State v. Linghor
v.
Matthew Linghor, Defendant and Appellant
Judge Gerald H. Rustad
| Appellant: | Chapman Law Office | |
| Appellee: | Nicole Ellan Foster , State's Attorney |
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Listen to recording of oral argument in RM format
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
1. Whether there is sufficient, competent evidence to support the trial court's findings that Matthew was searched sufficiently contemporaneous to his arrest to uphold an otherwise illegal pocket search conducted on Matthew prior to his arrest.
2. Whether evidence and information obtained from an otherwise illegal pocket search, prior to an arrest, can be used to support probable cause to arrest.
3. Whether the trial court's decision to deny Matthew's Motion to Suppress is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
4. Whether the trial court erred, as a matter of law, when it held that Matthew was actually under arrest the entire time, including when he was subjected to the illegal pocket search.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in declaring the first jury trial a mistrial.
6. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Matthew's Motion to Dismiss the case based upon double jeopardy grounds.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
A. Whether the pocket search of Mr. Linghor was justified as a valid search incident to arrest when probable cause existed to arrest Mr. Linghor at the time of the pocket search, and the arrest was made within minutes of the search. (The combination of Defendant's Issues #1, 2, 4).
B. Whether the pocket search of Mr. Linghor can be upheld based upon the principal of inevitable discovery when it is clear from the evidence presented that Mr. Linghor would have been arrested and searched at the end of the officer's investigation. (This issue appears to be briefly argued by the Defendant although not addressed in his Statement of the Issues).
C. Whether Mr. Linghor's conviction is barred on grounds of Double Jeopardy when he was retried after his first trial ended in a hung jury. (The combination of Defendant's Issues #5, 6).
Add Docket 20030360 RSS