Kansas State Criminal Motion to Suppress Evidence

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [________________________________] COUNTY, KANSAS

Case No.: [________________________________]

Division: [____]

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

(Pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3216 and, for confessions or admissions, K.S.A. 22-3215; U.S. Const. amend. IV, XIV; Kansas Bill of Rights, § 15)

I. INTRODUCTION

COMES NOW the Defendant, [________________________________] ("Defendant"), by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Court pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3216, K.S.A. 22-3215 as to any confession or admission, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Section 15 of the Kansas Bill of Rights, for an Order suppressing and excluding from evidence at trial:

(a) The following tangible items seized on or about [__/__/____] during the search of Defendant's ☐ person ☐ vehicle ☐ residence ☐ other: [________________________________] at [________________________________]: [IDENTIFY EACH ITEM];

(b) The following oral, written, or recorded statements allegedly made by Defendant after the challenged detention or interrogation on [__/__/____]: [IDENTIFY EACH STATEMENT AND GROUND];

(c) The following claimed derivative items, with the causal facts connecting each to the challenged conduct: [IDENTIFY EACH ITEM AND FACTS]; and

(d) The following identified observations, identifications, or testimony for which Defendant establishes a suppression ground: [IDENTIFY].

In support of this Motion, Defendant states as follows.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. On [__/__/____], the State of Kansas filed a/an ☐ Complaint ☐ Information ☐ Indictment charging Defendant with the following offenses:

2. Defendant was arraigned on [__/__/____] and entered a plea of not guilty to all charges.

3. Trial is currently scheduled for [__/__/____] before the Honorable [________________________________].

4. This Motion is filed before trial in this Court, which has jurisdiction to try the case, under K.S.A. 22-3216(3). The request to suppress any confession or admission is filed before preliminary examination or trial under K.S.A. 22-3215(6). This Motion is filed [____] days before the scheduled trial date and within the deadline established by the Court's scheduling order dated [__/__/____]. If a statutory timing exception applies, state the facts here: [________________________________].

5. Discovery produced by the State on [__/__/____] confirms the State's intent to introduce the challenged evidence at trial.

III. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

The following facts are derived from discovery materials, police reports, body-worn camera footage, and other available evidence:

1. On [__/__/____] at approximately [____] ☐ a.m. ☐ p.m., Officer(s)/Agent(s) [________________________________] of the [________________________________] (law enforcement agency) initiated contact with Defendant at [________________________________].

2. The basis for the initial contact was:
   ☐ Traffic stop for alleged violation of [________________________________]
   ☐ Response to a dispatch call regarding [________________________________]
   ☐ Execution of Search Warrant No. [________________________________]
   ☐ Purported "consensual encounter"
   ☐ Anonymous tip
   ☐ Other: [________________________________]

3. During the encounter, officers conducted a search of Defendant's ☐ person ☐ vehicle ☐ residence ☐ other: [________________________________].

4. The purported basis for the search was:
   ☐ Search warrant
   ☐ Alleged consent
   ☐ Search incident to arrest
   ☐ Automobile exception
   ☐ Plain view
   ☐ Exigent circumstances
   ☐ Inventory search
   ☐ Terry frisk (officer safety)
   ☐ Other: [________________________________]

5. As a result of the search, officers seized the following items:

   • [________________________________]
   • [________________________________]
   • [________________________________]

6. ☐ Defendant was placed under arrest at approximately [____] ☐ a.m. ☐ p.m.
   ☐ Officers questioned Defendant ☐ before ☐ after providing Miranda warnings.
   ☐ Defendant made statements during the encounter as follows: [________________________________].

7. [________________________________] (additional relevant facts, including body-cam timestamps, dash-cam references, witness observations, etc.)

8. The claimed derivative item(s) and causal facts connecting each to the challenged conduct are [IDENTIFY ITEMS AND FACTS].

IV. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Constitutional Protections

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Section 15 of the Kansas Bill of Rights provides parallel and potentially broader protection:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons and property against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall be inviolate; and no warrant shall issue but on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or property to be seized."

The Kansas Supreme Court has consistently interpreted Section 15 of the Kansas Bill of Rights to provide the same protection from unlawful government searches and seizures as the Fourth Amendment, and while the court has recognized it could extend state constitutional protections beyond the federal guarantee, it has thus far declined to do so. State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490, 498-500 (2010); State v. Neighbors, 299 Kan. 234, 239 (2014).

B. Statutory Framework — K.S.A. 22-3216

K.S.A. 22-3216(1) permits a defendant aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure to move for return of property and suppression of evidence obtained by that search or seizure. The motion must be in writing and state facts showing how the search and seizure were unlawful. K.S.A. 22-3216(2).

