Sunteți pe pagina 1din 14

The Defendant's do hereby Motion that Search Warrant No 77908014, (See Defendants' Exhibit

A), be declared invalid and therefore unlawful due to the requesting officer's Affidavit, (See
Defendant's Exhibit B), failing to provide the necessary substance to provide either "Probable
Cause" for the Warrant to be issued or to meet the legal requirement of "Reliable Practicality "
as to where which item would be found or in whose possession it was believed to be in.
A.
convince any reasonable person to believe that the residents of Santa Clara County Assessor's
parcel no. located at 31490 Harding Ave, San Martin, California 95946 were unlawfully in
possession of any of the items listed to be seized or that any of the items to be seized were
evidence of any crime or criminal activity pursuant to Penal Code 1524.
1. The Defendant's believe and aver that both the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Deputy
Ryan Proctor's Officer's Affidavit and the subsequent Search Warrant are unjustifiably
vague as to exactly which laws would or could be broken by which person or persons
with exactly which item from the list of items to be seized due to the fact that all of the
items listed are lawful to possess and common for the locations named.
2. CA. State law and U.S. federal laws require "Probable cause" and "Particular Reliability"
with specific standards to be met in both the Affidavit and Warrant in order for that
Warrant to be considered to be valid and lawful. Neither of those documents meet the
legal standard required to obtain a Search and Seize Warrant for seizing property and
without violating both the Defendants' and the other residents of the parcel's legalized
rights as provided for by the law. ​STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL FACTS
3.
4. 1. On or about, August 21, 2018, Santa Clara County Deputy Ryan Proctor, (hereinafter
also known as "Deputy Proctor") requested by sworn Affidavit, that the South County
STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL FACTS
Superior Court of the State of CA, County of Santa Clara, issue a Search and Seizure
Warrant for the home of Diamond Gomez & James Quaan, particularly, 31490 Harding
1. On or about, August 21, 2018, Santa Clara County Deputy Ryan Proctor, (hereinafter also
Ave, San Martin CA. 95046, Santa Clara County Assessor's parcel no. NSW38355,
known as "Deputy Proctor") requested by sworn Affidavit, that the South County Superior Court
(hereinafter also know as the "Premises")
of the State of CA, County of Santa Clara, issue a Search and Seizure Warrant for the home of
5.
Diamond Gomez & James Quaan, particularly, 31490 Harding Ave, San Martin CA. 95046,
6. 2.) Deputy Proctor's request consisted of a 3 page Affidavit dated and signed on August
Santa Clara County Assessor's parcel no. NSW38355, (hereinafter also know as the
21 ,2018, by Deputy Proctor. (See Defendants's Attached Exhibit A).
"Premises")
7. 3.) On August 21, 2018, at 4:21 pm, Judge of Santa Clara Superior Court. signed
Order to Search No. CSW53855, commanding Deputy Procter and other Santa Clara
2.) Deputy Proctor's request consisted of a 3 page Affidavit dated and signed on August 21
Sheriff's Deputies
,2018, by Deputy Proctor. (See Defendants's Attached Exhibit A).
3.) On August 21, 2018, at 4:21 pm, Judge of Santa Clara Superior Court. signed Order to
8. The Deputy Proctor appears to expect the court and the Defendants' to simply assume
Search No. CSW53855, commanding Deputy Procter and other Santa Clara Sheriff's Deputies
that his conclusions are right and that his methods and motives are lawful and above
The following areDeputy
question. my beliefs,evidence related
Proctor appears laws and
to believe that case precedent
the court toDefendants'
and the support my will fail to
conclusions.
actually read the Affidavit and without any evidence to corroborate his opinion, they will
fail as he onviously did to
The requirements for a valid Search Warrant are:

coonsider that there is a lawful purpose for the items to be where they arexpects der what
1. Both Santa
circumstances Clara County
the Deputy Sheriff'sor
had observed Deputy Ryan Proctor's
had reliable Affidavit
and verifiable signedof,
evidence onthat
August
would21,
2018,
cause that itemand Search
which Warrant
is usually No. 77908014
lawful to possessare
andtoo vague in
therefore failtheir description
to meet of locations
the standard
to be searched in relation to items to be seized and how they alone substantiate
required to uphold the Defendant's 1st, 4th, 6th 8th and 10th Amendment rights as provided criminal
for
by bothactivity.
CaliforniaNeither
law anddocument
the U.S.names or describes,
Constitution's Fourthany person or person
Amendment to beRequirement
Particularity searched nor
do they refer to any activity or circumstance that is obviously considered criminal activity.
Considering that the location appears to be both a residence and a working farm and
considering that California state law, AUMA, does allow cultivation of cannabis for
personal and medical use and considering that with Santa Clara County's Ordinance 26.
on marijuanna that provides Exemption clauses for qualified patients and caregivers to
cultivate marijuanna for personal medical use and to cultivate collectively, there is no
way, any reasonable person would jump to conclude, based on the information provided
in those documents, the Affidavit and Warrant alone, that a crime has occurred, is
occurring or will occur at those locations with the items named. The Affidavit fails to
provide the source of Deputy Proctor's conclusions and any oral arguments or material
evidence are not provided nor incorporated by reference in the resulting Search Warrant.
2. As Deputy Proctor's basis for believing there is criminal activity is unstated, there is no
way any reasonable person can evaluate the validity of reliability of the Affidavit and
therefore it does not establish probable cause.
A. In regards to the person's and location to be searched and the items to be seized, both
the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment and California State law states a Particularity
Requirement.
The Defendant's do hereby Motion that Search Warrant No 77908014, (See Defendants' Exhibit
A), be declared invalid and therefore unlawful due to the requesting officer's Affidavit, (See
Defendant's Exhibit B), failing to provide the necessary substance to provide either "Probable
Cause" for the Warrant to be issued or to meet the legal requirement of "Reliable Practicality "
as to where which item would be found or in whose possession it was believed to be in.
A.
convince any reasonable person to believe that the residents of Santa Clara County Assessor's
parcel no. located at 31490 Harding Ave, San Martin, California 95946 were unlawfully in
possession of any of the items listed to be seized or that any of the items to be seized were
evidence of any crime or criminal activity pursuant to Penal Code 1524.
1. The Defendant's believe and aver that both the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Deputy
Ryan Proctor's Officer's Affidavit and the subsequent Search Warrant are unjustifiably
vague as to exactly which laws would or could be broken by which person or persons
with exactly which item from the list of items to be seized due to the fact that all of the
items listed are lawful to possess and common for the locations named.
2. CA. State law and U.S. federal laws require "Probable cause" and "Particular Reliability"
with specific standards to be met in both the Affidavit and Warrant in order for that
Warrant to be considered to be valid and lawful. Neither of those documents meet the
legal standard required to obtain a Search and Seize Warrant for seizing property and
without violating both the Defendants' and the other residents of the parcel's legalized
rights as provided for by the law. ​STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL FACTS
3.
4. 1. On or about, August 21, 2018, Santa Clara County Deputy Ryan Proctor, (hereinafter
also known as "Deputy Proctor") requested by sworn Affidavit, that the South County
to Search the premises at 13490 Harding Avenue, San Martin CA. 95046. and to seize the
Superior Court of the State of CA, County of Santa Clara, issue a Search and Seizure
items on Deputy Proctor's list. (See Attached Defense Exhibit B)
Warrant for the home of Diamond Gomez & James Quaan, particularly, 31490 Harding
A.) Both the Affidavit and the Search Warrant claim that the items listed on said documents,
Ave, San Martin CA. 95046, Santa Clara County Assessor's parcel no. NSW38355,
may be found on the Premises and that any named items may be lawfully seized Pursuant to
(hereinafter also know as the "Premises")
Penal Code Sec.1524 specifically as in each item:
5.
(a) is possessed by a person with the intent to use it as a means of committing a public
6. 2.) Deputy Proctor's request consisted of a 3 page Affidavit dated and signed on August
offense or is possessed by another to whom he or she may have delivered it for the purpose of
21 ,2018, by Deputy Proctor. (See Defendants's Attached Exhibit A).
concealing it or preventing it's discovery. (See Defense Exhibit A & B Line 9-10)
7. 3.) On August 21, 2018, at 4:21 pm, Judge of Santa Clara Superior Court. signed
. I. No person is name on either the Affidavit . . . nor on the warrant.
Order to Search No. CSW53855, commanding Deputy Procter and other Santa Clara
. II. No item is specified from the list to be . . . used, that was used or will
Sheriff's Deputies
be used . . . . . to commit a come or for criminal . . . . activity
. . . III. No specific location or locations are . . . specified as to where
8. The Deputy Proctor appears to expect the court and the Defendants' to simply assume
this mystery person . . or item may be hiding on the Premises . . . IV. No
that his conclusions are right and that his methods and motives are lawful and above
The following areDeputy
question. my beliefs,evidence
Proctor appears related laws and
to believe that case precedent
the court toDefendants'
and the support my will fail to
conclusions.
actually read the Affidavit and without any evidence to corroborate his opinion, they will
fail as he onviously did to
The requirements for a valid Search Warrant are:

