STATE OF MAINE C~;;;i ~:,~~FlED CRIMINAL DOrT R CUMBERLAND, ss. CLE;?:<•s nFF! No. CR-14-5642 · •II, v CE
STATE OF MAINE 2015 FirR 30 AFI B 59
V. ORDER
MOHAMED ABDULRAHMAN,
Defendant
Before the court is defendant Mohamed Abdulrahman's motion to suppress certain
evidence obtained as a result of a pat down search conducted on August 26, 2014. A hearing on
that motion was held on April 17, 2015.
Abdulrahman' s motion to suppress was originally also directed at certain statements
made on August 26. At the April 17 hearing counsel for Abdulrahman withdrew his motion with
respect to the statements he made to police officers on the street and with respect to statements
he made to Officer Beal in the downstairs interview room at the police station.
Abdulrahman is also seeking to suppress statements he made during a subsequent
interview with Detective Dunham at the police station. As to that interview, counsel for
Abdulrahman withdrew his challenge as to voluntariness and counsel for the State agreed that the
Dunham interview would not be used in the State's direct case.
With respect to the evidence obtained after the pat-down search, the court finds as
follows:
Around 12:30am on August 26, four uniformed Portland police officers (Officers Turner,
Beal, Morrison, and Hodgdon) were in an unmarked car when they received a radio transmission
reporting a sexual assault in the area of Deering Oaks Park. The alleged assailant was described as an African American male wearing a sports ball cap, shorts, blue sneakers, and a red and blue
striped shirt.
They responded to the scene and saw a man matching the description of the alleged
assailant at the comer of Park Avenue and High Street at the southeast comer of Deering Oaks
Park. The officers approached the man, who was with a group of people. Officers Beal,
Hodgdon, and Turner spoke to the man, who identified himself as Mohammed Abdulrahman. 1
Officer Morrison spoke to other persons in the group. The officers asked Abdulrahman for his
identification, but he said that he had no identification with him.
Shortly afterward Sergeant Farris arrived on the scene. The unmarked car carrying the
four officers did not have a dashboard camera, but Sergeant Farris's vehicle had a dashboard
camera which captured some of the interaction between the officers and Abdulrahman from the
time that Sergeant Farris arrived. Sergeant Farris also had a body microphone that provided a
simultaneous audio recording of voices in Sergeant's Farris's presence. 2
During the portion of the interaction with Abdulrahman that was captured on Sergeant
Farris's dashcam, from the time that Sergeant Farris arrived until the pat-down search that is the
subject of the instant motion, the officers who spoke to Abdulrahman were Officer Beal and
Sergeant Farris. Officer Turner stayed in the background until he stepped forward to conduct the
pat-down search. If Officer Hodgdon remained present while the other officers spoke with
1 At the hearing counsel for Abdulrahman conceded that the officers had a reasonable articulable suspicion to approach and question Abdulrahman because he appeared to match the description that had been given of the suspect. 2 A dashcam video from the Farris vehicle was admitted into evidence at the April 17 hearing as Defendant's Exhibit 1. Because the video submitted on April 17 turned out to be the wrong video, counsel for defendant agreed that counsel for the State would substitute the correct video. That has been done and the substituted video has been admitted and marked as Court Exhibit IA.
2 Abdulrahman, Hodgdon stood farther back and can neither be seen nor heard on the dashcam
video.
During his interaction with the officers in the street, Abdulrahman was nervous but
cooperative. He was not handcuffed or restrained and moved around while the officers
questioned him as to whether he had had any interaction with the alleged victim. During his
discussion with the officers, Abdulrahman was talkative, discussing among other things the
medications he was on, his medical conditions, and the fact that he was homeless. He denied
having any involvement with the alleged victim of the sexual assault.
