State Criminal Motion to Suppress - Delaware

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

[COUNTY] COUNTY

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

(Del. Const. art. I, § 6; U.S. Const. amend. IV; Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 12(b)(3) & 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 Standing and Specificity (Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 41(f))
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(f) & 12(b)(3), 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

On [DATE], the Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Defendant with
[CHARGES]. Trial is presently scheduled for [DATE]. This motion is timely
filed prior to trial as required by Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 12(b)(3) and any
motion-scheduling deadline set by the Court under Rule 12(c).

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS [PROPOSED]

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. Const. art. I, § 6 and 11 Del. C. § 2307 require a neutral judge,
justice of the peace, or magistrate to find probable cause, based on a
written and sworn application meeting the requirements of 11 Del. C. § 2306,
before a search warrant may issue. 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 under 11 Del. C. §§ 2301-2303, 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 11 Del. C. § 2306 (contents of search warrant
application). Under the “four-corners” test applied by Delaware courts,
probable cause must appear within the four corners of the supporting
affidavit itself. See Dorsey v. State, 761 A.2d 807 (Del. 2000) (reversing
conviction and ordering suppression where the affidavit failed to establish a
sufficient nexus between the items sought and the place to be searched). The
warrant’s description of “all computers and electronic devices” lacks
particularity, rendering the warrant an impermissible general warrant under
both the Fourth Amendment and Del. Const. art. I, § 6. See Fink v. State,
817 A.2d 781 (Del. 2003) (warrants must describe the places and things to be
searched with particularity); Terreros v. State, 312 A.3d 651 (Del. 2024)
(warrant authorizing search of “any and all” cellphone data was an invalid
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 to the
exclusionary rule under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), the
Delaware Supreme Court has expressly declined to adopt that exception under
the Delaware Constitution. See Dorsey v. State, 761 A.2d 807, 814-15 (Del.

2000) (holding there is no “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule
under Del. Const. art. I, § 6, and that Delaware's broader search-and-seizure
protections require suppression of illegally seized evidence regardless of an
officer's good-faith reliance on a defective warrant). Accordingly, even if
the officers acted in subjective good faith, suppression remains the proper
remedy under Delaware constitutional law.

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. 41(f), which requires the Court to
receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision of a motion
to suppress, Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing to resolve the
factual disputes identified above, and a briefing schedule should the Court
determine additional legal memoranda are warranted.

8. CERTIFICATION OF STANDING AND SPECIFICITY

I, [DEFENSE COUNSEL NAME], certify that, as required by Del. Super. Ct.
Crim. R. 41(f), this Motion sets forth the standing of the Defendant to make
this application and states the grounds upon which it is made with
sufficient specificity to give the State reasonable notice of the issues
presented.

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

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

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