IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
Plaintiff,
v,
KENZODOWNLOAD,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE
STATE’S AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE
CAUSE
Hon. Mytrius
Docket Number: RSC-CM-9980
The Defendant, Kenzodownload (“Defendant”), by and through their undersigned
counsel, moves this court to strike the state’s affidavit of probable cause, thereby dismissing the
criminal case against defendant in full.
ARGUMENT
A. The Affidavit of Probable Cause is Insufficient
The affidavit of probable cause in this matter is fundamentally flawed, and therefore, it
cannot be used to support the criminal allegations against the Defendant. Under the Ridgeway
Rules of Criminal Procedure, when a criminal case is initiated through the laying of an
information, the complainant must provide the court with the facts that form the basis for the
charges. These facts must be conveyed in writing or recorded, and a judge cannot authorize
criminal information unless the facts presented establish probable cause to believe that the
accused committed the offense. See Rid. R. Crim. P. 3(6)(1).
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO STRIKE
- 1 -
Moreover, the rules stipulate that “The complainant shall convey to the court the facts
constituting the basis for the information. The complainant’s account shall be either reduced to
writing or recorded. The complainant shall sign the information under oath, before an
appropriate judicial officer.” See Rid. R. Crim. P. 3(6)(1). The use of the word “shall” indicates a
mandatory requirement, as the Supreme Court has explained that “shall” is typically “the
language of command.” Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146 (2001). The necessity of an oath or
affirmation is not a mere formality; it is a constitutional requirement that must be adhered to in
order to validate the affidavit. Cf. Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout, 8 U.S. 75 (1807).
In this case, however, the affidavit was not signed under oath before an authorized officer.
It was merely signed by the complainant “declar[ing]” under the “penalty of perjury” that his
account was “true and correct”. Aff. of Prob. Caus. ¶ Page 5. But the absence of an administering
officer renders the affidavit deficient. See State of Ridgeway v. TidesAegis, Rid. Super. Ct.,
RSC-CM-3314 (2024). As established in U.S. v. Brown, 941 F.2d 1300 (5th Cir. 1991), “the
information necessary to show probable cause must be contained within a written affidavit given
under oath.” Ante at 1303. The absence of a proper oath administered by an authorized officer
renders the affidavit invalid and unenforceable. An unsigned or improperly signed affidavit is no
affidavit at all, and without it, the probable cause necessary to sustain the criminal charges is
lacking. This principle is well-established by the United States Supreme Court, including United
States v. Morgan, 222 U.S. 274 (1911) where the court found that the defendant “cannot be tried
on an Information unless it is supported by the oath of some one having knowledge of facts
showing the existence of probable cause.” Ante at 282.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO STRIKE
- 2 -
B. Dismissal After Striking the Affidavit of Probable Cause is the Only Proper Remedy
The mere “commencement of criminal proceedings itself infringes on liberty interests”
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 297 (1994). This isn’t unreasonable–the right to a speedy trial is
designed to “minimize the possibility of lengthy incarceration prior to trial, to reduce
the…impairment of liberty imposed on an accused while released on bail, and to shorten the
disruption of life caused by arrest and the presence of unresolved criminal charges.” United
States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 8 (1982). Thus, the court holds “inherent powers to dismiss a
prosecution” when “a defendant’s rights have been violated or…the integrity of judicial
proceedings has otherwise been compromised.” United States v. Chavez-Tello, 510 F.App’x 506,
3 (9th Cir. 2013). The court also “holds the power to dismiss with prejudice as a sanction
intended to prevent undue and unnecessary delays within the judicial process.” State v. Gavin, 1
Rid. 74 (2022).
The erroneous finding of probable cause based on an invalid affidavit subjects the
defendant to unnecessary and unjustifiable legal jeopardy. The prosecution’s role in filing
adequate affidavits of probable cause “is not to be cavalierly brushed aside as an empty
formality.” Dow v. Baird, 389 F.2d 882, 884 (10th Cir. 1968). The court erred in making a
finding of probable cause despite an insufficient affidavit, only furthering the impairment of
liberty on the defendant.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to strike the affidavit of probable cause should be
granted, resulting in the full dismissal of this case without prejudice.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO STRIKE
- 3 -
Date: August 6, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
Detachment_Result
[Detachment_Result] State Bar No.
11103
Counsel for the Defence
Deputy Chief Public Defender
Office of Public Defenders
Annex Building, Palmer City
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO STRIKE
- 4 -