The officers did not immediately seek to pat Abdulrahman down. Originally,
Abdulrahman kept his hands in view. As the questioning proceeded, however, Abdulrahman
intermittently placed his hands behind his back where the officers could not see them. Officer
Samuel Turner was aware that one of the persons who had been in the group with Abdulrahman
was known to carry weapons. Turner decided to pat Abdulrahman down for weapons. This
occurred approximately seven minutes after Sergeant Farris arrived on the scene and
approximately 10 minutes after the officers first approached Abdulrahman on the street.
Until shortly before the pat-down search, Sergeant Farris's microphone captured most of
the interaction between Abdulrahman and the officers who spoke to Abdulrahman. Shortly
before Turner undertook to pat Abdulrahman down, however, Sergeant Farris moved away to
make a call on his cell phone. As a result, there is no audio recording of the events that occurred
during the pat down search except for an initial question by Turner asking Abdulrahman whether
he had any weapons. The pat down search appears on the video, and the court's findings are
based on the video and on Officer Turner's testimony.
3 Turner told Abdulrahman that he was not under arrest - which Abdulrahman had
previously also been told by Officer Beal- but that Turner was going to undertake a pat down
search for weapons. Without any hesitation Abdulrahman put his hands behind his head, and
Turner then patted him down. In the pocket of Abdulrahman's shorts Turner felt an object that
felt like an ID card. Suspicious because Abdulrahman had previously stated that he was not
carrying any identification, Turner asked Abdulrahman if it was okay to remove the object, and
Abdulrahman said yes. Turner then removed what turned out to be an EBT card and several
other cards that bore the name of Caitlyn Croston. Caitlyn Croston is the alleged victim of the
sexual assault with which Abdulrahman is charged. Although Turner did not know her name at
that time, he had been informed that the alleged victim's purse had been stolen, so he retained
the cards.
The legitimacy of an investigatory detention requires a two step analysis - first, whether
an investigatory stop was justified at its inception and second, whether the subsequent action
taken was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the stop. State v.
Storey, 1998 ME 161 ~ 12, 713 A.2d 331, citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 (1968). Given that
there is no dispute that the officers had a reasonable articulable suspicion sufficient to justify the
initial stop of Abdulrahman, this case involves the second step in the analysis. In this connection
the specific issues before the court are whether the detention lasted longer than necessary before
the pat-down search was conducted, the validity of the pat-down search itself, and whether there
was a valid basis for the removal of the cards from Abdulrahman's pocket. The State has the
burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence on these issues.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF MAINE C~;;;i ~:,~~FlED CRIMINAL DOrT R CUMBERLAND, ss. CLE;?:<•s nFF! No. CR-14-5642 · •II, v CE
STATE OF MAINE 2015 FirR 30 AFI B 59
V. ORDER
MOHAMED ABDULRAHMAN,
Defendant
Before the court is defendant Mohamed Abdulrahman's motion to suppress certain
evidence obtained as a result of a pat down search conducted on August 26, 2014. A hearing on
that motion was held on April 17, 2015.
Abdulrahman' s motion to suppress was originally also directed at certain statements
made on August 26. At the April 17 hearing counsel for Abdulrahman withdrew his motion with
respect to the statements he made to police officers on the street and with respect to statements
he made to Officer Beal in the downstairs interview room at the police station.
Abdulrahman is also seeking to suppress statements he made during a subsequent
interview with Detective Dunham at the police station. As to that interview, counsel for
Abdulrahman withdrew his challenge as to voluntariness and counsel for the State agreed that the
Dunham interview would not be used in the State's direct case.
With respect to the evidence obtained after the pat-down search, the court finds as
follows:
Around 12:30am on August 26, four uniformed Portland police officers (Officers Turner,
Beal, Morrison, and Hodgdon) were in an unmarked car when they received a radio transmission
reporting a sexual assault in the area of Deering Oaks Park. The alleged assailant was described as an African American male wearing a sports ball cap, shorts, blue sneakers, and a red and blue
striped shirt.
They responded to the scene and saw a man matching the description of the alleged
assailant at the comer of Park Avenue and High Street at the southeast comer of Deering Oaks
Park. The officers approached the man, who was with a group of people. Officers Beal,
Hodgdon, and Turner spoke to the man, who identified himself as Mohammed Abdulrahman. 1
Officer Morrison spoke to other persons in the group. The officers asked Abdulrahman for his
identification, but he said that he had no identification with him.
