State Criminal Motion to Suppress - Colorado

[COURT NAME]

[DISTRICT / COUNTY] Court, [COUNTY] County, State of Colorado
Court Address: [ADDRESS]
Telephone: [PHONE]

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Preliminary Statement
2. Definitions
3. Statement of Relevant Facts

4. Legal Authority & Argument
   4.1 Constitutional Violations
   4.2 Rule- and Statute-Based Violations
   4.3 The Good-Faith Exception Does Not Apply

5. Request for Hearing Under Colo. R. Crim. P. 41(e) and (g)

6. Preservation of Issues for Appellate Review
7. Prayer for Relief
8. Certificate of Compliance
9. Certificate of Service
10. Proposed Order

1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

COMES NOW the Defendant, [DEFENDANT FULL LEGAL NAME] ("Defendant"), by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to U.S. Const. amend. IV, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Colo. Const. art. II, § 7, Colo. R. Crim. P. 41(e) and (g), and Colo. R. Evid. 104(a), respectfully moves this Court to suppress the evidence identified below on the grounds that it was obtained in violation of Defendant's constitutional and statutory rights.

2. DEFINITIONS

For purposes of this Motion, the following capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth below and shall apply throughout this document:

"Evidence" means any tangible or intangible item, including but not limited to physical objects, documents, digital data, and testimonial statements, seized, recorded, or otherwise obtained by law-enforcement personnel as described in Section 3.

"Law-Enforcement Officer(s)" means any peace officer, as described in § 16-2.5-101, C.R.S., or other sworn officer, agent, or employee of [ARRESTING AGENCY] who participated in the investigation, search, seizure, arrest, interview, or interrogation of the Defendant.

"Subject Premises" means [PRECISE ADDRESS OR LOCATION] searched or entered by Law-Enforcement Officer(s) on or about [DATE].

"Search Warrant" means the warrant purportedly issued on [DATE] by Judge [NAME], authorizing search of the Subject Premises under Case No. [WARRANT #], if any.

3. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

1. On [DATE], at approximately [TIME], Law-Enforcement Officer(s) [conducted a warrantless search / executed the Search Warrant] at the Subject Premises.
2. During the search, officers seized the following items: [ITEMIZED LIST].
3. Prior to entry, officers [failed to announce / did not possess a valid warrant / relied on materially false information in the affidavit / exceeded the warrant's scope], as detailed below.
4. Defendant was subsequently arrested and Mirandized at [LOCATION] at approximately [TIME]; Defendant's statements were recorded and are now offered by the Prosecution.

4. LEGAL AUTHORITY & ARGUMENT

4.1 Constitutional Violations

A. The Fourth Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. IV, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment) protects people in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects" against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants supported by probable cause, oath or affirmation, and a particular description of the place and persons or things to be seized. Colo. Const. art. II, § 7 separately protects people in their "persons, papers, homes and effects" and requires probable cause "supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing." Defendant seeks exclusion only if the violation supports that remedy after the Court considers the applicable exceptions and the connection between the violation and the evidence.
B. The entry and search of the Subject Premises were unreasonable because:

1. No valid warrant existed at the time of entry; or
2. The warrant was unsupported by probable cause; or
3. The property seized was not that described in the warrant; or
4. The warrant was executed in an unreasonable manner for these reasons: [DESCRIBE CONDUCT AND A SUPPRESSION REMEDY SUPPORTED BY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY]. A failure to knock and announce alone does not require exclusion under Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006).

4.2 Rule- and Statute-Based Violations

A. Colo. R. Crim. P. 41(e) permits "[a] person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure" to move for return of the property and to suppress it as evidence on the ground that: (1) the property was illegally seized without a warrant; (2) the warrant is insufficient on its face; (3) the property seized is not that described in the warrant; (4) there was not probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant was issued; or (5) the warrant was illegally executed. A challenge to the voluntariness of a confession or admission is brought under Colo. R. Crim. P. 41(g).
B. Defendant identifies the challenged search or warrant defect as [SPECIFY DEFECT AND RESULTING EVIDENCE]. The Court should determine its effect on admissibility under the applicable constitutional rule and § 16-3-308, C.R.S.; a technical Rule 41 defect alone does not automatically require suppression.
C. Colo. R. Evid. 104(a) directs the Court, not a jury, to determine preliminary questions concerning the admissibility of evidence, without being bound by the rules of evidence (other than those governing privileges). Colo. R. Evid. 402 provides that evidence which is not relevant is not admissible, and that all relevant evidence is admissible only "except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by the Constitution of the State of Colorado, by [the Colorado Rules of Evidence], or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court or by the statutes of the State of Colorado." The Court should decide whether the established violation requires exclusion of the identified evidence after considering § 16-3-308, C.R.S., and other applicable remedial limits.

4.3 The Good-Faith Exception Does Not Apply

Section 16-3-308, C.R.S., addresses a peace officer's good faith mistake or technical violation; People v. Pacheco, 175 P.3d 91 (Colo. 2006), also applies the objectively reasonable reliance inquiry from United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Here, the claimed reliance fails because [IDENTIFY THE WARRANT DEFECT, AFFIDAVIT DEFECT, OR OTHER FACTS SHOWING WHY A REASONABLY TRAINED OFFICER COULD NOT RELY ON IT]. A bare-bones affidavit lacking indicia of probable cause does not qualify for good faith under Pacheco.

5. REQUEST FOR HEARING UNDER COLO. R. CRIM. P. 41(e) AND (g)

Pursuant to Colo. R. Crim. P. 41(e), Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing on the challenged search and seizure; to the extent Defendant challenges the voluntariness of a confession or admission, Defendant also requests a hearing under Rule 41(g). The material factual disputes are [IDENTIFY DISPUTES]. Under Colorado practice, the Defendant, as the moving party, bears the initial burden of going forward with evidence showing that the search or seizure violated Defendant's right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment and Colo. Const. art. II, § 7; the burden then shifts to the People to justify the search or seizure. See People v. Cunningham, 314 P.3d 1289 (Colo. 2013).

6. PRESERVATION OF ISSUES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW

Defendant expressly preserves all federal and state constitutional claims, including but not limited to unlawful search and seizure, lack of probable cause, Miranda, voluntariness, fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree, and due-process violations.

7. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that this Court:

1. Conduct an evidentiary hearing at the earliest practicable date;
2. Suppress all Evidence described in Section 3 and any derivative evidence;
3. Suppress all statements made by Defendant following the unlawful search and seizure;
4. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this ___ day of __________ 20__.

8. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Undersigned counsel certifies that, consistent with Colo. R. Crim. P. 49.5 and this Court's applicable case management order, a printed or printable copy of this document bearing original, electronic, or scanned signatures is being maintained by the filing party and will be made available for inspection by the Court or other parties upon request.

9. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on ___ day of __________ 20__, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress Evidence was [filed and served electronically via the Colorado Courts E-Filing system and] served on the Office of the District Attorney for [JUDICIAL DISTRICT] by [E-SERVICE / HAND-DELIVERY / MAIL].

_________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME], # [BAR #]
[LAW FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorney for Defendant

10. PROPOSED ORDER

The Court, having reviewed Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence and being otherwise advised in the premises, hereby ORDERS:

☐ The Motion is GRANTED.
☐ The Motion is DENIED.
☐ The Court sets an evidentiary hearing for ________________, 20__, at ______ a.m./p.m. in Courtroom ☐.

SO ORDERED this ___ day of __________ 20__.

_________________________________
[DISTRICT / COUNTY] Court Judge