and were found “later” in the stop.
Due to the fact that Quiet was ultimately found to be in possession of cocaine a legal doctrine
that can be used to exclude any evidence found on or near Quiet would be that of unreliable
informants. It was said that Reply had the deal all set up and knew Breth would be there. In
this case Reply was not a reliable informant and this means that the officer must have
corroboration. Corroboration is defined as evidence that can confirm or support a statement
said. In this case the statement was that Breth would be at the drug deal set up and this is in
fact also false. With an unreliable informant, no warrant for Quiet, no probable cause or
suspicion, detectives did not have enough reason to make an arrest against Quiet.
