COMES NOW the Defendant, SANDRA MURPHY, by and through her attorney, JOHN J. MCMOT, ESQ. of the law office of MOMOT AND TIDWELL, and pursuant to NR 1-79.085, the United States and Nevada Constitutions, and the Courts inherent supervisory power, moves for the immediate return of her black panties, which were illegally seized by Officers of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and/or the House Arrest Program when Ms. Murphy was in custody at the Clark County Detention Center during the period of October 21 through October 28, 1999

Ms. Murphy also moves to suppress said parties from evidence at her trial or any other Judicial proceeding, a well as all evidence derived therefrom, or. the grounds that the panties were illegally seized without the benefit of a warrant or court order in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 18 of the Nevada Constitution.

This Motion is based on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto. Ms. Murphy respectfully requests this Court to hold an evidentiary hearing an this Motion pursuant to the mandate of NRS 179-085(l).

DATED this 2 day of November, 1999.

Please take notice that the undersigned will bring the foregoing MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND FOR RE7URN OF SEIZED PROPERTY, TO WIT: BLACK PANTIES on for hearing in District Court VI on the 15 day of November, 1999, at the hour of 8:30 a.m.

On the morning of Thursday, October 21, 1999, Ms. Murphy was taken into custody by House Arrest Program Officers. Ms. Murphy hurriedly dressed while Officer Donna Bryant watched. Ms. Murphy, who had commenced her menstrual cycle, put on a pair of black panties under her jeans. At the jail, all of Ms. Murphy’s clothes were confiscated from her and she was given a Detention Center jump suit to wear in their place. Ms. Murphy put her panties into one of the pockets in her jeans. Officer Byrant then placed all of Ms. Murphy's clothes into a clear plastic bag used by the Detention Center to hold prisoner's personal clothing. Ms. Murphy watched as Officer Bryant handed the bag to a female Corrections Officer. The bag was closed, labeled with Ms. Murphy's name and hung on a dry cleaner style motorized conveyor rack.

On the morning of October 28, 1999, Ms. Murphy was released from custody. When Ms. Murphy was given back the same bag containing her clothes, her black panties were missing. After Ms. Murphy put her other clothes on, she brought the issue of her missing panties to the attention of a male, uniformed police Officer. The officer told her that he knew who she was, and that she should speak to a Corrections Officer about the matter.

Shortly thereafter, one of the female House Arrest Officers who had accompanied Ms, Bryant during Ms. Murphy's arrest on October 21, 1999 entered the changing room. When Ms. Murphy told this House Arrest officer about her missing panties, the Officer replied. "I wouldn't worry about it. It's no big deal." The Officer then speculated that the panties might have fallen out of the bag while on the conveyor rack. With all due respect to the House Arrest

Officer, Ms. Murphy believes that the Officer’s explanation of why her panties were not returned to her is highly unlikely. First, Ms. Murphy had stuffed her panties into her jeans pocket and her jeans were not lost. Second, Ms. Murphy’s clothes bag was closed at the top. Third, Ms. Murphy's clothes bag was hung on the conveyor rack with its closed opening facing upwards, making it all but impossible for anything to fall out of it.

In the end, Ms. Murphy was released from the Detention Center without her panties or a satisfactory explanation as to their whereabouts.

NRS 179.085 provides that a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move for the return of the property and to suppress for use as evidence anything obtained on the ground that: the property was illegally seized without a court-authorized warrant.

The State had no right to retain any article of clothing Ms. Murphy was wearing when she entered the Detention Center on October 21, 1999. The panties were neither evidence of a crime nor contraband per se. Although the State may have been within its rights to store Ms. Murphy's clothes while she was detained, the State's unauthorized retention of her panties after her release from custody clearly constitutes an illegal, warrantless seizure in violation of Ms. Murphy's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, section 18 of the Nevada Constitution.

The defense is moving for suppression and for the return. of seized property at this time in light of the possibility that the State illegally retained Ms. Murphy's panties -in order to conduct scientific tests on the menstrual blood and/or other bodily fluids they were soiled with.

Pursuant to the United States and Nevada Constitutions, NRS 179.085 and the Court's inherent supervisory power, the Court is respectfully requested to order the State to return Ms. Murphy's panties forthwith, and to suppress her panties from evidence at trial or any other judicial proceeding, as well as all evidence derived therefrom as fruit of the poisonous tree. Wong Sun v. United States, 37 U.S. 471, 467-485 (1963)

Pursuant to NRS which provides that "[t]he judge shall receive evidence on any issue fact necessary to the decision" of a motion to suppress evidence, the Court is further requested to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine how Ms. Murphy's panties managed to mysteriously disappear while in the custody of the Detention Center in order to get to the bottom of this matter.

OPPS
STEWART L. BELL
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Nevada Bar 0000477
200 S. Third Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89155
Attorney for Plaintiff

DISTRICT COURT

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

DATE OF HEARING: 11-15-99
TIME OF HEARING: 8:30 A.M.

COMES NOW, the State of Nevada, by STEWART L. BELL, District Attorney, through DAVID J.J. ROGER, Chief Deputy District Attorney, and hereby submits the attached Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence and for Return of Seized Property, to-wit: Black Panties.

This Opposition is made and based upon all the papers and pleadings on file herein, the attached points and authorities in support hereof, and oral argument at the time of hearing, if deemed necessary by this Honorable Court.

