IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Criminal Division
United States of America,
v.
[DEFENDANT FULL LEGAL NAME],
Defendant.
Criminal Case No.: [CASE NO.]
Judge: [JUDGE NAME]
Next Court Date: [DATE]
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS
[// GUIDANCE: Title tracks common D.C. practice. Modify to fit specific suppression theory—e.g., “Motion to Suppress Statements,” “Motion to Suppress Tangible Evidence,” or both.]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Preliminary Statement............................................................. 2
- Statement of Facts................................................................ 2
- Applicable Legal Standards.................................................... 3
3.1 Constitutional & Statutory Framework.................................. 3
3.2 Evidentiary Burden and Allocation....................................... 3 - Argument................................................................................. 4
4.1 The Warrantless Search Was Unconstitutional........................ 4
4.2 No Recognized Exception Applies......................................... 5
4.3 The Good-Faith Exception Is Inapplicable................................ 6
4.4 Any Statements Are Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.................... 7 - Request for Evidentiary Hearing................................................. 7
- Conclusion & Prayer for Relief................................................... 7
- Proposed Order....................................................................... 8
- Certificate of Service............................................................... 9
[// GUIDANCE: TOC page numbers will auto-update in word-processing software; confirm before filing.]
1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Pursuant to the District of Columbia Rules of Criminal Procedure governing pre-trial motions, and the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Defendant [DEFENDANT SURNAME] respectfully moves this Court for an order suppressing (i) all physical evidence seized on [DATE] from [LOCATION] and (ii) any statements allegedly obtained from Defendant following that seizure, as such evidence and statements were secured in violation of Defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights.
2. STATEMENT OF FACTS
[PLACEHOLDER FOR FACTUAL NARRATIVE. INCLUDE:]
• Date, time, and location of police encounter.
• Circumstances leading to stop/search/seizure.
• Whether officers possessed a warrant; if so, summarize its scope.
• Any force, coercion, or custodial interrogation.
• Post-arrest handling of evidence.
[// GUIDANCE: Provide clear, record-supported chronology. Attach exhibits (e.g., body-worn-camera transcripts, affidavits) as needed.]
3. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
3.1 Constitutional & Statutory Framework
- The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV.
- The exclusionary rule requires suppression of evidence obtained in violation of that guarantee and of any derivative evidence (“fruit of the poisonous tree”).
- District of Columbia statutory and evidentiary provisions similarly prohibit admission of unlawfully obtained evidence except where expressly allowed by law.
3.2 Evidentiary Burden and Allocation
- Once a defendant articulates a colorable basis for suppression, the government bears the burden of proving the legality of the challenged search, seizure, or interrogation by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Where the government relies on an exception to the warrant requirement—e.g., consent, exigent circumstances, search incident to arrest—it must establish every element of that exception.
- The government likewise bears the burden of demonstrating that any “good-faith” saving doctrine applies.
[// GUIDANCE: D.C. practitioners commonly cite the government’s burden at an evidentiary hearing. Cite specific local rules or statutes if desired.]
4. ARGUMENT
4.1 The Warrantless Search Was Unconstitutional
a. Officers entered/searched [LOCATION] without a judicial warrant.
b. Absent a warrant, a search is per se unreasonable unless the government establishes a narrowly-drawn exception.
c. The record shows no probable cause existed at the time of entry and no exigent circumstances justified proceeding without judicial authorization.
4.2 No Recognized Exception Applies
a. Consent Exception: Any alleged “consent” was involuntary because [FACT-SPECIFIC REASONS—coercive environment, language barrier, absence of Miranda warning, etc.].
b. Exigent Circumstances: The government cannot show imminent destruction of evidence, hot pursuit, or danger to public safety.
c. Search Incident to Arrest: A lawful arrest must precede or be contemporaneous with the search; here, the arrest followed discovery of the very evidence sought to be suppressed.
4.3 The Good-Faith Exception Is Inapplicable
a. The good-faith exception presupposes reasonable reliance on a facially valid warrant or binding precedent. Neither exists here.
b. Even if officers relied on erroneous information, such reliance was objectively unreasonable because:
• The warrant (if any) lacked particularity as to place or items; or
• Officers knew or should have known the affidavit contained material misstatements or omissions.
c. Suppression remains the proper remedy to deter future unlawful conduct.
4.4 Any Statements Are Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
a. Defendant’s statements occurred subsequent to—or were prompted by—the unlawful search/seizure.
b. The causal chain between the primary illegality and the statements was unbroken; therefore, the statements must also be suppressed.
c. Miranda warnings, if provided, do not alone purge the taint of the underlying constitutional violation.
[// GUIDANCE: Adjust headings/sub-arguments to match facts (e.g., vehicle stop, warrant affidavit challenges, electronic surveillance).]
5. REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing at which the government bears the burden of justifying the challenged conduct and at which defense counsel may cross-examine all relevant witnesses and present evidence.
6. CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully prays that this Court:
1. GRANT this Motion;
2. SUPPRESS all physical evidence seized on [DATE] from [LOCATION];
3. SUPPRESS any and all statements, admissions, or confessions attributed to Defendant subsequent to the illegal search/seizure; and
4. GRANT such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
[ATTORNEY NAME]
Counsel for [DEFENDANT NAME]
[Bar No.]
[Law Firm]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]
[Phone] | [Email]
7. PROPOSED ORDER
text
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Criminal Division
United States v. [DEFENDANT NAME] Criminal Case No.: [CASE NO.]
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, the opposition filed by the
Government, the entire record herein, and the arguments of counsel at a hearing held on
__, it is this _ day of _, 20__, hereby
ORDERED, that Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that all physical evidence seized on _ from _ is
SUPPRESSED; and it is further
ORDERED, that all statements, admissions, and confessions attributed to Defendant
subsequent to the unlawful search and seizure are SUPPRESSED.
SO ORDERED.
Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia
[// GUIDANCE: Submit proposed order as a separate attachment if required by local practice.]
8. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ___ day of ____, 20__, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion and Proposed Order was served via [E-Filing System / hand delivery / email] upon:
[ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY NAME]
U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia
555 Fourth Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
[ATTORNEY NAME]
[// GUIDANCE:
1. Filing Deadline—D.C. Rules generally require suppression motions to be filed before trial and by the court-ordered motion deadline.
2. Attachments—Include warrant, affidavit, police reports, transcripts, or declarations as Exhibits A, B, etc.
3. Hearing Scheduling—After filing, contact chambers to secure a motions date; confirm whether a separate “Notice of Hearing” is necessary.
4. Verification—If local practice demands, add an attorney affidavit verifying factual assertions made “on information and belief.”]