Not open for further replies.


Apr 26, 2023
Username: sleighwhite

Select the type of case you wish to file with the court: CIVIL CASES AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT

Plaintiff: Ellie Montgomery


Defendant: SASP
Remi Reid, DA

John Price
Thomas Sucher
Kira Cheez
Han Kuffman
Billie Santana
Kyle Ross

I. Statement of Claim STATEMENT OF CLAIM

1. The Plaintiff alleges that [CO-306] Kira Cheez unlawfully entered and searched her vehicle. Carroll v. United States states that "if officers have probable cause that an automobile contains evidence of a crime, the vehicle in question can be searched without a warrant." The Plaintiff is claiming that there was no probable cause that the vehicle contained any relevant evidence related to the crime.
1 (a). The Plaintiff's vehicle was at the scene of the crime; however, the Plaintiff claims she never entered or exited her vehicle prior to, during the commission, or after the crime.
1 (b). The Plaintiff's vehicle was locked before, during, and after the commission of the crime.
1 (c). Officer Cheez lock picked the Plaintiff's vehicle to enter it, and then searched the contents of the glovebox.

2. The Plaintiff alleges that [CO-306] Kira Cheez unlawfully seized property from the Plaintiff's vehicle. If there is no probable cause to search the vehicle, then there is no probable cause to seize property.
2 (a). The property seized was a Sawed-Off shotgun.
2 (b). [CO-306] Kira Cheez entered a photo of the Plaintiff's glovebox into an internal PD documentation channel.
2 (c). The alleged seized property was analyzed by officers after the fact and a serial number (30058478) was found and documented.

3. The Plaintiff alleges that SASP was aware that the Plaintiff's vehicle was unlawfully searched and the Plaintiff's property unlawfully seized.
3 (a). The Plaintiff's arresting officer [T-602] Kyle Ross did not mention the sawed-off shotgun to the Plaintiff's attorney, Devyn Little, during representation at the Sandy PD cells.
3 (b). The Plaintiff's arresting officer [T-602] Kyle Ross did not choose to charge the Plaintiff with the possession of the sawed-off shotgun, seemingly because he knew, or was instructed to the fact, that it would not be legal to charge her with this possession as it was unlawfully found and seized.
3 (c). A superior officer involved in this case, [S-235] John Price was directly asked by the Plaintiff's attorney at the cells in Sandy PD if any officers had searched the Plaintiff's vehicle, and he mentioned that "someone said something about finding a sawed-off shotgun."

II. Relief The Defendant is seeking Relief in the following forms:

1. The Defendant requests that all officers involved in the incident attend a mandatory retraining on Probable Cause vs. Reasonable Suspicion, Lawful Searches and Seizures, and relevant Case Law.

2. Monetary relief in the sum of $30,000
2 (a). $10,000 to pay legal fees for Attorney Devyn Little
2 (b). $10,000 to pay legal fees for Attorney Bill Irons
2 (c). $10,000 for mental anguish over the violation of the Defendant's civil rights

III. Representative Head Counsel

Devyn Little

Co Counsel

Bill Irons

IV. Evidence Incident Report

Internally Submitted Image of Glovebox

V. Witnesses Witnesses:

Sofia Gray

Pineapple Jarr
The State wishes to file a motion to dismiss on the following claims:
1. Carrol v. United States - Does not apply in this situation. The vehicle was at an active crime scene. The plaintiff was involved in a chase that led to a remote location in the Mount Chiliad Tunnel, where they lured the police to get in a shootout. After the plaintiff was apprehended for shooting police, the vehicle was searched.

2. Chimel v. California - Officers are allowed to search the are within immediate control. This was an active crime scene where the plaintiff and accomplices set up to gun down the police. Police were just doing their jobs after the plaintiff attempted to gun them down to search and secure all the vehicles at the crime scene. The plaintiffs car was not just parked on the side of a road or in a parking lot. It was a very remote and isolated area that the plaintiff and accomplices purposefully set up in an attempt to murder police officers.

State is willing and ready to have a hearing to further discuss dissming this case.
On behalf of the Plaintiff, we appreciate the feedback from the State on the ADA's motion to dismiss; however, we find that there are some misstatements and assumptions that we'd like to have dropped before moving further with either a hearing to dismiss or the civil trial itself.

In section 1 of the State's motion, the ADA mentions that "The plaintiff was involved in a chase.." We find this to be a misstatement of fact as there is no evidence within the incident report that would suggest that the Plaintiff was involved in a chase of any kind. Out of the 4 suspects involved in the incident, at least one of them would have received P.C. 810 "Felony Evading a Peace Officer"; however, that suspect was not the Plaintiff. In fact, our Plaintiff was not even charged with Aiding and Abetting Felony Evading.

