IN THE [INSERT COUNTY] CIRCUIT/SUPERIOR COURT

STATE OF INDIANA

State of Indiana, )
Plaintiff, )
) Cause No. [____]
v. )
)
[DEFENDANT FULL NAME], )
Defendant. )

VERIFIED MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

[Indiana Rules of Criminal Procedure; Indiana Rules of Evidence; U.S. Const. amend. IV; Ind. Const. art. 1, § 11]

[// GUIDANCE: Use this form when seeking exclusion of physical evidence, statements, or derivative (“fruit of the poisonous tree”) evidence obtained by law-enforcement officers in violation of federal or Indiana constitutional provisions, statutory protections, or evidentiary rules. Tailor Section IV (Facts) and Section V (Legal Argument) to the specific record. Attach all relevant exhibits—e.g., warrant, affidavit, dash-cam video transcripts—under separate tabs.]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction & Relief Requested
2. Jurisdiction & Procedural Posture
3. Statement of Material Facts
4. Issues Presented
5. Legal Argument
   5.1. Constitutional Violations (Fourth Amendment & Article 1, § 11)
   5.2. Statutory & Rule-Based Violations
   5.3. Inapplicability of the Statutory Good-Faith Exception (Ind. Code § 35-37-4-5)
   5.4. Exclusion of Fruits & Derivative Evidence
6. Request for Evidentiary Hearing
7. Conclusion & Prayer for Relief
8. Verification
9. Certificate of Service
10. Proposed Order (Exhibit A)

1. INTRODUCTION & RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant, [DEFENDANT NAME] (“Defendant”), by counsel [COUNSEL NAME], respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to:

• the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
• Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution;
• Indiana Code § 35-37-4-5; and
• Indiana Rules of Evidence 401–403 & 602;

to suppress and exclude from evidence at all stages of these proceedings:

1. All physical evidence seized from [LOCATION] on [DATE];
2. All statements allegedly made by Defendant subsequent to the unlawful [stop/search/arrest]; and
3. All derivative evidence (“fruit of the poisonous tree”) obtained as a result thereof.

2. JURISDICTION & PROCEDURAL POSTURE

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties under Indiana Constitution Article 7 and Indiana Code § 33-28-1-2.
2. The indictment/information charges Defendant with [LIST CHARGES] alleged to have occurred on [DATE].
3. Trial is presently set for [TRIAL DATE]. Under Indiana Criminal Rule 12(B), this motion is timely because it is filed [X] days before trial and within the scheduling order of this Court.

3. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

[// GUIDANCE: Provide concise, record-supported facts in numbered paragraphs. Identify officers, times, locations, seizure methods, and any warrant information. Keep argumentative language out of this section.]

1. On [DATE] at approximately [TIME], Officer [NAME] conducted a traffic stop of Defendant’s vehicle at [LOCATION] for an alleged [INFRACTION].
2. Without obtaining Defendant’s consent and absent a warrant, officers searched the vehicle, discovering [DESCRIBE ITEMS].
3. The search occurred prior to a canine sniff, and no exigent circumstances existed.
4. Defendant was subsequently arrested and transported to [FACILITY], where officers interrogated Defendant after invoking the right to counsel.
5. The seized items and Defendant’s statements form the basis of the State’s case-in-chief.

4. ISSUES PRESENTED

A. Whether the warrantless search of Defendant’s vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, § 11 of the Indiana Constitution.
B. Whether any probable-cause affidavit supporting the later-obtained warrant failed to establish probable cause, rendering the warrant facially deficient.
C. Whether the good-faith exception codified at Indiana Code § 35-37-4-5 applies under the facts of this case.
D. Whether all evidence and statements obtained, as well as their fruits, must be suppressed.

5. LEGAL ARGUMENT

5.1. The Warrantless Search Violated Federal and State Constitutions

1. A warrantless search is per se unreasonable unless it falls within a specifically established and well-delineated exception. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967).
2. Indiana applies a “totality-of-the-circumstances” analysis under Article 1, § 11 that is often more protective than federal standards.
3. The State bears the burden of demonstrating that an exception—such as consent, automobile exception, plain-view, or exigency—justifies the intrusion. Here, none apply:
   a. Consent was neither sought nor obtained.
   b. Officers lacked probable cause of contraband prior to the search.
   c. No exigent circumstances existed because Defendant was detained and the vehicle secured.