Shortly afterward Sergeant Farris arrived on the scene. The unmarked car carrying the
four officers did not have a dashboard camera, but Sergeant Farris's vehicle had a dashboard
camera which captured some of the interaction between the officers and Abdulrahman from the
time that Sergeant Farris arrived. Sergeant Farris also had a body microphone that provided a
simultaneous audio recording of voices in Sergeant's Farris's presence. 2
During the portion of the interaction with Abdulrahman that was captured on Sergeant
Farris's dashcam, from the time that Sergeant Farris arrived until the pat-down search that is the
subject of the instant motion, the officers who spoke to Abdulrahman were Officer Beal and
Sergeant Farris. Officer Turner stayed in the background until he stepped forward to conduct the
pat-down search. If Officer Hodgdon remained present while the other officers spoke with
1 At the hearing counsel for Abdulrahman conceded that the officers had a reasonable articulable suspicion to approach and question Abdulrahman because he appeared to match the description that had been given of the suspect. 2 A dashcam video from the Farris vehicle was admitted into evidence at the April 17 hearing as Defendant's Exhibit 1. Because the video submitted on April 17 turned out to be the wrong video, counsel for defendant agreed that counsel for the State would substitute the correct video. That has been done and the substituted video has been admitted and marked as Court Exhibit IA.
2 Abdulrahman, Hodgdon stood farther back and can neither be seen nor heard on the dashcam
video.
During his interaction with the officers in the street, Abdulrahman was nervous but
cooperative. He was not handcuffed or restrained and moved around while the officers
questioned him as to whether he had had any interaction with the alleged victim. During his
discussion with the officers, Abdulrahman was talkative, discussing among other things the
medications he was on, his medical conditions, and the fact that he was homeless. He denied
having any involvement with the alleged victim of the sexual assault.
The officers did not immediately seek to pat Abdulrahman down. Originally,
Abdulrahman kept his hands in view. As the questioning proceeded, however, Abdulrahman
intermittently placed his hands behind his back where the officers could not see them. Officer
Samuel Turner was aware that one of the persons who had been in the group with Abdulrahman
was known to carry weapons. Turner decided to pat Abdulrahman down for weapons. This
occurred approximately seven minutes after Sergeant Farris arrived on the scene and
approximately 10 minutes after the officers first approached Abdulrahman on the street.
Until shortly before the pat-down search, Sergeant Farris's microphone captured most of
the interaction between Abdulrahman and the officers who spoke to Abdulrahman. Shortly
before Turner undertook to pat Abdulrahman down, however, Sergeant Farris moved away to
make a call on his cell phone. As a result, there is no audio recording of the events that occurred
during the pat down search except for an initial question by Turner asking Abdulrahman whether
he had any weapons. The pat down search appears on the video, and the court's findings are
based on the video and on Officer Turner's testimony.
3 Turner told Abdulrahman that he was not under arrest - which Abdulrahman had
previously also been told by Officer Beal- but that Turner was going to undertake a pat down
search for weapons. Without any hesitation Abdulrahman put his hands behind his head, and
Turner then patted him down. In the pocket of Abdulrahman's shorts Turner felt an object that
felt like an ID card. Suspicious because Abdulrahman had previously stated that he was not
carrying any identification, Turner asked Abdulrahman if it was okay to remove the object, and
Abdulrahman said yes. Turner then removed what turned out to be an EBT card and several
other cards that bore the name of Caitlyn Croston. Caitlyn Croston is the alleged victim of the
sexual assault with which Abdulrahman is charged. Although Turner did not know her name at
that time, he had been informed that the alleged victim's purse had been stolen, so he retained
the cards.
The legitimacy of an investigatory detention requires a two step analysis - first, whether
an investigatory stop was justified at its inception and second, whether the subsequent action
taken was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the stop. State v.