NRS 179.085(1) provides:

A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the court having jurisdiction where the property was seized for the return of the property and to suppress for use as evidence anything so obtained on the ground that:

(a) The property was illegally seized without a warrant;
(b) The warrant is insufficient on its face;
(c)There was not probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant was issued; or
(d) The warrant was illegally executed.

The judge shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision of the motion.

In the instant case, there is no evidence to suggest that the State of Nevada has seized the Defendant's black panties. Paul Martin, Executive Director of the Clark County Detention Center, conducted an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Defendant's alleged missing panties. Director Martin's report is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference. Director Martin's investigation failed to uncover any wrongdoing on the part of correctional officers. Additionally, jail personnel were unable to locate Defendant's alleged missing panties.

Defendant’s suggestion that law enforcement has seized her panties ". . . to conduct scientific tests on the menstrual blood and/or bodily fluids they were soiled with. "is completely without merit. Law enforcement has been investigating Ted Binion's murder since September, 1998. During the course of the investigation, numerous search warrants have been executed in several locations throughout the United States. Additionally, the State has obtained court ordered handwriting exemplars from Defendant. The State of Nevada has meticulously followed the letter of the law in its search for truth. It is absurd to suggest that law enforcement secretively seized Defendant's undergarments. In sum, there is no evidence to suggest that the State of Nevada has seized Defendant's panties for any purpose.

Moreover, Defendant's motion to suppress the panties and any evidence derived from the testing of the panties is premature. As set forth above, the State of Nevada does not have possession of Defendant's panties. Also, because the State does not have the Defendant's panties, the State has not conducted scientific tests on the panties. Therefore, evidence to suppress.

Based upon the foregoing. the State respectfully suggests that the Court deny Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence without prejudice. If Defendant's panties are ever recovered, the State will notify the Defendant and the Court.

DATED this 8^th day of November, 1999.

Respectfully submitted,

RECEIPT OF COPY

RECEIPT OF COPY of the above and foregoing OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPRESS EVIDENCE AND FOR RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY, TO WIT: BLACK PANTIES is hereby acknowledged this ______ day of November 1999.

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT

EVENT #: ___________

SANDRA RENEE MURPHY, ID#1525434
SUBJECT

On 07/15/99 Ms, Murphy was placed on House Arrest as a condition of release by Judge Togliatti.

On 10/21199, Ms. Murphy was brought back into custody by Officer D. Bryant, P# 3337, her assigned Case Officer, for violation of House Arrest rules.

Officer Bryant was present when Ms, Murphy got dressed at her place of residence on Green Valley Parkway in Henderson. At that time, Officer Bryant remembers Ms. Murphy putting on a pair of black panties.

When Ms. Murphy, in the custody of Officer Bryant, arrived at the Clark County Detention Center on 10/21/99, Officer Bryant dressed Ms. Murphy into jail clothing and then escorted her to her assigned housing unit.

District Court Judge Bonaventure placed Ms. Murphy back on House Arrest as a condition of release.

On 10128/99, at approximately 0500 hours, Ms. Murphy was brought down from her housing unit to the release area, to be dressed-out. Ms. Murphy's clothing was provided, to her by Corrections Assistant L. Ouellett, P# 5682. Ms. Murphy was given her clothes and she made no mention of any article of clothing being missing.

Ms. Murphy remained in dress-out #3 until approximately 0840 hours, when Officer C. Parrott, P# 3148, came to the releasing area to pick up Ms. Murphy and escort her to the House Arrest office. As Officer Parrott and Ms. Murphy approached the releasing station, she mentioned to Officer Parrott that her panties were missing from her property bag. She was asked if she was sure she put them in there in the first place and if she wished to file a claim. Ms. Murphy did not respond to Officer Parrott. Instead, she began a conversation with Officer J. Burritt, P# 4848. Officer Burritt and Ms. Murphy recognized each other as fellow classmates at Downey High School, Ms. Murphy did not make any other statements regarding her panties. She signed her Property Slip, marking "No Exceptions", and was escorted to the House Arrest Office.

A search of the CCDC laundry facilities uncovered four pairs of female panties not issued by this facility. These panties were dropped down the laundry chute from the first floor dress-out area to the laundry area.

On 11/04/99, Ms. Murphy was directed to report to our facility for a routine check-in. She arrived in the company of her attorney, Mr. John Momot.

In the presence of Officer J. Laurita, P# 4843; Corrections Assistant C. Hoxsey, P# 5492; and Lieutenant R. Ulrey, P# 2657, the four female panties were shown to Ms. Murphy, one.. of which was black in color. Ms. Murphy indicated none of these garments were her missing panties.

We know that on 10121/99, according to Officer Bryant, Ms. Murphy was wearing a pair of black panties when she arrived here at the Clark County Detention Center. We do not know if Ms. Murphy placed them in her property bag or not. Officer Bryant could not remember specifically witnessing that.

On 10/28/99, when Ms. Murphy was dressed-out in her street clothing, no one was present, so we do not know if the panties were present or not.

Ms. Murphy did advise us, at the time of release, that her panties were missing, but chose to have a personal conversation with another officer instead of answering Officer Parrott's inquiry as to what she would like us to do.

Our normal procedure is that if an inmate, upon release, checks that there is an exception to all the property that has been returned to them, meaning they are missing some item, then a search of the area is conducted, If that fails to turn up the missing item, then a Lost Property claim is filled out. Ms, Murphy chose to check that there were ' no exceptions to her property, which meant she received everything back and chose to be released to the House Arrest program.

If the panties are missing, at this time we at the Clark County Detention Center do not know what happened to them or where they may be.