[// GUIDANCE: This template tracks Delaware constitutional, statutory, and
procedural requirements governing motions to suppress physical evidence,
electronic evidence, and derivative statements. Customize bracketed
PLACEHOLDER fields and remove any inapplicable sections before filing. ]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

[COUNTY] COUNTY

STATE OF DELAWARE
v.

[DEFENDANT’S FULL LEGAL NAME],
Defendant.

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

(Del. Const. art. I, § 6; U.S. Const. amend. IV; Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 41)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction
2. Statement of the Case
3. Statement of Facts [PROPOSED]
4. Issues Presented
5. Argument
   5.1 The Search Was Conducted Without Valid Legal Authority
   5.2 The Warrant (If Any) Lacked Probable Cause and Particularity
   5.3 Violations of the Delaware Constitution, art. I, § 6
   5.4 Violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
   5.5 Exclusionary Rule and “Fruit-of-the-Poisonous-Tree” Doctrine
   5.6 Inapplicability of Any Good-Faith Exception in Delaware
6. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief
7. Request for Evidentiary Hearing / Briefing Schedule
8. Certification of Compliance with Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 41
9. Certificate of Service
10. Proposed Order

1. INTRODUCTION

[DEFENDANT NAME] (“Defendant”) respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Del. Const. art. I, § 6; the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 41 & 12(b)(3)(C), to suppress all evidence, tangible or intangible, obtained as a result of the illegal search/seizure described below, together with all statements and derivative evidence flowing therefrom.

2. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[// GUIDANCE: Brief procedural posture—indictment date, charges, upcoming trial
date, prior motions. Reference any suppression deadlines under Crim. Rule 12.]
On [DATE], the Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Defendant with
[CHARGES]. Trial is presently scheduled for [DATE]. This motion is timely
under Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 12(b)(3).

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS [PROPOSED]

[// GUIDANCE: Provide concise, record-supported narrative. Separate contested
facts from undisputed background. Attach exhibits (police reports, affidavits,
warrants, transcripts) as lettered appendices per Rule 41(f).]

1. On [DATE/TIME], law-enforcement officers [IDENTIFY AGENCY] entered
   [LOCATION] and conducted a search of [DESCRIBE PREMISES/PERSON/DEVICE].
2. Officers seized [ITEMS SEIZED] and subsequently obtained Defendant’s
   statements at [LOCATION].
3. The search was conducted [WITH / WITHOUT] a warrant signed by [MAGISTRATE],
   number [WARRANT NO.], at [TIME], based on [SOURCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE].
4. [DESCRIBE MATERIAL DEFECTS: staleness, insufficient nexus, misstatements,
   failure to knock-and-announce, etc.].

4. ISSUES PRESENTED

A. Whether the officers violated Del. Const. art. I, § 6 by conducting a search
[without a warrant / under a facially deficient warrant].
B. Whether the same conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.
C. Whether any seized evidence or derivative statements must be excluded.
D. Whether Delaware’s rejection of the federal good-faith exception mandates
suppression even if the warrant is later deemed invalid.

5. ARGUMENT

5.1 The Search Was Conducted Without Valid Legal Authority

Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 41(c) requires a neutral magistrate to find probable
cause based on sworn information. The officers’ warrantless intrusion—and the
government’s subsequent seizure of evidence—contravened this mandate. Any
search of a dwelling is presumptively unreasonable absent a recognized
exception, none of which apply here.

5.2 The Warrant (If Any) Lacked Probable Cause and Particularity

The supporting affidavit failed to establish a timely, credible nexus between
the alleged criminal activity and the place to be searched, as required by
Del. Const. art. I, § 6, and Rule 41(c)(1). The warrant’s description of
“all computers and electronic devices” lacks particularity, rendering the
warrant an impermissible general warrant.

5.3 Violations of the Delaware Constitution, art. I, § 6

The Delaware Constitution affords equal or greater protection than the Federal
Constitution. Because the search violated the guarantees against unreasonable
searches and seizures, suppression is mandatory under state law.

5.4 Violations of the Fourth Amendment

An unreasonable search or seizure conducted by state actors likewise violates
the Fourth Amendment, requiring suppression under the exclusionary rule.

5.5 Exclusionary Rule and “Fruit-of-the-Poisonous-Tree” Doctrine

All physical evidence, electronic data, and subsequent inculpatory statements
were acquired only after, and because of, the unlawful search. Under settled
doctrine, such derivative evidence must be excluded.

5.6 Inapplicability of Any Good-Faith Exception in Delaware

Although federal jurisprudence recognizes a “good-faith” exception, Delaware
courts have not adopted that exception under Del. Const. art. I, § 6.
Accordingly, even if the officers acted in subjective good faith, suppression
remains the proper remedy.

6. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Suppress all physical evidence seized on [DATE], including but not limited
   to [ITEMS].
2. Suppress any and all statements made by Defendant subsequent to the unlawful
   search.
3. Suppress any additional evidence discovered as a direct or indirect result
   of the illegal search and seizure.
4. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

7. REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING / BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Pursuant to Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 12(c), Defendant requests an evidentiary
hearing to resolve factual disputes and a briefing schedule should the Court
determine additional legal memoranda are warranted.

8. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE

I, [DEFENSE COUNSEL NAME], certify that this motion complies with Del.
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 41(f) and contains no argument relying on information not
reasonably available to opposing counsel.

9. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the [DAY] day of [MONTH], [YEAR], a true and correct
copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress Evidence was served via
[E-FILE / HAND-DELIVERY / EMAIL] upon:

[PROSECUTOR NAME]
Deputy Attorney General
[ADDRESS / EMAIL]

/s/ [DEFENSE COUNSEL NAME]
[Delaware Bar No. ____]
[LAW FIRM OR PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE] | [EMAIL]

10. PROPOSED ORDER text

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
[COUNTY] COUNTY

STATE OF DELAWARE
v. Cr. ID No.: [NO.]
[DEFENDANT NAME], Defendant.

ORDER

AND NOW, this _ day of __, 20, upon consideration of
Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence, the State’s response, the arguments
of counsel, and the record as a whole, it is hereby ORDERED that:

[ ] The Motion is GRANTED. All evidence and statements identified in the
Motion are SUPPRESSED.

[ ] The Motion is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

[JUDGE NAME]
Judge, Superior Court of Delaware
[// GUIDANCE: Remove inapplicable check-boxes, add factual findings or
conclusions of law if the Court requests a proposed findings-of-fact order.]

NOTE TO PRACTITIONER
• Verify local scheduling orders for page limits and filing deadlines.
• Attach any affidavit or exhibit essential to establishing standing (e.g.,
a sworn declaration that Defendant had a privacy interest in the premises).
• If challenging electronic searches, consider adding a separate section
addressing Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 41(g) (return of property) and Rule 41(e)(2)(B) protocol for off-site review.
• For companion motions (e.g., Franks hearing), file concurrently or combine
with additional sub-headings as permitted.