coonsider that there is a lawful purpose for the items to be where they arexpects der what
1. Both Santa
circumstances Clara County
the Deputy Sheriff'sor
had observed Deputy Ryan Proctor's
had reliable Affidavit
and verifiable signedof,
evidence onthat
August
would21,
2018,
cause that itemand Search
which Warrant
is usually No. 77908014
lawful to possessare
andtoo vague in
therefore failtheir description
to meet of locations
the standard
to be searched in relation to items to be seized and how they alone substantiate
required to uphold the Defendant's 1st, 4th, 6th 8th and 10th Amendment rights as provided criminal
for
by bothactivity.
CaliforniaNeither
law anddocument
the U.S.names or describes,
Constitution's Fourthany person or person
Amendment to beRequirement
Particularity searched nor
do they refer to any activity or circumstance that is obviously considered criminal activity.
Considering that the location appears to be both a residence and a working farm and
considering that California state law, AUMA, does allow cultivation of cannabis for
personal and medical use and considering that with Santa Clara County's Ordinance 26.
on marijuanna that provides Exemption clauses for qualified patients and caregivers to
cultivate marijuanna for personal medical use and to cultivate collectively, there is no
way, any reasonable person would jump to conclude, based on the information provided
in those documents, the Affidavit and Warrant alone, that a crime has occurred, is
occurring or will occur at those locations with the items named. The Affidavit fails to
provide the source of Deputy Proctor's conclusions and any oral arguments or material
evidence are not provided nor incorporated by reference in the resulting Search Warrant.
2. As Deputy Proctor's basis for believing there is criminal activity is unstated, there is no
way any reasonable person can evaluate the validity of reliability of the Affidavit and
therefore it does not establish probable cause.
A. In regards to the person's and location to be searched and the items to be seized, both
the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment and California State law states a Particularity
Requirement.
The Defendant's do hereby Motion that Search Warrant No 77908014, (See Defendants' Exhibit
A), be declared invalid and therefore unlawful due to the requesting officer's Affidavit, (See
Defendant's Exhibit B), failing to provide the necessary substance to provide either "Probable
Cause" for the Warrant to be issued or to meet the legal requirement of "Reliable Practicality "
as to where which item would be found or in whose possession it was believed to be in.
A.
convince any reasonable person to believe that the residents of Santa Clara County Assessor's
parcel no. located at 31490 Harding Ave, San Martin, California 95946 were unlawfully in
possession of any of the items listed to be seized or that any of the items to be seized were
evidence of any crime or criminal activity pursuant to Penal Code 1524.
1. The Defendant's believe and aver that both the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Deputy
Ryan Proctor's Officer's Affidavit and the subsequent Search Warrant are unjustifiably
vague as to exactly which laws would or could be broken by which person or persons
with exactly which item from the list of items to be seized due to the fact that all of the
items listed are lawful to possess and common for the locations named.
2. CA. State law and U.S. federal laws require "Probable cause" and "Particular Reliability"
with specific standards to be met in both the Affidavit and Warrant in order for that
Warrant to be considered to be valid and lawful. Neither of those documents meet the
legal standard required to obtain a Search and Seize Warrant for seizing property and
without violating both the Defendants' and the other residents of the parcel's legalized
rights as provided for by the law. ​STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL FACTS
3.
4. 1. On or about, August 21, 2018, Santa Clara County Deputy Ryan Proctor, (hereinafter
also known as "Deputy Proctor") requested by sworn Affidavit, that the South County
crime or related criminal activity . . . . . is mentioned.
Superior Court of the State of CA, County of Santa Clara, issue a Search and Seizure
And/or
Warrant for the home of Diamond Gomez & James Quaan, particularly, 31490 Harding
(b) tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person has
Ave, San Martin CA. 95046, Santa Clara County Assessor's parcel no. NSW38355,
committed a felony. (See Defense Exhibit A and B. page 1 line 11). . I. There is no
(hereinafter also know as the "Premises")
crime or related criminal activity . cited on either the Affidavit or on the . . . .
5.
Warrant.
6. 2.) Deputy Proctor's request consisted of a 3 page Affidavit dated and signed on August
II. Again no person or persons are named on
21 ,2018, by Deputy Proctor. (See Defendants's Attached Exhibit A).
. either the Affidavit or the Warrant.
7. 3.) On August 21, 2018, at 4:21 pm, Judge of Santa Clara Superior Court. signed
B.) The Affidavit and Warrant both describe structures of the Premises and Locations to be
Order to Search No. CSW53855, commanding Deputy Procter and other Santa Clara
searched. (See Defense Exhibit A, page 1 line 20-34 & h page 2 lines1-7)
Sheriff's Deputies
C.) The Affidavit and Warrant both state, " There are multiple vehicles ( trucks and a sedan)
parked in the open field south of the numbered structures
8. The Deputy Proctor appears to expect the court and the Defendants' to simply assume
(See Defense Exhibit A, page 2 line 6)
that his conclusions are right and that his methods and motives are lawful and above
The following areDeputy
question. my beliefs,evidence related
Proctor appears laws and
to believe that case precedent
the court toDefendants'
and the support my will fail to
conclusions.
actually read the Affidavit and without any evidence to corroborate his opinion, they will
fail as he onviously did to
The requirements for a valid Search Warrant are:

coonsider that there is a lawful purpose for the items to be where they arexpects der what
1. Both Santa
circumstances Clara County
the Deputy Sheriff'sor
had observed Deputy Ryan Proctor's
had reliable Affidavit
and verifiable signedof,
evidence onthat
August
would21,
2018,
cause that itemand Search
which Warrant
is usually No. 77908014
lawful to possessare
andtoo vague in
therefore failtheir description
to meet of locations
the standard
to be searched in relation to items to be seized and how they alone substantiate
required to uphold the Defendant's 1st, 4th, 6th 8th and 10th Amendment rights as provided criminal
for
by bothactivity.
CaliforniaNeither
law anddocument
the U.S.names or describes,
Constitution's Fourthany person or person
Amendment to beRequirement
Particularity searched nor
do they refer to any activity or circumstance that is obviously considered criminal activity.
Considering that the location appears to be both a residence and a working farm and
considering that California state law, AUMA, does allow cultivation of cannabis for
personal and medical use and considering that with Santa Clara County's Ordinance 26.
on marijuanna that provides Exemption clauses for qualified patients and caregivers to
cultivate marijuanna for personal medical use and to cultivate collectively, there is no
way, any reasonable person would jump to conclude, based on the information provided
in those documents, the Affidavit and Warrant alone, that a crime has occurred, is
occurring or will occur at those locations with the items named. The Affidavit fails to
provide the source of Deputy Proctor's conclusions and any oral arguments or material
evidence are not provided nor incorporated by reference in the resulting Search Warrant.
2. As Deputy Proctor's basis for believing there is criminal activity is unstated, there is no
way any reasonable person can evaluate the validity of reliability of the Affidavit and
therefore it does not establish probable cause.
A. In regards to the person's and location to be searched and the items to be seized, both
the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment and California State law states a Particularity
Requirement.
The Defendant's do hereby Motion that Search Warrant No 77908014, (See Defendants' Exhibit
A), be declared invalid and therefore unlawful due to the requesting officer's Affidavit, (See
Defendant's Exhibit B), failing to provide the necessary substance to provide either "Probable
Cause" for the Warrant to be issued or to meet the legal requirement of "Reliable Practicality "
as to where which item would be found or in whose possession it was believed to be in.
A.
convince any reasonable person to believe that the residents of Santa Clara County Assessor's
parcel no. located at 31490 Harding Ave, San Martin, California 95946 were unlawfully in
possession of any of the items listed to be seized or that any of the items to be seized were
evidence of any crime or criminal activity pursuant to Penal Code 1524.
1. The Defendant's believe and aver that both the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Deputy
Ryan Proctor's Officer's Affidavit and the subsequent Search Warrant are unjustifiably
vague as to exactly which laws would or could be broken by which person or persons
with exactly which item from the list of items to be seized due to the fact that all of the
items listed are lawful to possess and common for the locations named.
2. CA. State law and U.S. federal laws require "Probable cause" and "Particular Reliability"
with specific standards to be met in both the Affidavit and Warrant in order for that
Warrant to be considered to be valid and lawful. Neither of those documents meet the
legal standard required to obtain a Search and Seize Warrant for seizing property and
without violating both the Defendants' and the other residents of the parcel's legalized
rights as provided for by the law. ​STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL FACTS
3.
4. 1. On or about, August 21, 2018, Santa Clara County Deputy Ryan Proctor, (hereinafter
also known as "Deputy Proctor") requested by sworn Affidavit, that the South County
D.). The Affidavit and Warrant state " There are no less than 50 marijuanna plants being
Superior Court of the State of CA, County of Santa Clara, issue a Search and Seizure
grown on the property." (See Defense Exhibit A, page 2 line 8)
Warrant for the home of Diamond Gomez & James Quaan, particularly, 31490 Harding
E.) The Affidavit and Warrant state: " ALL VEHICLES under the dominion and/ or control of
Ave, San Martin CA. 95046, Santa Clara County Assessor's parcel no. NSW38355,
the residents of 13490 Harding Avenue, CA, Santa Clara County, wherever located on the
(hereinafter also know as the "Premises")
property; (See Defense Exhibit A, page 2 lines 9-10)
5.
F.) The Affidavit and the Warrant both state, "AND any and all containers, carports, gàrages,
6. 2.) Deputy Proctor's request consisted of a 3 page Affidavit dated and signed on August
mailboxes, outbuildings, storage areas, sheds,trash containers and yards assigned to the
21 ,2018, by Deputy Proctor. (See Defendants's Attached Exhibit A).
above-,described premises; (See Defense Exhibits A and B, p. line. )
7. 3.) On August 21, 2018, at 4:21 pm, Judge of Santa Clara Superior Court. signed
G.) Both the Affidavit and the Search Warrant describe the items being searched for as "FOR
Order to Search No. CSW53855, commanding Deputy Procter and other Santa Clara
THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY:
Sheriff's Deputies
1. Growing Marijuanna plants;
2. Marijuanna in all stages of drying and processing;
8. The Deputy Proctor appears to expect the court and the Defendants' to simply assume
3. Marijuanna seeds
that his conclusions are right and that his methods and motives are lawful and above
The following areDeputy
question. my beliefs,evidence related
Proctor appears laws and
to believe that case precedent
the court toDefendants'
and the support my will fail to
conclusions.
actually read the Affidavit and without any evidence to corroborate his opinion, they will
fail as he onviously did to
The requirements for a valid Search Warrant are:

coonsider that there is a lawful purpose for the items to be where they arexpects der what
1. Both Santa
circumstances Clara County
the Deputy Sheriff'sor
had observed Deputy Ryan Proctor's
had reliable Affidavit
and verifiable signedof,
evidence onthat
August
would21,
2018,
cause that itemand Search
which Warrant
is usually No. 77908014
lawful to possessare
andtoo vague in
therefore failtheir description
to meet of locations
the standard
to be searched in relation to items to be seized and how they alone substantiate
required to uphold the Defendant's 1st, 4th, 6th 8th and 10th Amendment rights as provided criminal
for
by bothactivity.
CaliforniaNeither
law anddocument
the U.S.names or describes,
Constitution's Fourthany person or person
Amendment to beRequirement
Particularity searched nor
do they refer to any activity or circumstance that is obviously considered criminal activity.
Considering that the location appears to be both a residence and a working farm and
considering that California state law, AUMA, does allow cultivation of cannabis for
personal and medical use and considering that with Santa Clara County's Ordinance 26.
on marijuanna that provides Exemption clauses for qualified patients and caregivers to
cultivate marijuanna for personal medical use and to cultivate collectively, there is no
way, any reasonable person would jump to conclude, based on the information provided
in those documents, the Affidavit and Warrant alone, that a crime has occurred, is
occurring or will occur at those locations with the items named. The Affidavit fails to
provide the source of Deputy Proctor's conclusions and any oral arguments or material
evidence are not provided nor incorporated by reference in the resulting Search Warrant.
2. As Deputy Proctor's basis for believing there is criminal activity is unstated, there is no
way any reasonable person can evaluate the validity of reliability of the Affidavit and
therefore it does not establish probable cause.
A. In regards to the person's and location to be searched and the items to be seized, both
the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment and California State law states a Particularity
Requirement.
The Defendant's do hereby Motion that Search Warrant No 77908014, (See Defendants' Exhibit
A), be declared invalid and therefore unlawful due to the requesting officer's Affidavit, (See
Defendant's Exhibit B), failing to provide the necessary substance to provide either "Probable
Cause" for the Warrant to be issued or to meet the legal requirement of "Reliable Practicality "
as to where which item would be found or in whose possession it was believed to be in.
A.
convince any reasonable person to believe that the residents of Santa Clara County Assessor's
parcel no. located at 31490 Harding Ave, San Martin, California 95946 were unlawfully in
possession of any of the items listed to be seized or that any of the items to be seized were
evidence of any crime or criminal activity pursuant to Penal Code 1524.
1. The Defendant's believe and aver that both the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Deputy
Ryan Proctor's Officer's Affidavit and the subsequent Search Warrant are unjustifiably
vague as to exactly which laws would or could be broken by which person or persons
with exactly which item from the list of items to be seized due to the fact that all of the
items listed are lawful to possess and common for the locations named.
2. CA. State law and U.S. federal laws require "Probable cause" and "Particular Reliability"
with specific standards to be met in both the Affidavit and Warrant in order for that
Warrant to be considered to be valid and lawful. Neither of those documents meet the
legal standard required to obtain a Search and Seize Warrant for seizing property and
without violating both the Defendants' and the other residents of the parcel's legalized
rights as provided for by the law. ​STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL FACTS
3.
4. 1. On or about, August 21, 2018, Santa Clara County Deputy Ryan Proctor, (hereinafter
also known as "Deputy Proctor") requested by sworn Affidavit, that the South County
4. Literature, including but not limited to: books, magazines and brochures relating to
Superior Court of the State of CA, County of Santa Clara, issue a Search and Seizure
cultivation, processing and use of marijuanna
Warrant for the home of Diamond Gomez & James Quaan, particularly, 31490 Harding
5. Equipment and tools associated with the cultivation and processing of marijuanna,
Ave, San Martin CA. 95046, Santa Clara County Assessor's parcel no. NSW38355,
including but not limited to: generators, water pumps, irrigation devices and timers, grow
(hereinafter also know as the "Premises")
lights, ground processing devices, drying screens, chemical pesticides and fertilizers;
5.
6. Packaging materials for marijuanna, including but not limited to cigarette papers,
6. 2.) Deputy Proctor's request consisted of a 3 page Affidavit dated and signed on August
cigarette rolling machines, hot bag sealers, large plastic bags, and Ziplock or other types
21 ,2018, by Deputy Proctor. (See Defendants's Attached Exhibit A).
of sandwiches baggies;
7. 3.) On August 21, 2018, at 4:21 pm, Judge of Santa Clara Superior Court. signed
7. Scales suitable for weighing quantities of marijuanna;
Order to Search No. CSW53855, commanding Deputy Procter and other Santa Clara
8. Records of marijuanna cultivation activity, including but not limited to: notebooks,
Sheriff's Deputies
calendars, charts,journals with information of the planting, cultivation, harvesting and
disposition of marijuanna;
8. The Deputy Proctor appears to expect the court and the Defendants' to simply assume
that his conclusions are right and that his methods and motives are lawful and above
The following areDeputy
question. my beliefs,evidence related
Proctor appears laws and
to believe that case precedent
the court toDefendants'
and the support my will fail to
conclusions.
actually read the Affidavit and without any evidence to corroborate his opinion, they will
fail as he onviously did to
The requirements for a valid Search Warrant are:

coonsider that there is a lawful purpose for the items to be where they arexpects der what
1. Both Santa
circumstances Clara County
the Deputy Sheriff'sor
had observed Deputy Ryan Proctor's
had reliable Affidavit
and verifiable signedof,
evidence onthat
August
would21,
2018,
cause that itemand Search
which Warrant
is usually No. 77908014
lawful to possessare
andtoo vague in
therefore failtheir description
to meet of locations
the standard
to be searched in relation to items to be seized and how they alone substantiate
required to uphold the Defendant's 1st, 4th, 6th 8th and 10th Amendment rights as provided criminal
for
by bothactivity.
CaliforniaNeither
law anddocument
the U.S.names or describes,
Constitution's Fourthany person or person
Amendment to beRequirement
Particularity searched nor
do they refer to any activity or circumstance that is obviously considered criminal activity.
Considering that the location appears to be both a residence and a working farm and
considering that California state law, AUMA, does allow cultivation of cannabis for
personal and medical use and considering that with Santa Clara County's Ordinance 26.
on marijuanna that provides Exemption clauses for qualified patients and caregivers to
cultivate marijuanna for personal medical use and to cultivate collectively, there is no
way, any reasonable person would jump to conclude, based on the information provided
in those documents, the Affidavit and Warrant alone, that a crime has occurred, is
occurring or will occur at those locations with the items named. The Affidavit fails to
provide the source of Deputy Proctor's conclusions and any oral arguments or material
evidence are not provided nor incorporated by reference in the resulting Search Warrant.
2. As Deputy Proctor's basis for believing there is criminal activity is unstated, there is no
way any reasonable person can evaluate the validity of reliability of the Affidavit and
therefore it does not establish probable cause.
A. In regards to the person's and location to be searched and the items to be seized, both
the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment and California State law states a Particularity
Requirement.
The Defendant's do hereby Motion that Search Warrant No 77908014, (See Defendants' Exhibit
A), be declared invalid and therefore unlawful due to the requesting officer's Affidavit, (See
Defendant's Exhibit B), failing to provide the necessary substance to provide either "Probable
Cause" for the Warrant to be issued or to meet the legal requirement of "Reliable Practicality "
as to where which item would be found or in whose possession it was believed to be in.
A.
convince any reasonable person to believe that the residents of Santa Clara County Assessor's
parcel no. located at 31490 Harding Ave, San Martin, California 95946 were unlawfully in
possession of any of the items listed to be seized or that any of the items to be seized were
evidence of any crime or criminal activity pursuant to Penal Code 1524.
1. The Defendant's believe and aver that both the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Deputy
Ryan Proctor's Officer's Affidavit and the subsequent Search Warrant are unjustifiably
vague as to exactly which laws would or could be broken by which person or persons
with exactly which item from the list of items to be seized due to the fact that all of the
items listed are lawful to possess and common for the locations named.
2. CA. State law and U.S. federal laws require "Probable cause" and "Particular Reliability"
with specific standards to be met in both the Affidavit and Warrant in order for that
Warrant to be considered to be valid and lawful. Neither of those documents meet the
legal standard required to obtain a Search and Seize Warrant for seizing property and
without violating both the Defendants' and the other residents of the parcel's legalized
rights as provided for by the law. ​STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL FACTS
3.
4. 1. On or about, August 21, 2018, Santa Clara County Deputy Ryan Proctor, (hereinafter
also known as "Deputy Proctor") requested by sworn Affidavit, that the South County
9. Articles of personal property tending to establish the identity of persons in control of the
Superior Court of the State of CA, County of Santa Clara, issue a Search and Seizure
above- described premises where property and evidence sought under this search
Warrant for the home of Diamond Gomez & James Quaan, particularly, 31490 Harding
warrant may be found, including but not limited to: utility company receipts, rent receipts,
Ave, San Martin CA. 95046, Santa Clara County Assessor's parcel no. NSW38355,
cancelled mail envelopes, photographs, bills, keys, and personal identification
(hereinafter also know as the "Premises")
documents;
5.
10. Large sums of money
6. 2.) Deputy Proctor's request consisted of a 3 page Affidavit dated and signed on August
11. Security, communications and counter surveillance equipment including, but not limited
21 ,2018, by Deputy Proctor. (See Defendants's Attached Exhibit A).
to firearms, ammunition, video cameras and monitors, radio scanners, mobile
7. 3.) On August 21, 2018, at 4:21 pm, Judge of Santa Clara Superior Court. signed
telephones and telephone pagers.
Order to Search No. CSW53855, commanding Deputy Procter and other Santa Clara
4. Santa Clara County Deputy executed Search Warrant CSW on August 29, 2018 at 7:15am
Sheriff's Deputies
with the assistance of additional Deputies from the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Dept. MET
team and officers from the Dept of Fish and Wildlife.
8. The Deputy Proctor appears to expect the court and the Defendants' to simply assume
that his conclusions are right and that his methods and motives are lawful and above
The following areDeputy
question. my beliefs,evidence related
Proctor appears laws and
to believe that case precedent
the court toDefendants'
and the support my will fail to
conclusions.
actually read the Affidavit and without any evidence to corroborate his opinion, they will
fail as he onviously did to
The requirements for a valid Search Warrant are:

coonsider that there is a lawful purpose for the items to be where they arexpects der what
1. Both Santa
circumstances Clara County
the Deputy Sheriff'sor
had observed Deputy Ryan Proctor's
had reliable Affidavit
and verifiable signedof,
evidence onthat
August
would21,
2018,
cause that itemand Search
which Warrant
is usually No. 77908014
lawful to possessare
andtoo vague in
therefore failtheir description
to meet of locations
the standard
to be searched in relation to items to be seized and how they alone substantiate
required to uphold the Defendant's 1st, 4th, 6th 8th and 10th Amendment rights as provided criminal
for
by bothactivity.
CaliforniaNeither
law anddocument
the U.S.names or describes,
Constitution's Fourthany person or person
Amendment to beRequirement
Particularity searched nor
do they refer to any activity or circumstance that is obviously considered criminal activity.
Considering that the location appears to be both a residence and a working farm and
considering that California state law, AUMA, does allow cultivation of cannabis for
personal and medical use and considering that with Santa Clara County's Ordinance 26.
on marijuanna that provides Exemption clauses for qualified patients and caregivers to
cultivate marijuanna for personal medical use and to cultivate collectively, there is no
way, any reasonable person would jump to conclude, based on the information provided
in those documents, the Affidavit and Warrant alone, that a crime has occurred, is
occurring or will occur at those locations with the items named. The Affidavit fails to
provide the source of Deputy Proctor's conclusions and any oral arguments or material
evidence are not provided nor incorporated by reference in the resulting Search Warrant.
2. As Deputy Proctor's basis for believing there is criminal activity is unstated, there is no
way any reasonable person can evaluate the validity of reliability of the Affidavit and
therefore it does not establish probable cause.
A. In regards to the person's and location to be searched and the items to be seized, both
the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment and California State law states a Particularity
Requirement.
The Defendant's do hereby Motion that Search Warrant No 77908014, (See Defendants' Exhibit
A), be declared invalid and therefore unlawful due to the requesting officer's Affidavit, (See
Defendant's Exhibit B), failing to provide the necessary substance to provide either "Probable
Cause" for the Warrant to be issued or to meet the legal requirement of "Reliable Practicality "
as to where which item would be found or in whose possession it was believed to be in.
A.
convince any reasonable person to believe that the residents of Santa Clara County Assessor's
parcel no. located at 31490 Harding Ave, San Martin, California 95946 were unlawfully in
possession of any of the items listed to be seized or that any of the items to be seized were
evidence of any crime or criminal activity pursuant to Penal Code 1524.
1. The Defendant's believe and aver that both the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Deputy
Ryan Proctor's Officer's Affidavit and the subsequent Search Warrant are unjustifiably
vague as to exactly which laws would or could be broken by which person or persons
with exactly which item from the list of items to be seized due to the fact that all of the
items listed are lawful to possess and common for the locations named.
2. CA. State law and U.S. federal laws require "Probable cause" and "Particular Reliability"
with specific standards to be met in both the Affidavit and Warrant in order for that
Warrant to be considered to be valid and lawful. Neither of those documents meet the
legal standard required to obtain a Search and Seize Warrant for seizing property and
without violating both the Defendants' and the other residents of the parcel's legalized
rights as provided for by the law. ​STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL FACTS
3.
4. 1. On or about, August 21, 2018, Santa Clara County Deputy Ryan Proctor, (hereinafter
also known as "Deputy Proctor") requested by sworn Affidavit, that the South County
5. On August 29, 2018 Deputy Proctor and the MET team confiscated items both specifically
Superior Court of the State of CA, County of Santa Clara, issue a Search and Seizure
named on the Search Warrant and multiple items not requested. Deputy Proctor provided a
Warrant for the home of Diamond Gomez & James Quaan, particularly, 31490 Harding
partial receipt for the items taken. (See Defendants' Exhibit C)
Ave, San Martin CA. 95046, Santa Clara County Assessor's parcel no. NSW38355,
6. Deputy Proctor provided a Return to Search Warrant Statement dated August 31, 2018 and a
(hereinafter also know as the "Premises")
receipt for some of the items seized to the Court.
5.
7. Deputy Proctor destroyed part of the evidence at the Kirby landfill prior to the onset of this
6. 2.) Deputy Proctor's request consisted of a 3 page Affidavit dated and signed on August
proceeding and without the knowledge or consent of the Defendants' or the court.( See
21 ,2018, by Deputy Proctor. (See Defendants's Attached Exhibit A).
Defendants' Exhibit D)
7. 3.) On August 21, 2018, at 4:21 pm, Judge of Santa Clara Superior Court. signed
8. On , the Defendants' were charged with the violation of law that we are here today
Order to Search No. CSW53855, commanding Deputy Procter and other Santa Clara
to adjudicate. (See Defendants' Exhibit F)
Sheriff's Deputies

8. The Deputy Proctor appears to expect the court and the Defendants' to simply assume
MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
that his conclusions are right and that his methods and motives are lawful and above
The following areDeputy
question. my beliefs,evidence related
Proctor appears laws and
to believe that case precedent
the court toDefendants'
and the support my will fail to
conclusions.
actually read the Affidavit and without any evidence to corroborate his opinion, they will
fail as he onviously did to
The requirements for a valid Search Warrant are:

coonsider that there is a lawful purpose for the items to be where they arexpects der what
1. Both Santa
circumstances Clara County
the Deputy Sheriff'sor
had observed Deputy Ryan Proctor's
had reliable Affidavit
and verifiable signedof,
evidence onthat
August
would21,
2018,
cause that itemand Search
which Warrant
is usually No. 77908014
lawful to possessare
andtoo vague in
therefore failtheir description
to meet of locations
the standard
to be searched in relation to items to be seized and how they alone substantiate
required to uphold the Defendant's 1st, 4th, 6th 8th and 10th Amendment rights as provided criminal
for
by bothactivity.
CaliforniaNeither
law anddocument
the U.S.names or describes,
Constitution's Fourthany person or person
Amendment to beRequirement
Particularity searched nor
do they refer to any activity or circumstance that is obviously considered criminal activity.
Considering that the location appears to be both a residence and a working farm and
considering that California state law, AUMA, does allow cultivation of cannabis for
personal and medical use and considering that with Santa Clara County's Ordinance 26.
on marijuanna that provides Exemption clauses for qualified patients and caregivers to
cultivate marijuanna for personal medical use and to cultivate collectively, there is no
way, any reasonable person would jump to conclude, based on the information provided
in those documents, the Affidavit and Warrant alone, that a crime has occurred, is
occurring or will occur at those locations with the items named. The Affidavit fails to
provide the source of Deputy Proctor's conclusions and any oral arguments or material
evidence are not provided nor incorporated by reference in the resulting Search Warrant.
2. As Deputy Proctor's basis for believing there is criminal activity is unstated, there is no
way any reasonable person can evaluate the validity of reliability of the Affidavit and
therefore it does not establish probable cause.
A. In regards to the person's and location to be searched and the items to be seized, both
the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment and California State law states a Particularity
Requirement.
The Defendant's do hereby Motion that Search Warrant No 77908014, (See Defendants' Exhibit
A), be declared invalid and therefore unlawful due to the requesting officer's Affidavit, (See
Defendant's Exhibit B), failing to provide the necessary substance to provide either "Probable
Cause" for the Warrant to be issued or to meet the legal requirement of "Reliable Practicality "
as to where which item would be found or in whose possession it was believed to be in.
A.
convince any reasonable person to believe that the residents of Santa Clara County Assessor's
parcel no. located at 31490 Harding Ave, San Martin, California 95946 were unlawfully in
possession of any of the items listed to be seized or that any of the items to be seized were
evidence of any crime or criminal activity pursuant to Penal Code 1524.
1. The Defendant's believe and aver that both the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Deputy
Ryan Proctor's Officer's Affidavit and the subsequent Search Warrant are unjustifiably
vague as to exactly which laws would or could be broken by which person or persons
with exactly which item from the list of items to be seized due to the fact that all of the
items listed are lawful to possess and common for the locations named.
2. CA. State law and U.S. federal laws require "Probable cause" and "Particular Reliability"
with specific standards to be met in both the Affidavit and Warrant in order for that
Warrant to be considered to be valid and lawful. Neither of those documents meet the
legal standard required to obtain a Search and Seize Warrant for seizing property and
without violating both the Defendants' and the other residents of the parcel's legalized
rights as provided for by the law. ​STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL FACTS
3.
4. 1. On or about, August 21, 2018, Santa Clara County Deputy Ryan Proctor, (hereinafter
also known as "Deputy Proctor") requested by sworn Affidavit, that the South County
Superior Court of the State of CA, County of Santa Clara, issue a Search and Seizure
MOTION TO REQUEST A HEARING TO DECLARE SEARCH WARRANT NO.
Warrant for the home of Diamond Gomez & James Quaan, particularly, 31490 Harding
UNLAWFUL AND THEREFORE INVALID.
Ave, San Martin CA. 95046, Santa Clara County Assessor's parcel no. NSW38355,
(hereinafter also know as the "Premises")
5.
MOTION TO DECLARE SEARCH WARRANT NO. UNLAWFUL AND THEREFORE
6. 2.) Deputy Proctor's request consisted of a 3 page Affidavit dated and signed on August
INVALID
21 ,2018, by Deputy Proctor. (See Defendants's Attached Exhibit A).
7. 3.) On August 21, 2018, at 4:21 pm, Judge of Santa Clara Superior Court. signed
On this 5th day of August, 2019, the Defendants' do hereby request a hearing to address a
Order to Search No. CSW53855, commanding Deputy Procter and other Santa Clara
Motion to Declare Search Warrant No.CSW5855 unlawful and therefore invalid, and a Motion to
Sheriff's Deputies
Suppress All Evidence obtained in execution of Warrant CSW5855.

8. The Deputy Proctor appears to expect the court and the Defendants' to simply assume
that his conclusions are right and that his methods and motives are lawful and above
The following areDeputy
question. my beliefs,evidence related
Proctor appears laws and
to believe that case precedent
the court toDefendants'
and the support my will fail to
conclusions.
actually read the Affidavit and without any evidence to corroborate his opinion, they will
fail as he onviously did to
The requirements for a valid Search Warrant are:

coonsider that there is a lawful purpose for the items to be where they arexpects der what
1. Both Santa
circumstances Clara County
the Deputy Sheriff'sor
had observed Deputy Ryan Proctor's
had reliable Affidavit
and verifiable signedof,
evidence onthat
August
would21,
2018,
cause that itemand Search
which Warrant
is usually No. 77908014
lawful to possessare
andtoo vague in
therefore failtheir description
to meet of locations
the standard
to be searched in relation to items to be seized and how they alone substantiate
required to uphold the Defendant's 1st, 4th, 6th 8th and 10th Amendment rights as provided criminal
for
by bothactivity.
CaliforniaNeither
law anddocument
the U.S.names or describes,
Constitution's Fourthany person or person
Amendment to beRequirement
Particularity searched nor
do they refer to any activity or circumstance that is obviously considered criminal activity.
Considering that the location appears to be both a residence and a working farm and
considering that California state law, AUMA, does allow cultivation of cannabis for
personal and medical use and considering that with Santa Clara County's Ordinance 26.
on marijuanna that provides Exemption clauses for qualified patients and caregivers to
cultivate marijuanna for personal medical use and to cultivate collectively, there is no
way, any reasonable person would jump to conclude, based on the information provided
in those documents, the Affidavit and Warrant alone, that a crime has occurred, is
occurring or will occur at those locations with the items named. The Affidavit fails to
provide the source of Deputy Proctor's conclusions and any oral arguments or material
evidence are not provided nor incorporated by reference in the resulting Search Warrant.
2. As Deputy Proctor's basis for believing there is criminal activity is unstated, there is no
way any reasonable person can evaluate the validity of reliability of the Affidavit and
therefore it does not establish probable cause.
A. In regards to the person's and location to be searched and the items to be seized, both
the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment and California State law states a Particularity
Requirement.
The Defendant's do hereby Motion that Search Warrant No 77908014, (See Defendants' Exhibit
A), be declared invalid and therefore unlawful due to the requesting officer's Affidavit, (See
Defendant's Exhibit B), failing to provide the necessary substance to provide either "Probable
Cause" for the Warrant to be issued or to meet the legal requirement of "Reliable Practicality "
as to where which item would be found or in whose possession it was believed to be in.
A.
convince any reasonable person to believe that the residents of Santa Clara County Assessor's
parcel no. located at 31490 Harding Ave, San Martin, California 95946 were unlawfully in
possession of any of the items listed to be seized or that any of the items to be seized were
evidence of any crime or criminal activity pursuant to Penal Code 1524.
1. The Defendant's believe and aver that both the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Deputy
Ryan Proctor's Officer's Affidavit and the subsequent Search Warrant are unjustifiably
vague as to exactly which laws would or could be broken by which person or persons
with exactly which item from the list of items to be seized due to the fact that all of the
items listed are lawful to possess and common for the locations named.
2. CA. State law and U.S. federal laws require "Probable cause" and "Particular Reliability"
with specific standards to be met in both the Affidavit and Warrant in order for that
Warrant to be considered to be valid and lawful. Neither of those documents meet the
legal standard required to obtain a Search and Seize Warrant for seizing property and
without violating both the Defendants' and the other residents of the parcel's legalized
rights as provided for by the law. ​STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL FACTS
3.
4. 1. On or about, August 21, 2018, Santa Clara County Deputy Ryan Proctor, (hereinafter
also known as "Deputy Proctor") requested by sworn Affidavit, that the South County
1. The Defendants' do upon information and belief state that Santa Clara County Sheriff
Superior Court of the State of CA, County of Santa Clara, issue a Search and Seizure
Ryan Proctor obtained Search Warrant No. CSW5855 in violation of the Defendant's 1st,
Warrant for the home of Diamond Gomez & James Quaan, particularly, 31490 Harding
4th, 6th and 10th U. S. Constitutional rights and in violation of the Defendants' rights as
Ave, San Martin CA. 95046, Santa Clara County Assessor's parcel no. NSW38355,
allowed by the California Constitution and thus in violation of U.S. federal and California
(hereinafter also know as the "Premises")
State laws.
5.
2. Due to the Defendants' belief in these violations and the Defendants' ability to provide
6. 2.) Deputy Proctor's request consisted of a 3 page Affidavit dated and signed on August
valid evidence to substantiate those beliefs, the Defendants' do hereby respectfully
21 ,2018, by Deputy Proctor. (See Defendants's Attached Exhibit A).
request a hearing to review whether or not, Santa Clara County Deputy Proctor did
7. 3.) On August 21, 2018, at 4:21 pm, Judge of Santa Clara Superior Court. signed
indeed violate the Defendants' legal rights and that the evidence obtained in relation to
Order to Search No. CSW53855, commanding Deputy Procter and other Santa Clara
that Warrant was obtained illegally.
Sheriff's Deputies
3. The Defendants' do hereby Motion to Suppress all Evidence obtained in relation to
Warrant no. CSW5855. Due to the Defendants' conviction that they are correct and that
8. The Deputy Proctor appears to expect the court and the Defendants' to simply assume
the Warrant will be declared unjust and therefore unlawful, the Defendants' do hereby
that his conclusions are right and that his methods and motives are lawful and above
The following areDeputy
question. my beliefs,evidence related
Proctor appears laws and
to believe that case precedent
the court toDefendants'
and the support my will fail to
conclusions.
actually read the Affidavit and without any evidence to corroborate his opinion, they will
fail as he onviously did to
The requirements for a valid Search Warrant are:

coonsider that there is a lawful purpose for the items to be where they arexpects der what
1. Both Santa
circumstances Clara County
the Deputy Sheriff'sor
had observed Deputy Ryan Proctor's
had reliable Affidavit
and verifiable signedof,
evidence onthat
August
would21,
2018,
cause that itemand Search
which Warrant
is usually No. 77908014
lawful to possessare
andtoo vague in
therefore failtheir description
to meet of locations
the standard
to be searched in relation to items to be seized and how they alone substantiate
required to uphold the Defendant's 1st, 4th, 6th 8th and 10th Amendment rights as provided criminal
for
by bothactivity.
CaliforniaNeither
law anddocument
the U.S.names or describes,
Constitution's Fourthany person or person
Amendment to beRequirement
Particularity searched nor
do they refer to any activity or circumstance that is obviously considered criminal activity.
Considering that the location appears to be both a residence and a working farm and
considering that California state law, AUMA, does allow cultivation of cannabis for
personal and medical use and considering that with Santa Clara County's Ordinance 26.
on marijuanna that provides Exemption clauses for qualified patients and caregivers to
cultivate marijuanna for personal medical use and to cultivate collectively, there is no
way, any reasonable person would jump to conclude, based on the information provided
in those documents, the Affidavit and Warrant alone, that a crime has occurred, is
occurring or will occur at those locations with the items named. The Affidavit fails to
provide the source of Deputy Proctor's conclusions and any oral arguments or material
evidence are not provided nor incorporated by reference in the resulting Search Warrant.
2. As Deputy Proctor's basis for believing there is criminal activity is unstated, there is no
way any reasonable person can evaluate the validity of reliability of the Affidavit and
therefore it does not establish probable cause.
A. In regards to the person's and location to be searched and the items to be seized, both
the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment and California State law states a Particularity
Requirement.
The Defendant's do hereby Motion that Search Warrant No 77908014, (See Defendants' Exhibit
A), be declared invalid and therefore unlawful due to the requesting officer's Affidavit, (See
Defendant's Exhibit B), failing to provide the necessary substance to provide either "Probable
Cause" for the Warrant to be issued or to meet the legal requirement of "Reliable Practicality "
as to where which item would be found or in whose possession it was believed to be in.
A.
convince any reasonable person to believe that the residents of Santa Clara County Assessor's
parcel no. located at 31490 Harding Ave, San Martin, California 95946 were unlawfully in
possession of any of the items listed to be seized or that any of the items to be seized were
evidence of any crime or criminal activity pursuant to Penal Code 1524.
1. The Defendant's believe and aver that both the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Deputy
Ryan Proctor's Officer's Affidavit and the subsequent Search Warrant are unjustifiably
vague as to exactly which laws would or could be broken by which person or persons
with exactly which item from the list of items to be seized due to the fact that all of the
items listed are lawful to possess and common for the locations named.
2. CA. State law and U.S. federal laws require "Probable cause" and "Particular Reliability"
with specific standards to be met in both the Affidavit and Warrant in order for that
Warrant to be considered to be valid and lawful. Neither of those documents meet the
legal standard required to obtain a Search and Seize Warrant for seizing property and
without violating both the Defendants' and the other residents of the parcel's legalized
rights as provided for by the law. ​STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL FACTS
3.
4. 1. On or about, August 21, 2018, Santa Clara County Deputy Ryan Proctor, (hereinafter
also known as "Deputy Proctor") requested by sworn Affidavit, that the South County
request that immediately upon the courts judgement in the Defendants' favor, the court
Superior Court of the State of CA, County of Santa Clara, issue a Search and Seizure
shall declare all evidence obtained in relation to that Warrant, unlawful and that evidence
Warrant for the home of Diamond Gomez & James Quaan, particularly, 31490 Harding
to be stricken from the court's records.
Ave, San Martin CA. 95046, Santa Clara County Assessor's parcel no. NSW38355,
4. The Defendants' also request that when the court judgement is reached, the court
(hereinafter also know as the "Premises")
please consider whether or not Deputy Proctor's actions were deliberately careless or
5.
deceitful. The Defendants' ask the court that when the court finds Santa Clara County
6. 2.) Deputy Proctor's request consisted of a 3 page Affidavit dated and signed on August
Deputy Proctor's actions to have been careless or deceitful, that the court will invoke all
21 ,2018, by Deputy Proctor. (See Defendants's Attached Exhibit A).
disciplinary actions and penalties that may available in response to those actions.
7. 3.) On August 21, 2018, at 4:21 pm, Judge of Santa Clara Superior Court. signed
Order to Search No. CSW53855, commanding Deputy Procter and other Santa Clara
Thank you for your time and consideration in addressing this issue.
Sheriff's Deputies

8. The Deputy Proctor appears to expect the court and the Defendants' to simply assume
that his conclusions are right and that his methods and motives are lawful and above
The following areDeputy
question. my beliefs,evidence related
Proctor appears laws and
to believe that case precedent
the court toDefendants'
and the support my will fail to
conclusions.
actually read the Affidavit and without any evidence to corroborate his opinion, they will
fail as he onviously did to
The requirements for a valid Search Warrant are:

coonsider that there is a lawful purpose for the items to be where they arexpects der what
1. Both Santa
circumstances Clara County
the Deputy Sheriff'sor
had observed Deputy Ryan Proctor's
had reliable Affidavit
and verifiable signedof,
evidence onthat
August
would21,
2018,
cause that itemand Search
which Warrant
is usually No. 77908014
lawful to possessare
andtoo vague in
therefore failtheir description
to meet of locations
the standard
to be searched in relation to items to be seized and how they alone substantiate
required to uphold the Defendant's 1st, 4th, 6th 8th and 10th Amendment rights as provided criminal
for
by bothactivity.
CaliforniaNeither
law anddocument
the U.S.names or describes,
Constitution's Fourthany person or person
Amendment to beRequirement
Particularity searched nor
do they refer to any activity or circumstance that is obviously considered criminal activity.
Considering that the location appears to be both a residence and a working farm and
considering that California state law, AUMA, does allow cultivation of cannabis for
personal and medical use and considering that with Santa Clara County's Ordinance 26.
on marijuanna that provides Exemption clauses for qualified patients and caregivers to
cultivate marijuanna for personal medical use and to cultivate collectively, there is no
way, any reasonable person would jump to conclude, based on the information provided
in those documents, the Affidavit and Warrant alone, that a crime has occurred, is
occurring or will occur at those locations with the items named. The Affidavit fails to
provide the source of Deputy Proctor's conclusions and any oral arguments or material
evidence are not provided nor incorporated by reference in the resulting Search Warrant.
2. As Deputy Proctor's basis for believing there is criminal activity is unstated, there is no
way any reasonable person can evaluate the validity of reliability of the Affidavit and
therefore it does not establish probable cause.
A. In regards to the person's and location to be searched and the items to be seized, both
the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment and California State law states a Particularity
Requirement.
The Defendant's do hereby Motion that Search Warrant No 77908014, (See Defendants' Exhibit
A), be declared invalid and therefore unlawful due to the requesting officer's Affidavit, (See
Defendant's Exhibit B), failing to provide the necessary substance to provide either "Probable
Cause" for the Warrant to be issued or to meet the legal requirement of "Reliable Practicality "
as to where which item would be found or in whose possession it was believed to be in.
A.
convince any reasonable person to believe that the residents of Santa Clara County Assessor's
parcel no. located at 31490 Harding Ave, San Martin, California 95946 were unlawfully in
possession of any of the items listed to be seized or that any of the items to be seized were
evidence of any crime or criminal activity pursuant to Penal Code 1524.
1. The Defendant's believe and aver that both the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Deputy
Ryan Proctor's Officer's Affidavit and the subsequent Search Warrant are unjustifiably
vague as to exactly which laws would or could be broken by which person or persons
with exactly which item from the list of items to be seized due to the fact that all of the
items listed are lawful to possess and common for the locations named.
2. CA. State law and U.S. federal laws require "Probable cause" and "Particular Reliability"
with specific standards to be met in both the Affidavit and Warrant in order for that
Warrant to be considered to be valid and lawful. Neither of those documents meet the
legal standard required to obtain a Search and Seize Warrant for seizing property and
without violating both the Defendants' and the other residents of the parcel's legalized
rights as provided for by the law. ​STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL FACTS
3.
4. 1. On or about, August 21, 2018, Santa Clara County Deputy Ryan Proctor, (hereinafter
also known as "Deputy Proctor") requested by sworn Affidavit, that the South County
MOTION TO DECLARE SEARCH WARRANT No. CSW5855 INVALID AND THEREBY
Superior Court of the State of CA, County of Santa Clara, issue a Search and Seizure
UNLAWFUL
Warrant for the home of Diamond Gomez & James Quaan, particularly, 31490 Harding
Ave, San Martin CA. 95046, Santa Clara County Assessor's parcel no. NSW38355,
The Defendants' do hereby state, upon information and belief that the Affidavit presented to the
(hereinafter also know as the "Premises")
State of California, South Santa Clara County Superior Court on August 21, 2018 by Santa
5.
Clara County Sheriff Deputy Ryan Proctor was deficient in providing the key elements required
6. 2.) Deputy Proctor's request consisted of a 3 page Affidavit dated and signed on August
to uphold a valid Search Warrant in the State of California rendering the warrant invalid,
21 ,2018, by Deputy Proctor. (See Defendants's Attached Exhibit A).
specifically, no "probable cause" and no " reliable practicality". As such the issuance and
7. 3.) On August 21, 2018, at 4:21 pm, Judge of Santa Clara Superior Court. signed
execution of Search Warrant CSW5855 is illegal as those actions constituted a direct violation
Order to Search No. CSW53855, commanding Deputy Procter and other Santa Clara
of the Defendant's 1st, 4th, 6th and 10th U.S. Constitutional Amendment rights as well as being
Sheriff's Deputies
a violation of the Defendant's rights according to Cal. Constitution.