Storey, 1998 ME 161 ~ 12, 713 A.2d 331, citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 (1968). Given that
there is no dispute that the officers had a reasonable articulable suspicion sufficient to justify the
initial stop of Abdulrahman, this case involves the second step in the analysis. In this connection
the specific issues before the court are whether the detention lasted longer than necessary before
the pat-down search was conducted, the validity of the pat-down search itself, and whether there
was a valid basis for the removal of the cards from Abdulrahman's pocket. The State has the
burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence on these issues.
The investigatory detention and pat-down search of Abdulrahman is governed by the
Supreme Court's decision in Terry, 392 U.S. at 20-23 (1968). An investigatory detention must be
4 temporary and last no longer that necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop, taking into
account whether the officers were diligent in pursuing their investigation. United States v.
Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 684-85 (1984); State v. Donatelli, 2010 ME 43 ~ 17, 995 A.2d 238.
In this case the officers had approached Abdulrahman based on a report of a serious
crime, a sexual assault. Where Abdulrahman did not produce identification and said he was
homeless, the officers were justified in detaining him while they confirmed the description given
by the alleged victim and other witnesses and while they asked Abdulrahman if ha had had any
interaction with the alleged victim that evening. The officers were not detaining Abdulrahman
unnecessarily and did not show any lack of diligence. The Supreme Court's decision in Sharpe
demonstrates that there is no fixed time limit on the length of a Terry stop, 470 U.S. at 685, and
the time from the initial approach to the pat-down search in this case does not approach the
length of time that might constitute a de facto arrest.
With respect to the pat-down search itself, law enforcement officers are entitled to take
such steps as are reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety, State v. Kirby, 2005 ME
92 ~ 12, 878 A.2d 499, and are expressly entitled to undertake pat-down searches for weapons
under Terry, 392 U.S. at 29-30. In this case Abdulrahman was a suspect in a recent violent crime
who had been stopped on the street in the early hours of the morning in the company of at least
one person known to carry weapons. At various times during the course of his discussions with
the officers, moreover, Abdulrahman placed his hands his back where the officers could not see
them. Although Officer Turner did not conduct the pat-down search for weapons until
approximately 10 minutes had passed, there is no basis in law or logic to conclude that officers
must immediately undertake a pat-down search or lose their ability to do so, so long as there is a
sufficient basis to undertake a protective search for weapons at the time that search is conducted.
5 While there is ample justification for the investigatory detention and the pat-down search
in this case, the remaining question is whether the State has demonstrated that Officer Turner
was entitled to remove the cards belonging to Caitlyn Croston from Abdulrahman' s pocket.
Since the cards did not feel like weapons or contraband, the State cannot rely on Terry to justify
the removal of those cards from Abdulrahman's pocket. See State v. Storey, 1998 ME 161 1 16.
In this case the basis relied upon by the State is Abdulrahman's consent.
Where the State relies upon consent, it has the burden of proving that Abdulrahman's
consent was voluntarily given. State v. Ullring, 1999 ME 183 1 10, 741 A.2d 1065, citing
Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218, 222 (1973). In this case the State proved that
Abdulrahman orally gave his consent to the removal of the cards from his pocket and that his
consent was not the product of duress or coercion.
In this connection, the officers had not displayed any weapons or handcuffed
Abdulrahman or otherwise subjected him to a sufficient show of force or authority that might
suggest that his consent was coerced. Just because there were three or four officers involved in
the interaction with Abdulrahman does not mean that Abdulrahman's consent was not
voluntarily obtained. See State v. Donatelli, 2010 ME 43 117, 14, 18. Throughout his interaction
with the officers, Abdulrahman was very forthcoming and appeared to be trying to allay any
suspicion by being cooperative. When he was asked to submit to a pat-down search, he
immediately complied and put his hands behind his head. His voluntary consenti when Turner
asked if Turner could remove an object that felt like an identification card from his pocket was
entirely consistent with Abdulrahman's behavior during his interaction with the officers.
Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence found in the pat-down search is denied.
6 Dated: April Zi, 2015
Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court
7 STATE OF MAINE CRIMINAL DOCKET vs CUMBERLAND, ss. MOHAMED ABDULRAHMAN Docket No CUMCD-CR-2014-05642 131 EBEN HILL DRIVE PORTLAND ME04103 DOCKET RECORD DOB: 08/02/1986 Attorney: VERNE PARADIE State's Attorney: STEPHANIE ANDERSON PARADIE SHERMAN WALKER & WORDEN II LISBON ST SUITE 202 LEWISTON ME 04240 APPOINTED 08/27/2014 Filing Document: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Major Case Type: FELONY (CLASS A,B,C) Filing Date: 08/27/2014 ' Charge(s) I GROSS SEXUAL ASSAULT 08/26/2014 PORTLAND Seq 4262 17-A 253(l)(A) Class A DUNHAM I POR 2 THEFT BY UNAUTHORIZED TAKING OR TRANSFER 08/24/2014 PORTLAND Seq 8423 17-A 353(1 )(A) Class E DUNHAM POR 3 FURNISH LIQUOR TO A MINOR 08/26/2004 PORTLAND Seq 9854 28-A 2081 ( 1)(A)( 1) Class D Charged with INDICTMENT on Supplemental Filing. DUNHAM POR 4 UNLAWFUL SEXUAL CONTACT 08/26/2014 PORTLAND Seq 8410 17-A 255-A(1)(0) Class C Charged with INFORMATION on Supplemental Filing. DUNHAM POR Docket Events: 08/27/2014 FILING DOCUMENT- CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON 08/27/2014
08/27/2014 Charge(s): I ,2 HEARING- INITIAL APPEARANCE SCHEDULED FOR 08/27/2014 at 01:00p.m. in Room No.
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 08/28/2014 Charge(s): I ,2 HEARING- INITIAL APPEARANCE HELD ON 08/27/2014 WILLIAM BRODRICK , JUSTICE DA: JENNIFER ACKERMAN Defendant Present in Court TAPE 6317 08/28/2014 Charge(s): I ,2 PLEA- NO ANSWER ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON 08/27/2014 WILLIAM BRODRICK , JUSTICE 08/28/2014 BAIL BOND- $25,000.00 CASH BAIL BOND SET BY COURT ON 08/27/2014 WILLIAM BRODRICK , JUSTICE NO CONTACT: KATELYNN CROSTON 3/3111996 08/28/2014 MOTION- MOTION FOR APPOiNTMENT OF CNSL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 08/27/2014
08/28/2014 MOTION- MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL GRANTED ON 08/27/2014 WILLIAM BRODRICK , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 08/28/2014 Party(s): MOHAMED ABDULRAHMAN ATTORNEY- APPOINTED ORDERED ON 08/27/2014
Attorney: VERNE PARADIE 08/28/2014 HEARING- DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 11112/2014 at 08:30a.m. in Room No. 7
CR-200 Page I of 5 Printed on: 04/30/2015 MOHAMED ABDULRAHMAN CUMCD-CR-20 14-05642 DOCKET RECORD
08/28/2014 Charge(s): 1 ,2 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 12/08/2014 at 08:30a.m. in Room No. II
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 10115/2014 Charge(s): I ,2,3 SUPPLEMENTAL FILING- INDICTMENT FILED ON 10/10/2014 JAMES TURCOTTE , ASSIST ANT CLERK 10/15/2014 Charge(s): I ,2,3 HEARING- ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR I 0/24/2014 at 01:00p.m. in Room No.
