LD, a 19-year-old female student, faced multiple charges of vandalism after an investigation connected her to several specific graffiti “tags.” The tags were located in several towns and cities. Therefore, LD faced the same charges in many different courts. In pursuit of the culprit of this particular tag, a detective sought and obtained a warrant to search LD’s house. The search of LD’s house revealed a significant amount of spray paint and other graffiti paraphernalia.
Attorney Henry Fasoldt thought that the affidavit in support of the search warrant was “thin.” He filed a motion to suppress the “fruits of the search” based on the argument that there was not enough information in the affidavit to support the search warrant. After a hearing the judge agreed; the motion to suppress was allowed. As a result, all evidence seized during the search was thrown out.
So, what happened after the evidence was tossed? The prosecutors were left with virtually no evidence. Therefore, the case was dismissed.