Free MEMORANDUM in Support - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

0 Case 1:07-cv-00012-GI\/IS Document 3 Filed 01/08/2007 Paget of3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F OR THE DISTRICT OE DELAWARE
NORMAN INGRAM, )
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civil Action No. if Y " (fl 1 2 q_
THOMAS CARROLL, I
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE Unrebutted statistical evidence of
disproportionate traffic stops against Anican-American motorists established de faco
policy of targeting blacks for investigation and arrest and thus established selective
enforcement violating the equal protection and due process clauses under the fourth
amendment of the U.S. Constitution. State v. Soto, 734 A.2d 350 (1996). In US?.
Jones, 234 F.3d 234, 241 (5th Cir. 2000), the court held that although the initial stopzif
n the defendarnls vehicle for speeding was valid, the continued detention, after completiérg
the computer check on drivers' licenses and rental papers revealed clean records, vgas
unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment. People v. Browniee, 186 Ill.2d 50-:1, T
239 III. Dec. 25, 713 N.E.2d 556.565-66 (1999) (noting ofiicers‘ actions after traffic stop
was concluded constituted show of authority such that reasonable person would conclude
- he or she was not free to leave); Ferris v. state, 355 Md. 356, 735 A.2d 491, 503 & n. 6
(1999) (fnrding illegal continued detention after officer returned license and registration
with citation for speeding but then asked driver "if he would mind" stepping to the baclc
of the vehicle to answer questions). Violating Petitioner‘s Fourth Amendment Rights.

. Case 1:07-cv-00012-GI\/IS Document 3 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 2 of 3 _

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Norman Ingram, )
Plaintiff, )
v. i Civil Action No.
Thomas Carroll, i
Defendant. ) _
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF Writ of Habeas Corpus
ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE On May 12 2003 member of the
Governors Task Force stopped Petitioners motor vehicle on route 113 north bound for
failure to use a turn signal. Petitioner was pulled over unto the shoulder of route
l13,without incident in response to flashing lights from the police vehicle.
provisions of the motor vehicle code is being violated and may incident to stop,check
vehicle registration and drivers license and issue citation,but driver must be allowed to
proceed with no further delay.Com v.Pless,679 a2d 242(1996.) After Petitioner produced
avalid drivers license and registration and Pititoner had no out standing
warrants.Petitioner was not free to 1eave.Once the officer has issued a citation or warning
and has run routine computer checks,the vehicle must be released unless the driver
voluntarily consents tofurther questioning or the officer uncovers facts that independently
warrant additional investigation.Petitioner did not give officers any reasonable ground to
suspect any illegal acts of drugs or anyother serious crimes were being committed. When
v. United States, 517 U.S 806, 116 S Ct. 1769, 135 L. ED.2d 89 (1996) Because we
conclude that the officers conduct in this case exceeded thescope of the traffic stop and
was not supported by facts uncovered during the stop,the defendants federal constitional

, Case 1:07—cv—00012-GI\/IS Document 3 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 3 of 3
rights were violated.under the fourth amendment . During the traffic stop officers ordered
passenger out of the vehicle without consent or warrant to search a passenger. Passenger
was searched, Petitioner is challenging the search is il1egal,because Petitioner was the
owner of the vehicle.State supreme court decision in Rakas V.Illinois, 439 U.S. 128,
99S.Ct. 421, 58 L.ED.2d 387 (1978.) State V. List 166 N.], Super 368, 399 A.2d 1040
(Law Div. 1979.) Under these two cases the only person who can challenge the search is
the driver and/or owner of the searched vehicle,for only they would have a possessory
interest in the vehicle and therefore ajustifiable expectation of privacy therein.As a result
g of the illegal search of the passenger contraband was found on the passenger.Petitioner
was unaware that passenger was in possession of any illegal contraband. The warantless
search was unjustiiied by the expectation of privacy in the fourth amendment..
- WHEREFORE, based upon the reasons and authorities cited in the argument, this
Court should reverse and remain to lower court.
[... qi 5 if E S
DATE Norman Ingram, #002 838
Delaware Correctional Center
1181 Paddock Road
Smyrna, DE 19977