10/15/2014 Charge(s): I ,2,3 HEARING- ARRAIGNMENT NOTICE SENT ON 10/15/2014 JAMES TURCOTTE , ASSIST ANT CLERK I 0/27/2014 Charge(s): I ,2 ,3 HEARING- ARRAIGNMENT HELD ON 10/24/2014 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE DA: ANNE BERLIND DEFENDANT INFORMED OF CHARGES. 21 DAYS TO FILE MOTIONS TAPE #6555 10/27/2014 Charge(s): I ,2,3 PLEA- NOT GUILTY ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON I 0/24/2014
10/27/2014 BAIL BOND- CASH BAIL BOND CONTINUED AS SET ON 10/24/2014 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE 11/12/2014 HEARING- DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE HELD ON 11112/2014 PAULE EGGERT ,JUDGE Attorney: VERNE PARADIE DA: STEPHANIE ANDERSON DISCOVERY ISSUES. MOTION'S FILED AND SCHEDULED 12-2-14@ 1:00 P.M. PARTIES NOTIFIED. JURY SELECTION SET 1-12-15. 11112/2014 Charge(s): I ,2 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL CONTINUED ON 11/12/2014
11112/2014 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 01112/2015 at 08:30a.m. in Room No. II
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL I I112/2014 TRIAL - JURY TRIAL NOTICE SENT ON II /12/20 14
11/12/2014 MOTION- MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 11/12/2014
EVIDENCE 11/12/2014 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 12/02/2014 at 01:00p.m. in Room No.
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 11/12/2014 MOTION- MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 11112/2014
11/12/2014 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT SCHEDULED FOR 12/02/2014 at 01:00p.m. in Room No.
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 11113/2014 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT NOTICE SENT ON 11113/2014
11/13/2014 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICE SENT ON 11113/2014 CR-200 Page 2 of 5 Printed on: 04/30/2015 MOHAMED ABDULRAHMAN CUMCD-CR-20 14--05&-1-2 DOCKET RECORD
12/03/2014 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT CONTINUED ON 12/02/2014 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE Attorney: VERNE PARADIE DA: STEPHANIE ANDERSON CONTINUED FOR PLEA 1-9-15 AT 8:30AM 12/03/2014 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS CONTINUED ON 12/02/2014 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE Attorney: VERNE PARADIE DA: STEPHANIE ANDERSON CONTINUED TO 1-9-15 AT 8:30AM PLEA BY AGREEMENT OF PARTIES 12/03/2014 Charge(s): 1 ,2,3 . HEARING- RULE 11 HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 01/09/2015 at 08:30a.m. in Room No. 7
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 12/03/2014 Charge(s): 1 ,2,3 HEARING- RULE II HEARING NOTICE SENT ON 12/02/2014 KRISTINA JOYCE, ASSISTANT CLERK 01/09/2015 Charge(s): I ,2,3 HEARING- RULE II HEARING NOT HELD ON 01/09/2015
TO REMAIN ON JS LIST 01/09/2015 Charge(s): 1 ,2,3 MOTION- MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 01/09/2015 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 01/09/2015 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL CONTINUED ON 01/09/2015 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE 01/12/2015 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 02/03/2015 at 01:00p.m. in Room No.
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 01/12/2015 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICE SENT ON 01/12/2015 JAMES TURCOTIE , ASSIST ANT CLERK 0 I /12/2015 Charge(s): 1 ,2,3 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 02/09/2015 at 08:30a.m. in Room No. II
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 0 I/12/2015 Charge(s): I ,2,3 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL NOTICE SENT ON 01/12/2015 JAMES TURCOTIE, ASSISTANT CLERK 01/29/2015 Charge(s): 1 ,2,3 MOTION- MOTION TO CONTINUE RLED BY STATE ON 01/29/2015
DA: STEPHANIE ANDERSON MOTION TO CONTINUE MOTION HEARING 2-3-15. DEFENDANT DOES NOT OBJECT 0 I /29/2015 Charge(s): 1 ,2 ,3 MOTION- MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 01/29/2015 ROLAND A COLE , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 01/29/2015 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS CONTINUED ON 01/29/2015 ROLAND A COLE , JUSTICE 01/29/2015 Charge(s): 1 ,2,3 CR-200 Page 3 of 5 Printed on: 0-l/30/20 15 MOHAMED ABDULRAHMAN CUMCD-CR-20 14-05642 DOCKET RECORD TRIAL- JURY TRIAL CONTINUED ON 01/29/2015
01/29/2015 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT SCHEDULED FOR 03/03/2015 at 01:00p.m. in Room No.
