STATE OF RIDGEWAY
BEFORE THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY FOR RIDGEWAY COUNTY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
Plaintiff, Case No. RSC-CM-6609
v. Presiding Judge: Hon. xXBoomblast339Xx
NOAHBADNOLIE,
Defendant,
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO THE STATE'S NOTICE OF DISMISSAL AND
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
COMES NOW the Defendant, NOAHBADNOLIE, by and through undersigned counsel,
and respectfully submits this response to the State's notice of dismissal, and moves this
Honorable Court to enter dismissal of all counts with prejudice, and in support thereof states as
follows:
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. On Defendant's Omnibus Motion, this Court ordered that the motion for
disclosure of the search warrant materials be resolved before Defendant is
required to enter a plea, expressly finding that Defendant "is entitled to have
sufficient information to make an informed decision concerning his plea."
2. The Court's Order afforded the State two options: (a) indicate an objection to
production, stating the basis therefor, or (b) within forty-eight (48) hours, respond
to the remainder of the Omnibus Motion and produce (i) the warrant application
and supporting affidavit, (ii) the signed warrant, (iii) the docket entry or judicial
record identifying the date of issuance and the authorizing judge, and (iv) any
incident or investigative report prepared in connection with execution of the
warrant.
DATED: August 3, 2026
1
3. The State did neither. The State did not object to production, and did not produce
any of the four categories of materials ordered by the Court. Instead, nearly
twenty-four (24) hours into the forty-eight (48) hour period, the State represented
that it would be dismissing the case because it "cannot reliably track down the
search warrant information," attributing this to the fact that the warrant "occurred
before the website."
II. THE STATE'S ATTEMPTED DISMISSAL IS NOT AN ORDINARY
EXERCISE OF PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION
4. A voluntary dismissal by the State is ordinarily entered without prejudice as a
matter of prosecutorial discretion. This is not that circumstance. The State's
dismissal was not offered in the ordinary course; it was offered in lieu of
compliance with a direct Order of this Court, after the State neither objected to the
Order nor complied with it.
5. The Court's Order did not merely invite voluntary production; it required the State
to either state a basis for objection or produce the material within a fixed period,
precisely because Defendant's ability to enter an informed plea depended on it.
The State's silence as to objection, followed by non-production, followed by an
eleventh-hour announcement that compliance is impossible, is a failure to comply
with a discovery order, not a discretionary charging decision.
6. Permitting the State to convert its own non-compliance into a without-prejudice
dismissal would allow the State to evade the consequence of ignoring a court
order simply by mislabeling that non-compliance as a unilateral dismissal. The
Court should not treat the two as equivalent.
III. THE STATE HAS FAILED TO CARRY ITS BURDEN ON THE
UNDERLYING SEARCH, AND CANNOT CURE THAT FAILURE ON REFILING
DATED: August 3, 2026
2
7. Once a search is shown to have been conducted pursuant to a warrant, the burden
rests with the State to produce and justify that warrant. Ordered to do so, the State
has now conceded on the record that it cannot produce the warrant, the supporting
affidavit, or any judicial record identifying the issuing authority.
8. This is not a case in which the State represents that the materials exist but require
additional time to gather. The State's own explanation, that the warrant "occurred
before the website", indicates that no reliable institutional record of this warrant's
issuance may exist at all. Defendant respectfully submits that this defect is not a
temporary or curable one. Should the State attempt to refile these charges on the
same evidence, it will face the identical inability to establish that a valid warrant
was ever issued, for the identical reason.
9. Under these circumstances, dismissal without prejudice would not resolve the
underlying constitutional defect; it would merely defer it, exposing Defendant to
renewed prosecution on evidence the State has already admitted it cannot lawfully
account for.
IV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
10. Defendant does not oppose dismissal of the charges. Defendant respectfully
requests that the Court enter that dismissal with prejudice, on either or both of the
following independently sufficient bases:
a. As a sanction for the State's failure to comply with the Court's Order
directing production of the warrant materials or a stated objection thereto,
within the time allowed; and/or
b. As the necessary consequence of the State's failure to carry its burden of
establishing the lawfulness of the search underlying this prosecution, a
failure the State itself has now confirmed cannot be cured.
DATED: August 3, 2026
3
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an
Order:
A. Finding that the State failed to comply with the Court's prior Order regarding
production of the search warrant materials;
B. Dismissing all counts of the Criminal Information against Defendant with prejudice;
and
C. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
By: ____________________________
BellaRevelation, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant NOAHBADNOLIE
DATED: August 3, 2026
4