8. The Deputy Proctor appears to expect the court and the Defendants' to simply assume
OBJECTIONS TO THE AFFIDAVIT AND TO SEARCH WARRANT NO. CSW5855
that his conclusions are right and that his methods and motives are lawful and above
The following areDeputy
question. my beliefs,evidence related
Proctor appears laws and
to believe that case precedent
the court toDefendants'
and the support my will fail to
conclusions.
actually read the Affidavit and without any evidence to corroborate his opinion, they will
fail as he onviously did to
The requirements for a valid Search Warrant are:

coonsider that there is a lawful purpose for the items to be where they arexpects der what
1. Both Santa
circumstances Clara County
the Deputy Sheriff'sor
had observed Deputy Ryan Proctor's
had reliable Affidavit
and verifiable signedof,
evidence onthat
August
would21,
2018,
cause that itemand Search
which Warrant
is usually No. 77908014
lawful to possessare
andtoo vague in
therefore failtheir description
to meet of locations
the standard
to be searched in relation to items to be seized and how they alone substantiate
required to uphold the Defendant's 1st, 4th, 6th 8th and 10th Amendment rights as provided criminal
for
by bothactivity.
CaliforniaNeither
law anddocument
the U.S.names or describes,
Constitution's Fourthany person or person
Amendment to beRequirement
Particularity searched nor
do they refer to any activity or circumstance that is obviously considered criminal activity.
Considering that the location appears to be both a residence and a working farm and
considering that California state law, AUMA, does allow cultivation of cannabis for
personal and medical use and considering that with Santa Clara County's Ordinance 26.
on marijuanna that provides Exemption clauses for qualified patients and caregivers to
cultivate marijuanna for personal medical use and to cultivate collectively, there is no
way, any reasonable person would jump to conclude, based on the information provided
in those documents, the Affidavit and Warrant alone, that a crime has occurred, is
occurring or will occur at those locations with the items named. The Affidavit fails to
provide the source of Deputy Proctor's conclusions and any oral arguments or material
evidence are not provided nor incorporated by reference in the resulting Search Warrant.
2. As Deputy Proctor's basis for believing there is criminal activity is unstated, there is no
way any reasonable person can evaluate the validity of reliability of the Affidavit and
therefore it does not establish probable cause.
A. In regards to the person's and location to be searched and the items to be seized, both
the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment and California State law states a Particularity
Requirement.
The Defendant's do hereby Motion that Search Warrant No 77908014, (See Defendants' Exhibit
A), be declared invalid and therefore unlawful due to the requesting officer's Affidavit, (See
Defendant's Exhibit B), failing to provide the necessary substance to provide either "Probable
Cause" for the Warrant to be issued or to meet the legal requirement of "Reliable Practicality "
as to where which item would be found or in whose possession it was believed to be in.
A.
convince any reasonable person to believe that the residents of Santa Clara County Assessor's
parcel no. located at 31490 Harding Ave, San Martin, California 95946 were unlawfully in
possession of any of the items listed to be seized or that any of the items to be seized were
evidence of any crime or criminal activity pursuant to Penal Code 1524.
1. The Defendant's believe and aver that both the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Deputy
Ryan Proctor's Officer's Affidavit and the subsequent Search Warrant are unjustifiably
vague as to exactly which laws would or could be broken by which person or persons
with exactly which item from the list of items to be seized due to the fact that all of the
items listed are lawful to possess and common for the locations named.
2. CA. State law and U.S. federal laws require "Probable cause" and "Particular Reliability"
with specific standards to be met in both the Affidavit and Warrant in order for that
Warrant to be considered to be valid and lawful. Neither of those documents meet the
legal standard required to obtain a Search and Seize Warrant for seizing property and
without violating both the Defendants' and the other residents of the parcel's legalized
rights as provided for by the law. ​STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL FACTS
3.
4. 1. On or about, August 21, 2018, Santa Clara County Deputy Ryan Proctor, (hereinafter
also known as "Deputy Proctor") requested by sworn Affidavit, that the South County
Superior Court of the State of CA, County of Santa Clara, issue a Search and Seizure
The Defendants' declare that Deputy Proctor's Affidavit dated August 21, 2019 and the resulting
Warrant for the home of Diamond Gomez & James Quaan, particularly, 31490 Harding
Search Warrant, CSW5855, are so factually deficient that they immediately and clearly raise the
Ave, San Martin CA. 95046, Santa Clara County Assessor's parcel no. NSW38355,
questions of reasonable reliance and of probable cause. The broad spectrum language used in
(hereinafter also know as the "Premises")
both the Affidavit and the Search Warrant is much too vague to distinguish this Search as result
5.
of evidence of a crime or any criminal activity. The Defendants' believe this Search was nothing
6. 2.) Deputy Proctor's request consisted of a 3 page Affidavit dated and signed on August
more than a "fishing expedition" intended to either create circumstances to illuminate Deputy
21 ,2018, by Deputy Proctor. (See Defendants's Attached Exhibit A).
Proctor's thereto unsubstantiated suspicions or as a means to illegally line someone's pockets
7. 3.) On August 21, 2018, at 4:21 pm, Judge of Santa Clara Superior Court. signed
as multiple items that were taken are neither listed on the police receipts nor returned to the
Order to Search No. CSW53855, commanding Deputy Procter and other Santa Clara
Defendants' or any other residents of the Premises. This belief is fueled due to the many items
Sheriff's Deputies
that were listed on the Warrant's Seize list and the main articles of the purportedly removed
evidence, the "marijuanna plants, 79.1 pounds of processed marijuanna and 2011 clones were
8. The Deputy Proctor appears to expect the court and the Defendants' to simply assume
destroyed by Deputy Procter and other officers on August , 2019 before they were ever
that his conclusions are right and that his methods and motives are lawful and above
The following areDeputy
question. my beliefs,evidence related
Proctor appears laws and
to believe that case precedent
the court toDefendants'
and the support my will fail to
conclusions.
actually read the Affidavit and without any evidence to corroborate his opinion, they will
fail as he onviously did to
The requirements for a valid Search Warrant are:

coonsider that there is a lawful purpose for the items to be where they arexpects der what
1. Both Santa
circumstances Clara County
the Deputy Sheriff'sor
had observed Deputy Ryan Proctor's
had reliable Affidavit
and verifiable signedof,
evidence onthat
August
would21,
2018,
cause that itemand Search
which Warrant
is usually No. 77908014
lawful to possessare
andtoo vague in
therefore failtheir description
to meet of locations
the standard
to be searched in relation to items to be seized and how they alone substantiate
required to uphold the Defendant's 1st, 4th, 6th 8th and 10th Amendment rights as provided criminal
for
by bothactivity.
CaliforniaNeither
law anddocument
the U.S.names or describes,
Constitution's Fourthany person or person
Amendment to beRequirement
Particularity searched nor
do they refer to any activity or circumstance that is obviously considered criminal activity.
Considering that the location appears to be both a residence and a working farm and
considering that California state law, AUMA, does allow cultivation of cannabis for
personal and medical use and considering that with Santa Clara County's Ordinance 26.
on marijuanna that provides Exemption clauses for qualified patients and caregivers to
cultivate marijuanna for personal medical use and to cultivate collectively, there is no
way, any reasonable person would jump to conclude, based on the information provided
in those documents, the Affidavit and Warrant alone, that a crime has occurred, is
occurring or will occur at those locations with the items named. The Affidavit fails to
provide the source of Deputy Proctor's conclusions and any oral arguments or material
evidence are not provided nor incorporated by reference in the resulting Search Warrant.
2. As Deputy Proctor's basis for believing there is criminal activity is unstated, there is no
way any reasonable person can evaluate the validity of reliability of the Affidavit and
therefore it does not establish probable cause.
A. In regards to the person's and location to be searched and the items to be seized, both
the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment and California State law states a Particularity
Requirement.
The Defendant's do hereby Motion that Search Warrant No 77908014, (See Defendants' Exhibit
A), be declared invalid and therefore unlawful due to the requesting officer's Affidavit, (See
Defendant's Exhibit B), failing to provide the necessary substance to provide either "Probable
Cause" for the Warrant to be issued or to meet the legal requirement of "Reliable Practicality "
as to where which item would be found or in whose possession it was believed to be in.
A.
convince any reasonable person to believe that the residents of Santa Clara County Assessor's
parcel no. located at 31490 Harding Ave, San Martin, California 95946 were unlawfully in
possession of any of the items listed to be seized or that any of the items to be seized were
evidence of any crime or criminal activity pursuant to Penal Code 1524.
1. The Defendant's believe and aver that both the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Deputy
Ryan Proctor's Officer's Affidavit and the subsequent Search Warrant are unjustifiably
vague as to exactly which laws would or could be broken by which person or persons
with exactly which item from the list of items to be seized due to the fact that all of the
items listed are lawful to possess and common for the locations named.
2. CA. State law and U.S. federal laws require "Probable cause" and "Particular Reliability"
with specific standards to be met in both the Affidavit and Warrant in order for that
Warrant to be considered to be valid and lawful. Neither of those documents meet the
legal standard required to obtain a Search and Seize Warrant for seizing property and
without violating both the Defendants' and the other residents of the parcel's legalized
rights as provided for by the law. ​STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL FACTS
3.
4. 1. On or about, August 21, 2018, Santa Clara County Deputy Ryan Proctor, (hereinafter
also known as "Deputy Proctor") requested by sworn Affidavit, that the South County
properly catalogued and booked into evidence..) Both the Affidavit and the Search Warrant
Superior Court of the State of CA, County of Santa Clara, issue a Search and Seizure
claim that the items listed on said documents, may be found on the Premises and that any
Warrant for the home of Diamond Gomez & James Quaan, particularly, 31490 Harding
named items may be lawfully seized Pursuant to Penal Code Sec.1524 specifically as in each
Ave, San Martin CA. 95046, Santa Clara County Assessor's parcel no. NSW38355,
item:
(hereinafter also know as the "Premises")
(a) is possessed by a person with the intent to use it as a means of committing a public
5.
offense or is possessed by another to whom he or she may have delivered it for the purpose of
6. 2.) Deputy Proctor's request consisted of a 3 page Affidavit dated and signed on August
concealing it or preventing it's discovery. (See Defense Exhibit A & B Line 9-10)
21 ,2018, by Deputy Proctor. (See Defendants's Attached Exhibit A).
. I. No person is name on either the Affidavit . . . nor on the warrant.
7. 3.) On August 21, 2018, at 4:21 pm, Judge of Santa Clara Superior Court. signed
. II. No item is specified from the list to be . . . used, that was used or will
Order to Search No. CSW53855, commanding Deputy Procter and other Santa Clara
be used . . . . . to commit a come or for criminal . . . . activity
Sheriff's Deputies
. . . III. No specific location or locations are . . . specified as to where
this mystery person . . or item may be hiding on the Premises . . . IV. No
8. The Deputy Proctor appears to expect the court and the Defendants' to simply assume
that his conclusions are right and that his methods and motives are lawful and above
The following areDeputy
question. my beliefs,evidence
Proctor appears related laws and
to believe that case precedent
the court toDefendants'
and the support my will fail to
conclusions.
actually read the Affidavit and without any evidence to corroborate his opinion, they will
fail as he onviously did to
The requirements for a valid Search Warrant are:

coonsider that there is a lawful purpose for the items to be where they arexpects der what
1. Both Santa
circumstances Clara County
the Deputy Sheriff'sor
had observed Deputy Ryan Proctor's
had reliable Affidavit
and verifiable signedof,
evidence onthat
August
would21,
2018,
cause that itemand Search
which Warrant
is usually No. 77908014
lawful to possessare
andtoo vague in
therefore failtheir description
to meet of locations
the standard
to be searched in relation to items to be seized and how they alone substantiate
required to uphold the Defendant's 1st, 4th, 6th 8th and 10th Amendment rights as provided criminal
for
by bothactivity.
CaliforniaNeither
law anddocument
the U.S.names or describes,
Constitution's Fourthany person or person
Amendment to beRequirement
Particularity searched nor
do they refer to any activity or circumstance that is obviously considered criminal activity.
Considering that the location appears to be both a residence and a working farm and
considering that California state law, AUMA, does allow cultivation of cannabis for
personal and medical use and considering that with Santa Clara County's Ordinance 26.
on marijuanna that provides Exemption clauses for qualified patients and caregivers to
cultivate marijuanna for personal medical use and to cultivate collectively, there is no
way, any reasonable person would jump to conclude, based on the information provided
in those documents, the Affidavit and Warrant alone, that a crime has occurred, is
occurring or will occur at those locations with the items named. The Affidavit fails to
provide the source of Deputy Proctor's conclusions and any oral arguments or material
evidence are not provided nor incorporated by reference in the resulting Search Warrant.
2. As Deputy Proctor's basis for believing there is criminal activity is unstated, there is no
way any reasonable person can evaluate the validity of reliability of the Affidavit and
therefore it does not establish probable cause.
A. In regards to the person's and location to be searched and the items to be seized, both
the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment and California State law states a Particularity
Requirement.
The Defendant's do hereby Motion that Search Warrant No 77908014, (See Defendants' Exhibit
A), be declared invalid and therefore unlawful due to the requesting officer's Affidavit, (See
Defendant's Exhibit B), failing to provide the necessary substance to provide either "Probable
Cause" for the Warrant to be issued or to meet the legal requirement of "Reliable Practicality "
as to where which item would be found or in whose possession it was believed to be in.
A.
convince any reasonable person to believe that the residents of Santa Clara County Assessor's
parcel no. located at 31490 Harding Ave, San Martin, California 95946 were unlawfully in
possession of any of the items listed to be seized or that any of the items to be seized were
evidence of any crime or criminal activity pursuant to Penal Code 1524.
1. The Defendant's believe and aver that both the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Deputy
Ryan Proctor's Officer's Affidavit and the subsequent Search Warrant are unjustifiably
vague as to exactly which laws would or could be broken by which person or persons
with exactly which item from the list of items to be seized due to the fact that all of the
items listed are lawful to possess and common for the locations named.
2. CA. State law and U.S. federal laws require "Probable cause" and "Particular Reliability"
with specific standards to be met in both the Affidavit and Warrant in order for that
Warrant to be considered to be valid and lawful. Neither of those documents meet the
legal standard required to obtain a Search and Seize Warrant for seizing property and
without violating both the Defendants' and the other residents of the parcel's legalized
rights as provided for by the law. ​STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL FACTS
3.
4. 1. On or about, August 21, 2018, Santa Clara County Deputy Ryan Proctor, (hereinafter
also known as "Deputy Proctor") requested by sworn Affidavit, that the South County
crime or related criminal activity . . . . . is mentioned.
Superior Court of the State of CA, County of Santa Clara, issue a Search and Seizure
And/or
Warrant for the home of Diamond Gomez & James Quaan, particularly, 31490 Harding
(b) tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person has
Ave, San Martin CA. 95046, Santa Clara County Assessor's parcel no. NSW38355,
committed a felony. (See Defense Exhibit A and B. page 1 line 11). . I. There is no
(hereinafter also know as the "Premises")
crime or related criminal activity . cited on either the Affidavit or on the Search . .
5.
. Warrant.
6. 2.) Deputy Proctor's request consisted of a 3 page Affidavit dated and signed on August
II. No person or persons are named on
21 ,2018, by Deputy Proctor. (See Defendants's Attached Exhibit A).
. either the Affidavit or the Search Warrant
7. 3.) On August 21, 2018, at 4:21 pm, Judge of Santa Clara Superior Court. signed
Order to Search No. CSW53855, commanding Deputy Procter and other Santa Clara
Sheriff's Deputies

8. The Deputy Proctor appears to expect the court and the Defendants' to simply assume
that his conclusions are right and that his methods and motives are lawful and above
The following areDeputy
question. my beliefs,evidence related
Proctor appears laws and
to believe that case precedent
the court toDefendants'
and the support my will fail to
conclusions.
actually read the Affidavit and without any evidence to corroborate his opinion, they will
fail as he onviously did to
The requirements for a valid Search Warrant are:

coonsider that there is a lawful purpose for the items to be where they arexpects der what
1. Both Santa
circumstances Clara County
the Deputy Sheriff'sor
had observed Deputy Ryan Proctor's
had reliable Affidavit
and verifiable signedof,
evidence onthat
August
would21,
2018,
cause that itemand Search
which Warrant
is usually No. 77908014
lawful to possessare
andtoo vague in
therefore failtheir description
to meet of locations
the standard
to be searched in relation to items to be seized and how they alone substantiate
required to uphold the Defendant's 1st, 4th, 6th 8th and 10th Amendment rights as provided criminal
for
by bothactivity.
CaliforniaNeither
law anddocument
the U.S.names or describes,
Constitution's Fourthany person or person
Amendment to beRequirement
Particularity searched nor
do they refer to any activity or circumstance that is obviously considered criminal activity.
Considering that the location appears to be both a residence and a working farm and
considering that California state law, AUMA, does allow cultivation of cannabis for
personal and medical use and considering that with Santa Clara County's Ordinance 26.
on marijuanna that provides Exemption clauses for qualified patients and caregivers to
cultivate marijuanna for personal medical use and to cultivate collectively, there is no
way, any reasonable person would jump to conclude, based on the information provided
in those documents, the Affidavit and Warrant alone, that a crime has occurred, is
occurring or will occur at those locations with the items named. The Affidavit fails to
provide the source of Deputy Proctor's conclusions and any oral arguments or material
evidence are not provided nor incorporated by reference in the resulting Search Warrant.
2. As Deputy Proctor's basis for believing there is criminal activity is unstated, there is no
way any reasonable person can evaluate the validity of reliability of the Affidavit and
therefore it does not establish probable cause.
A. In regards to the person's and location to be searched and the items to be seized, both
the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment and California State law states a Particularity
Requirement.

S-ar putea să vă placă și