Because this argument contains a misstatement of fact, we would like to move for this argument to be dropped.

In multiple points throughout the State's motion, the ADA alludes to the fact that this incident was premeditated. In section 2 of the above motion, the ADA specifies "The plaintiffs car was not just parked on the side of a road or in a parking lot. It was a very remote and isolated area that the plaintiff and accomplices purposefully set up in an attempt to murder police officers." We object to this statement and the various supporting statements as we find it to be Assuming Facts.

We've seen no evidence within the Incident Report or otherwise that this incident was premeditated. In fact, no suspect involved in the incident was charged with P.C. 207 "Attempted Murder," as the ADA alleges. All suspects, including the Plaintiff, were charged with P.C. 203 "Aggravated Assault & Battery (PP)." Because the second section of the State's motion to dismiss not only contains a misstatement of fact, but also assumes facts; we move that this argument be dropped as well.

On behalf of the Plaintiff, myself and my co-counsel would be happy to submit to a pre-trial hearing if necessary, given that the arguments above be dropped as they are not based on facts or evidence. If there is evidence that would corroborate any of these statements above, we'd ask that they be submitted to the docket prior to the hearing to dismiss if it is granted.
Would be happy to have a hearing to discuss the dismissal of this case at the courts convenience.
Given that there has been no attempt made by the state to address the errors outlined above, nor has there been any new evidence submitted, we, on behalf of the Plaintiff, argue that having a hearing at this point would only serve to slow the scheduling of the trial itself.

After pointing out multiple misstatements and assumptions of fact, the State continues to press on towards dismissal. This leads me to believe that the state intends on bringing these errors before the judge at the proposed hearing for dismissal. I assure you that we will continue to object to these statements which lack evidentiary foundation; therefore, we argue that this hearing will not provide productive conversation, and instead will simply waste valuable time and resources. I believe we're all aware of the current case load on the docket as well as the scheduling limitations we're all currently facing. It would seem imprudent to take valuable time away from a Judge in order to correct arguments that the State clearly has access to remedying and researching on their own.

Within the original motion made by the state, the case law "Chimel vs. California" was brought up. If the state would like to enter arguments over the specifics of case law, we argue that this should take place at trial. We are arguing that the case law does not support the search and seizure, the state argues that it does. This should be an argument held at court, not during a pre-trial hearing. We've been unable to find any other articulation by the state as to why this case cannot be heard before a judge, and thus, request the court deny the motion for dismissal without hearing.

On behalf of the Plaintiff, we've operated in good faith to put together a thorough and well-articulated case which the State has had access to for multiple weeks now. Yet we're being met with misstatements and assumptions of facts in an attempt to dismiss this case. We fear that this hearing would only serve as a delay on scheduling this trial, and move that the motion not be granted. Thank you
Chimel V California is the basis for how police secure and process crime scenes. The plaintiff was involved in a shootout with police where her car was located. After the shootout and the plaintiff was in police custody, her vehicle was searched and inventoried before it was impounded. This is standard operation procedure for police. There is no legal standing for this case to be heard any further.
Chimel v California states that officers may search "the area within immediate control into which an arrestee might reach to grab weapons or evidentiary items." Our argument is based on the fact that the locked vehicle was not in the Plaintiff's "immediate control."

Per Justice Stewart, Supreme Court, as it relates to Chimel v. California:

"There is ample justification, therefore, for a search of the arrestee's person and the area "within his immediate control"—construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. There is no comparable justification, I however, for routinely searching any room other than that in which an arrest occurs—or, for that matter, for searching through all the desk drawers or other closed or concealed areas in that room itself. Such searches, in the absence of well recognized exceptions, may be made only under the authority of a search warrant. The "adherence to judicial processes" mandated by the Fourth Amendment requires no less."
The vehicle, since it was impounded, would have to be searched and inventoried for all possessions to protect the police against claims of theft. Without this process there are no safeguards to protect the police from claims of theft by individuals.
We are asking for a Judge to intervene here, as the state's motion to dismiss argument appears to be evolving as we rebut. We have no interest in arguing this case on the docket itself, and it's clear that the State is trying to do so.

If the state is alleging that somehow SASP's desire to limit their liability supersedes individual 4th amendment rights, we fear that any hearing on this matter will, again, only serve to drain valuable time and resources.

We will hold further comments here until a Judge has had a chance to review the commentary thus far and make a decision.
Unfortunately, due to the inability to schedule this case in a timely manner, my client has requested to remove this case from the docket. She will not be pursuing further legal action on this matter in the future.

If you have any questions, or need a more formal filing, please let me know.
Plaintiff has requested the case be closed after being offered a hearing tonight which is absolutely fine, thank you and apologies again.
Not open for further replies.