Roque Aranda. April 29, 2004

Illegal Arrest, False Imprisonment, No Probable Cause,Invalid Search Warrant and Affidavit.

Illegal Arrest, False Imprisonment, No Probable Cause,Invalid Search Warrant and Affidavit.
I was arrested on February 21, 1997, for the offense of Burglary of a Habitation Second Degree.

I was only a passenger in the car driven by a co-defendant.
We were taken out of the car at gunpoint, handcuffed and immediately Miranda-sized, and placed in the back of the patrol car.

NOTE: No witnesses testified seeing both defendants at the crime scene, just one; (my co-defendant).
No fingerprints to link me to the crime. No blood found on any of the recovered stolen items.
A court-appointed attorney advised me not to consent to any blood samples. Attorney said that blood was collected inside the victim’s house. I was bleeding from a finger when Deputy Sheriffs stopped the car. I told them that the car’s hood caught my hand because the car was overheating, and it didn’t have any hinges in the hood.

I was taken to the hospital to have some blood samples drawn. I refused to have the blood samples drawn while I was at the hospital until I could speak to my court-appointed attorney, to see if a search warrant and affidavit were issued and valid.

The investigating officer told me that “he was going to take my blood by voluntary consent or by force, even if he had to shoot me HE SAID!” I told him that I still was refusing to give samples until I could speak to my attorney first. “HE SAID: FIRST, we take the blood, and then you and your attorney can take care of the warrant later etc.” I said “ NO”. The officer finally conceded to let me make a collect call. Since attorneys never accept collect calls from the jail, the officer took me out of the hospital to call direct from his patrol car.

The attorney’s secretary answered the call , and said that the attorney was in the office talking to a client, she then put us on hold, and within a minute or so, told us that the attorney could not talk to me, but to call later; and hung up the phone.
The Deputy Sheriffs testified during the trial, that there were no traffic violations observed as a reason for stopping the vehicle.

They testified that we were not under arrest, but were only being detained for investigation (?). But, we were pulled out of the car at gunpoint, immediately read our Miranda rights, handcuffed, and placed in the back seat of the patrol car (?)
In the Sheriff’s report, one officer stated that he went to the victim’s residence, and that is when he saw that the vehicle under suspicion was not there; and that he had only made a “quick drive-by”.
But, the fact is, he had committed perjury, because the officer had arrived from the opposite direction; my attorney was ineffectual, conspiring with the district attorney, and railroading me to a conviction.

NOTE: That the Deputy Sheriff testified that he received the Search Warrant signed by the judge, on April 4, 1997, and also testified that he took me to the hospital on April 16, 1997; all the while the Search Warrant had already expired on the 3rd day following its issuance.

It also turned out that the affidavit lacked probable cause. See E.G. McBride v. State, 840 S.W. 2d. 908 ( Tex. App. – Austin, 1992). (“Taking of Defendant’s blood is search and seizure under Federal and State law”); Mulder v. State, 707 S.W. 2d. 908 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (“ Art. 18.01 (C), sets out the requirements for sworn affidavit. “Affidavit for search to take blood sample was held insufficient “) ; Williams v. State, 928 S.W. 2d. 752 ( Tex. App. – Houston [14th] 199 ) (If Search Warrant is not executed within the time period provided by the statute, it becomes “functus officio”, having no further official force or effect, and thus, any search whose legality depends on a warrant, is unauthorized.) C.F. Lewis v. Beddingfield, 20 F.3d 123 (5th Cir. 1994) ; Harvey v. Horan 278 F.3d. 370 (4th Cir. 2002) (DNA blood samples case ). I was convicted on DNA evidence or insufficient evidence, but my trial attorney was ineffective in failing to file motions to suppress evidence pursuant to Art. 38.23.

There was an in-camera hearing to admit into evidence the search warrant, but it wasn’t introduced into evidence as part of the court record.
I have copies of the statement of facts to support my allegations. I have all the necessary paperwork and evidence t show illegal arrest, and false imprisonment.

