State Criminal Motion to Suppress - Hawaii

IN THE [CIRCUIT/DISTRICT] COURT OF THE _____ CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAI‘I

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF COUNSEL; NOTICE OF HEARING; [PROPOSED] ORDER; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[HEARING DATE: ____________]
[HEARING TIME: ____________]
[JUDGE: Hon. __________________________]

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

TO: [NAME], Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, [County]

Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME] (“Defendant”), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure (“HRPP”) Rule 12(b)(3), Article I § 7 of the Hawai‘i Constitution, and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, respectfully moves this Court for an order suppressing:

1. All physical evidence seized from Defendant, Defendant’s person, vehicle, residence, and/or effects on or about [DATE] (the “Subject Evidence”); and
2. All verbal or written statements allegedly made by Defendant subsequent to, and derived from, the unlawful search, seizure, or arrest (the “Subject Statements”).

This Motion is based upon the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Counsel, the files and records herein, any evidence adduced at a full evidentiary hearing, and such further argument as may be presented.

DATED: [City], Hawai‘i, [DATE].

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
Attorney for Defendant
[Hawai‘i Bar No.]
[Law Firm Name]
[Address] | [Phone] | [Email]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ............................................................................. 1
2. Defined Terms ......................................................................... 1
3. Factual Background ................................................................. 2
4. Procedural Background .......................................................... 3

5. Argument .................................................................................. 4
   5.1. Warrantless Stop Lacked Reasonable Suspicion ................ 4
   5.2. Search Lacked Probable Cause and Valid Warrant ............ 5
   5.3. Consent, If Alleged, Was Not Voluntary ............................. 6
   5.4. No Good-Faith Exception Under Hawai‘i Law ................... 7
   5.5. Fruits Doctrine Requires Suppression of Statements ......... 8

6. Request for Evidentiary Hearing ............................................ 9

7. Conclusion .............................................................................. 10
8. Declaration of Counsel ........................................................... 11
9. Notice of Hearing .................................................................... 12
10. [Proposed] Order .................................................................... 13
11. Certificate of Service ............................................................ 14

1. INTRODUCTION

Defendant seeks suppression of the Subject Evidence and Subject Statements obtained during an unconstitutional stop, search, and seizure that occurred on [DATE] in [LOCATION]. The officers acted without probable cause, without a valid warrant, and outside any recognized exception to the warrant requirement. Under Hawai‘i’s exclusionary rule— which does not incorporate the federal good-faith exception—suppression is mandatory.

2. DEFINED TERMS

For clarity and consistency, the following terms are used herein:

“Defendant” – [DEFENDANT NAME].
“Officers” – The law-enforcement officers involved in the events of [DATE].
“Subject Evidence” – All tangible items seized as described supra.
“Subject Statements” – Any oral or written statements attributed to Defendant after the unlawful detention.
“Subject Property” – The vehicle, residence, or other location searched.
“Warrantless Search” – The search conducted on [DATE] without a judicially-issued warrant.

3. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

[Provide a clear, chronological statement of facts. Include:
(a) Date, time, and location of initial police contact;
(b) Circumstances of the stop or encounter;
(c) Officer conduct (pat-downs, vehicle searches, interrogations);
(d) Seizure of evidence and Miranda advisements, if any.]

4. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Defendant was charged by [Complaint/Information/Indictment] filed on [DATE] with [identify counts].
2. At arraignment on [DATE], Defendant entered pleas of not guilty.
3. Discovery received on [DATE] revealed the constitutional violations forming the basis of this Motion.
4. This Motion is timely under HRPP Rule 12(b)(3).

5. ARGUMENT

5.1. The Initial Stop Was Not Supported by Reasonable Suspicion

Officers detained Defendant absent specific, articulable facts suggesting criminal activity, in violation of Art. I § 7 of the Hawai‘i Constitution and the Fourth Amendment. Any subsequent search or seizure is tainted by the illegality of the stop.

