Legal Issues

First of all, the defendant has committed more than one offence. First, he is in possession of some illegal drugs and chemicals in his car which is a criminal offence on its own. Secondly, he flees from the police officer which is another offence that he commits by failing to comply with the officer requirement. The third offence is that he was in possession of guns in his car. There are chances that when he was trying to reach the floor of his car, he wanted to take the gun and shoot at the officer. This is a clear indication that this person is a serious criminal as he has committed more than one offence at a time. (Jowett, 2009)

Therefore, granting this person the motion to suppress the seized evidence will be against the law. It will be encouraging other people who have such behavior of conducting such activities to carry on with their activities. It would be a great idea if the evidence is kept and then the officer looks for the criminal who is at large. He should be put in police custody immediately he is found and he should be charged in court for the three offences which he has committed. He should be charge in court for being in possession of illegal drugs and chemicals, being in possession of two weapons and running away from police officers. (Chemerinsky, 2006)

Under no circumstances should such a person be granted a motion to suppress the seized evidence. After all, doing this would be as good as encouraging such illegal activities. The defendant was in the process of renting a new unit and this means that he might be having some more chemicals or drugs. This means that if the evidence is suppressed, there are chances that he would transfer all the other drugs that may be in the Storage USA to a new location and thus it would be very difficult to trace them and prosecute him. Even though some these chemicals were not narcotic, they will help in looking for illegal drugs that the defendant may be having.