5.2. The Warrant (If Any) Was Facially and Substantively Deficient

1. Probable cause requires a nexus between the alleged criminal activity and the place to be searched. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983).
2. The affidavit relied on conclusory allegations without underlying facts, failing the Gates standard and Indiana’s “particularity” mandate.
3. Because the issuing magistrate lacked a substantial basis for concluding that contraband would be found, the warrant is void.

5.3. The Statutory Good-Faith Exception Is Inapplicable

1. Indiana Code § 35-37-4-5(b)(1) permits admission of evidence where officers act in objective good-faith reliance on a warrant “subsequently determined to be defective.”
2. Leon-type good faith fails when:
   a. The warrant is based on knowing or reckless falsehoods;
   b. The issuing magistrate acts as a mere rubber stamp; or
   c. The affidavit is so lacking in indicia of probable cause that belief in its existence is objectively unreasonable.
3. Given the glaring deficiencies outlined above, no reasonably well-trained officer could rely on the warrant; therefore, the exception does not save the evidence.
4. Alternatively, if no warrant existed, § 35-37-4-5 does not apply at all, mandating suppression.

5.4. Exclusion of Fruits and Derivative Evidence

1. Under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, all evidence obtained by exploitation of the initial illegality, as well as the products thereof, must be suppressed. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963).
2. Defendant’s post-arrest statements stem directly from the unlawful search and must also be excluded.

6. REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 104 and Criminal Rule 3, Defendant respectfully requests an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed factual issues and to allow examination of the officers involved.

7. CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that the Court:

1. Grant this Motion and suppress all evidence seized on [DATE] and all derivative evidence;
2. Suppress any and all statements allegedly made by Defendant that stem from the unlawful conduct;
3. Order the State to refrain from introducing such evidence at trial or any other proceeding; and
4. Grant all other just and proper relief.

Respectfully submitted,

[ATTORNEY NAME], # [BAR NO.]
[LAW FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE] | [EMAIL]
Counsel for Defendant

8. VERIFICATION

I, [DEFENDANT NAME], affirm under penalties of perjury pursuant to Ind. Code § 34-54-8-1 that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

[DEFENDANT NAME]
Date: _____

9. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on [DATE], a copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress was served via [E-FILING / HAND-DELIVERY / FIRST-CLASS MAIL] to:

[PROSECUTOR NAME]
[OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR ADDRESS]

[ATTORNEY NAME]

10. PROPOSED ORDER (Exhibit A)

text
STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE [INSERT COUNTY] CIRCUIT/SUPERIOR COURT
) SS:
COUNTY OF [____] )

State of Indiana )
Plaintiff, )
) Cause No. [____]
v. )
)
[DEFENDANT NAME], )
Defendant. )

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, the State’s response, the evidence presented, and the arguments of counsel, now finds as follows:

1. The warrantless search of Defendant’s [vehicle/residence/person] on [DATE] violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.
2. The good-faith exception under Ind. Code § 35-37-4-5 does not apply.
3. All evidence seized during the search, together with any statements or derivative evidence obtained thereafter, is inadmissible.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED. The State shall not introduce the suppressed evidence at any stage of this proceeding.

SO ORDERED this ___ day of ____, 20__.

Judge, [INSERT COUNTY] Circuit/Superior Court

Distribution:
• [Defense Counsel]
• [Prosecutor]

[// GUIDANCE:
1. Insert specific statutory or rule citations only after confirming accuracy.
2. If additional claims (e.g., Miranda violations, statutory non-compliance) exist, add sub-sections.
3. Always comply with local rules regarding word limits, font, electronic filing conventions, and proposed-order formatting.
4. For searches involving cell-phone data or CSLI, include Riley- and Carpenter-based arguments.
5. Consider concurrently filing a Motion in Limine to block references to the suppressed evidence pending ruling.
]