See Brown v. Lyford, 243 F3d 185 (5th Cir. 2001) (Constitutional Torts of false arrest, unreasonable search and seizure, and false imprisonment, require showing of no probable cause) See also McElroy v. United States, 861 F. Supp. 585, 595 (W. D.Tex. 1994); Emerson v. Borland, 927 S.W. 2d 709, 720 (“The elements of a false imprisonment claim are (1) A willful detention, (2) without consent, and (3) without authority of law “) Hart v. O’Brien, 127 F.3d 424 (5th Cir.); Landry v. A-Able Bonding Inc., 75 F.3d 200, 206 (5th Cir. 1996) (To recover for false imprisonment “ under Texas law, Plaintiff must prove willful detention, lack of consent, and absence of authority); Humphries v. Various Federal U.S. INS Employees, 164 F. 3d 936, 946 (5th Cir. 1999) (Citing Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F. 3d 99 (5th Cir. 1996) (Holding, that Heck v. Humphrey does not render a prisoner’s claim challenging the conditions of his confinement unrecognizable under *1983).

Pickens v. State, 712 S.W. 2d 560 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st] 1986 Rev. Ref’d (Handcuffing and placing the Defendant in a patrol car was equivalent to an arrest ).

See also, Amores v. State, 816 S.W. 2d 407, 419 – 20 nn. 5 – 13 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

All these cases support my claims of “Illegal arrest”, “False Imprisonment”, “No probable cause”, Invalid Search Warrant and Affidavit”, to take DNA blood samples without consent; Flores v. State, 871 S.W. 2d 714, 720 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (For taking of blood, warrant must be obtained or accused must consent) Duckett v. City of Cedar Park, Tex., 950 F2d 272, 278 (5th Cir. 1992) (“An individual has a Federally-protected right to be free from unlawful arrest and detention, resulting in a significant restraint of liberty, and violation of this right may be grounds for suit under 42 U.S.C.*1983”) .

But, the State/Federal courts and prison officials had been blocking altogether my access to the courts.
Supposedly, because my initial State Writ of Habeus Corpus under Art. 11. 07 was lost, while having all the well–documented evidence (?)

Conflicting sworn affidavits between prison officials and clerks, concerning my “ properly filed “ applications and evidence in the mailroom mail logs, that can show outgoing dates of legal mail; that are also lost (?)

Notary logs are also altered by prison officials, while they are also concealing essential evidence bearing on the existence of my claims. I have all the sufficient and necessary evidence needed to show conspiracy among those trying to block my access to the courts, that is a violation of my First Amendment guaran-tees of free speech; see E.G. Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 825 – 826, (5th Cir. 1993); Jackson v. Procunier, 789 F.2d 307 (5th Cir. 1986) (“We recently held that a cause of action may be stated under 42 U.S.C.*1983, for prison official’s intentional withholding of mail destined for the courts, where it also alleged that the intentional delay, damaged the prisoner’s legal position”); Richardson v. McDonnell, 841 F.2d 120, 122 (5th Cir. 1988); or Gomez v. Myers, 627 F.Supp. 183 n.4 (E.D. Tex. 198 ) ; Finland v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 90 S.W. 3d 395, 407 (Tex. App. Eastland 2002) ("The right of access to the courts is implicated “ Where the ability to file suit was delayed or blocked altogether ) ; Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 919 – 20 (5th Cir. 1995) ; Hinds v Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 188 F. Supp. 2d. 664, 673 (N. D. Tex. 2002).

I also have the Appellate record to show that I was illegally convicted upon an invalid Search Warrant and Affidavit, which lacked probable cause to take a DNA blood sample, without consent, and under threats and intimidation. The State & Federal courts had known this from the beginning, but they are trying to prevent me from further review, and applying a time - barred restriction, while I claim my actual innocence (?)

The only way I will receive Justice, is with the support of the public; Or a good lawyer?