Man looks to have firearms indictment dismissed
The lawyer for a former Brownsville man has filed court papers asking that a federal firearms indictment be dismissed because his client’s constitutional rights were violated. Last year, Eric Holcomb, 28, of California was charged with two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon, along with drug-related charges.
But his attorney, G. William Bills Jr., filed a motion last month challenging the constitutionality of Holcomb’s arrests on April 22, 2004, and May 25, 2004.
When Holcomb was arrested on April 22 outside a California borough bar, Bills indicated that police were called to Gecko’s Bar for a disturbance, “did not have probable cause to believe that Eric Holcomb had committed a crime or was committing a crime at the time of his arrest.”
When an officer searched Holcomb, he found a 9mm pistol on him, the indictment alleged.
In the second incident, on May 25, Bills argued that Fayette County probation officers had no right to go into Holcomb’s Washington County home or pick him up on a parole violation outside of Fayette.
During that search of Holcomb’s home, police found a digital scale with cocaine residue and Holcomb’s fingerprints, $1,701, a plastic bag containing 53.7 grams of cocaine and another with 4.5 grams of cocaine. They also allegedly found another weapon.
Probation officers got a tip on Holcomb’s location, Bills indicated, and arrested him on the violation. Bills argued in the filing, however, that they had no authority to leave Fayette County to arrest him.
“The probation officers did not have the authority to arrest Eric Holcomb in Washington County, pursuant to a memo from Louis J. Lozar, chief adult probation officer, Fayette County,” wrote Bills.
According to Bills, a November 2003 memo indicates that probation officers “shall only arrest and transport offenders under adult probation supervision within the boundaries of Fayette County.”
He also indicated that authorities had no warrant to search Holcomb’s home.
Bills also filed a motion to sever the cases so that they are tried separately from one another. He argued that Holcomb’s constitutional rights would be compromised if they were tried together because they are separate offenses.
A federal judge has yet to rule on the motions.