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 01/29/2015 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT NOTICE SENT ON 01/29/2015
01/29/2015 Charge(s): 1,2,3 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 03/09/2015 at 08:30a.m. in Room No. II
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 01/29/2015 Charge(s): 1,2,3 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL NOTICE SENT ON 01/29/2015
03/03/2015 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT CONTINUED ON 03/03/2015
03/03/2015 Charge(s): I ,2,3 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL CONTINUED ON 03/03/2015
03/03/2015 Charge(s): I ,2 ,3 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 03/23/2015 at 08:30a.m. in Room No. II
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 03/03/2015 Charge(s): 1,2,3 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL NOTICE SENT ON 03/03/2015
03/05/2015 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 03/10/2015 at 09:00a.m. in Room No. II THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 03/05/2015 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICE SENT ON 03/05/2015
03/05/2015 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOT HELD ON 03/05/2015
ATTY IN TRIAL 03/12/2015 HEARING- RULE II HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 03/17/2015 at 01:00p.m. in Room No.
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 03/12/2015 HEARING- RULE 11 HEARING NOTICE SENT ON 03/12/2015
03116/2015 MOTION- MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED BY STATE ON 03/16/2015
TO CONTINUE HEARING 3-17-15. UNOPPOSED. 03116/2015 MOTION- MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 03116/2015 ROLAND A COLE , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 03118/2015 HEARING- RULE II HEARING NOT HELD ON 03116/2015
03118/2015 Charge(s): 1,2,3 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL CONTINUED ON 03/16/2015 ROLAND A COLE , JUSTICE 03118/2015 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT SCHEDULED FOR 04/07/2015 at 01:00p.m. in Room No.
CR-200 Page4of5 Printed on: 0-t/30/20 I 5 MOHAMED ABDULRAHMAN CUMCD-CR-20 14-05642 DOCKET RECORD NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 0311812015 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 04/27/2015 at 08:30a.m. in Room No. 7
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 03118/2015 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT NOT HELD ON 03118/2015
03/26/2015 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 04/1712015 at 01:00p.m. in Room No. 7
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 03/26/2015 HEARING~ MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICE SENT ON 0312612015
04/17/2015 Charge(s): 4 SUPPLEMENTAL RUNG- INFORMATION RLED ON 04/17/2015
DA: MEGAN ELAM 04117/2015 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS HELD ON 04/17/2015 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE Attorney: VERNE PARADIE DA: MEGAN ELAM DEFENSE SUBMITS EXHIBIT I. STATE CALLS OFFICER SAMUEL TURNER. CROSS EXAMINATION BY DEFENSE. STATE RESTS. DEFENSE RESTS. JURY SELECTION TO BE SET A MONTH AFTER RULING ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS. 0411712015 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL CONTINUED ON 04/17/2015 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE 04/17/2015 CASE STATUS- CASE FILE LOCATION ON 04/17/2015
IN JUSTICE WARREN'S CHAMBERS. 04/3012015 CASE STATUS - CASE RLE RETURNED ON 04/30/2015
04/30/2015 MOTION- MOTION TO SUPPRESS UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 04117/2015 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE 04/3012015 MOTION- MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT WITHDRAWN ON 04/17/2015
04/30/2015 MOTION- MOTION TO SUPPRESS DENIED ON 04/30/2015 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 04/30/2015 ORDER- COURT ORDER FILED ON 04/30/2015 THOMAS D WARREN, JUSTICE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH IS DENIED. 04/30/2015 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 06/08/2015 at 08:30a.m. in Room No. II
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 04/30/2015 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL NOTICE SENT ON 04/30/2015
A TRUE COPY ATTEST: ----------------------- Clerk
CR-200 Page 5 of 5 Printed on: 04/30/2015