WINNEMUCCA — After a failed effort to have evidence suppressed, and with a potential pool of jury members sequestered nearby, the defendant in a drug case took the deal offered by the Humboldt County DA’s Office and the trial date was vacated.

Raul Pimento Hernandez, 27, was scheduled for trial on Wednesday (Feb. 10) in the 6^th Judicial District Court on charges of possession of a controlled substance and being under a controlled substance, both category E felonies, which represent mandatory probation.

As part of the negotiated settlement, Hernandez pleaded guilty to the possession charge and the accompanying charge was dismissed.  A sentencing hearing was set for 1:45 p.m. on April 12.

CASE HISTORY: The case began when the Tri-County Drug Enforcement Team (TRIDENT) obtained a search warrant for Hernandez’s car.  The warrant was executed on August 23, 2008. 

According to Sgt. Jason Franklin, of the Department of Public Safety – Investigation Division, drug paraphernalia was located at that time.  On Feb. 10, 2009, detectives applied for an arrest warrant based on the paraphernalia seizure and on Feb. 20 Hernandez was arrested.

During the arrest, detectives located two baggies of substance, which later tested positive for methamphetamine, in Hernandez’s front pockets.  A subsequent urine test also tested positive for narcotics.  The defendant was charged with possession and being under the influence of a controlled substance. 

EVIDENCE SUPPRESSION HEARING:  Hernandez was represented in court by Humboldt County Public Defender Matt Stermitz.  Stermitz filed a motion to have the evidence in the case suppressed and a hearing on the matter was held Tuesday (Feb. 9).

The basis for the suppression request was the February arrest warrant signed by Judge Gene Wambolt of the Union Township Justice Court.  Stermitz attempted to raise doubts about the legality of the warrant because sufficient information wasn’t given to Wambolt by TRIDENT detectives – information that would have allowed him to make an independent probable cause determination. 

Evidence illegally obtained cannot be used against the defendant; this is known as the exclusionary ruled.

In requesting the arrest warrant, Franklin stated that Hernandez possessed an item associated with drug use. “That doesn’t come close to giving the magistrate what he needed to make an independent probable cause determination“ Stermitz said.

 The statement did not include the type of paraphernalia that was seized or if there was any evidence along with it that would lead detectives to conclude the item was being used in conjunction with controlled substances. Neither did the detectives give evidence the defendant had knowledge of the item and exercised dominion over it – as is required by the NRS statutes.

Although Stermitz talked repeatedly about the lack of facts given to the judge at the time the arrest warrant was obtained, Humboldt County Chief Deputy DA Brian Williams countered the facts of the case are what go before a jury.

 “What defense counsel is talking about is the criminal complaint,” he said adding “There are different definitions of possession that are in addition to the NRS statutes reviewed  by Mr. Stermitz, there’s also case law.”

He presented multiple cases where information given to the judge for a warrant was in line with what was given to Judge Wambolt.

Williams argued the exclusionary ruled didn’t apply in the case at hand because detectives had a valid arrest warrant, signed by the judge, for the arrest of Hernandez.

In addition, Franklin exercised his judgment based on training and experience in all aspects of the case.  He knew what he found in Hernandez’s car in August 2008 was drug paraphernalia, and in arresting the defendant he had personal knowledge of the arrest warrant.

“The exclusionary rule should not apply,” Williams said.

Judge Michael Montero ultimately denied Stermitz’s motion to have the evidence suppressed.  Hernandez retained his right to appeal the decision to the Nevada Supreme Court.