5.2. The Search Was Conducted Without Probable Cause or Valid Warrant

A warrantless search is per se unconstitutional unless it falls within a narrow, well-delineated exception. No such exception applies here. The Officers lacked probable cause to obtain, or even seek, a warrant. Consequently, the seizure of the Subject Evidence violated Defendant’s constitutional rights.

5.3. Any Alleged Consent Was Not Voluntary

Even if the State contends Defendant consented, the purported consent was obtained during unlawful detention, rendering it involuntary. Factors demonstrating involuntariness include: custodial surroundings, display of authority, absence of advisement of the right to refuse, and Defendant’s lack of meaningful choice.

5.4. Hawai‘i Rejects the Federal Good-Faith Exception

Unlike federal jurisprudence under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), Hawai‘i’s constitutional exclusionary rule does not recognize a good-faith exception. See State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai‘i 433, 446, 896 P.2d 889, 902 (1995) (declining to adopt a good-faith exception under article I, section 7 of the Hawai‘i Constitution); State v. Torres, 125 Hawai‘i 382, 396, 262 P.3d 1006, 1020 (2011) (reaffirming that Hawai‘i has not adopted the federal good-faith exception). Thus, evidence obtained under an invalid warrant (or no warrant) must be suppressed regardless of an officer’s subjective belief in its validity. Article I, section 7 of the Hawai‘i Constitution independently protects the right to be free from unreasonable searches, seizures, and invasions of privacy, and Hawai‘i courts have construed this provision to afford broader protection than the Fourth Amendment; the State may not rely on federal good-faith case law to defeat a state constitutional suppression claim.

5.5. The “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine Mandates Suppression of Defendant’s Statements

The Subject Statements were elicited only after the unlawful stop and search and are inseparable from the taint. There was no intervening act of free will sufficient to dissipate the primary illegality.

6. REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Pursuant to HRPP Rule 12(b)(3) and Rule 12(e) — which requires that a motion to suppress made before trial be determined before trial and that the court state its essential findings on the record where factual issues are involved — Defendant requests a full evidentiary hearing wherein the State bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of the stop, search, and seizure, and of demonstrating any applicable exception to the warrant requirement.

7. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court:

A. Suppress all Subject Evidence;
B. Suppress all Subject Statements;
C. Preclude the State from introducing any derivative evidence; and
D. Grant such further relief as is just and proper.

8. DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

I, [ATTORNEY NAME], declare as follows:

1. I am counsel of record for Defendant in this matter.
2. The facts set forth in Sections 3 and 4 of the foregoing Motion are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, based upon review of discovery and investigation to date.
3. I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 710-1060, that the foregoing is true and correct.

DATED: [City], Hawai‘i, [DATE].

____________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]

9. NOTICE OF HEARING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the foregoing Motion will be heard on [DATE] at [TIME], or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Courtroom ☐, before the Honorable [JUDGE NAME], [Circuit/District] Court of the _____ Circuit, State of Hawai‘i.

10. [PROPOSED] ORDER

IN THE [CIRCUIT/DISTRICT] COURT OF THE _____ CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAI‘I

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

The Court, having considered Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence, the memoranda and declarations filed in support and opposition, the oral arguments of counsel, and the evidence adduced at the hearing conducted on _____________, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.
2. All physical evidence described as “Subject Evidence” in the Motion is SUPPRESSED.
3. All statements described as “Subject Statements” in the Motion are SUPPRESSED.
4. The State shall not introduce any evidence derived, directly or indirectly, from the suppressed evidence or statements.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, _____________.

__________________________________
JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT

11. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this [DATE], a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress Evidence; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Counsel; Notice of Hearing; and [Proposed] Order was duly served on the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, [County], via [☐ Hawai‘i Judiciary Electronic Filing and Service System (JEFS) ☐ Hand Delivery ☐ Mail ☐ Email] as permitted by HRPP Rule 49.

____________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]