The judge "shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion and the burden of proving that the search and seizure were lawful shall be on the prosecution." K.S.A. 22-3216(2) (emphasis added).

For a confession or admission, K.S.A. 22-3215(2) requires a written motion alleging the grounds for inadmissibility. If those allegations, if proved, would establish inadmissibility, the court conducts a hearing; the prosecution bears the burden of proving admissibility. K.S.A. 22-3215(3)-(4).

C. Burden of Proof

Warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Section 15 of the Kansas Bill of Rights. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967); State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763, 772 (2007). After a defendant files a written motion stating facts showing the alleged unlawful search or seizure, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that it was lawful. K.S.A. 22-3216(2). Where the challenged search was warrantless, the State must establish a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Fitzgerald, 286 Kan. 1124, 1127 (2008).

The prosecution's statutory burden under K.S.A. 22-3216(2) also applies to a challenged search conducted under a warrant. A distinct requirement applies when the defendant seeks a hearing on the veracity of the warrant affidavit: the defendant must make a substantial preliminary showing of a deliberate or reckless material falsehood. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978); State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599, 613 (2006).

D. Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Defendant seeks suppression of each identified item obtained through a proven constitutional violation. For claimed derivative evidence, the Court should determine whether the item was acquired by exploitation of the illegality or through sufficiently distinguishable means. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487–88 (1963). Discovery after the challenged conduct alone does not establish a suppressible fruit.

For a federal Fourth Amendment claim, the Court should consider any asserted independent source, inevitable discovery, or attenuation as to each item. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443–44 (1984); Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (2016). Address any distinct Section 15 rule separately.

E. Good-Faith Exception

Kansas recognizes the limited good-faith exception articulated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), which permits admission of evidence obtained by officers acting in objectively reasonable reliance on a facially valid warrant. However, the exception does not apply where: (1) the magistrate was misled by an affidavit the affiant knew or should have known was false; (2) the magistrate wholly abandoned the judicial role; (3) the affidavit was "so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable"; or (4) the warrant was so facially deficient that officers could not reasonably presume it to be valid. Leon, 468 U.S. at 923; State v. Hoeck, 284 Kan. 441, 454 (2007).

V. ARGUMENT

A. The Search and Seizure Was Conducted Without a Valid Warrant and No Exception Applies

1. The search of Defendant's [________________________________] was conducted without a warrant, triggering the presumption of unconstitutionality under both the Fourth Amendment and Section 15 of the Kansas Bill of Rights.

2. The State cannot demonstrate that any recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies:

Consent: ☐ No consent was given. ☐ Any purported consent was not voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, including [________________________________]. Knowledge of a right to refuse is a factor, not an absolute prerequisite. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227, 248–49 (1973); State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763, 776–77 (2007).

Exigent Circumstances: ☐ No exigent circumstances existed. Officers had ample time to obtain a warrant and faced no imminent threat of evidence destruction, danger to persons, or hot pursuit. Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011).

Search Incident to Arrest: ☐ The search preceded a lawful arrest or exceeded the scope permitted under Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), and Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009).

Automobile Exception: ☐ Officers lacked probable cause to believe the vehicle contained evidence of a crime. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925); State v. Sanchez-Loredo, 294 Kan. 50, 55 (2012).

Plain View: ☐ The incriminating nature of the items was not immediately apparent, or officers were not lawfully in a position to observe them. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37 (1990).

Terry Stop/Frisk: ☐ Officers lacked reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the initial stop and/or lacked reasonable belief that Defendant was armed and dangerous to justify a pat-down. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968); State v. DeMarco, 263 Kan. 727, 734 (1998).

Inventory Search: ☐ The search did not follow standardized departmental procedures and/or was conducted as a pretext for investigation. Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 374 (1987).

3. If the search was unlawful, the Court should decide which identified items require suppression after considering their causal connection and applicable limits.

B. The Search Warrant Was Invalid (If Applicable)

☐ (Check if challenging a search warrant)

1. The affidavit supporting Search Warrant No. [________________________________] failed to establish probable cause because [________________________________].

2. The information in the affidavit was stale, as it described events occurring approximately [____] days/weeks before the warrant was issued, without any indication of ongoing criminal activity. State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599, 614 (2006).

3. The affidavit relied on an unverified informant whose credibility, reliability, and basis of knowledge were not independently corroborated. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983); State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. at 613.

4. The warrant failed to describe with particularity the items to be seized, rendering it an impermissible general warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Section 15. Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 557 (2004).

C. Franks Hearing Is Warranted (If Applicable)

☐ (Check if requesting a Franks hearing)

1. Pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), Defendant requests a hearing to challenge the veracity of the warrant affidavit.

2. The affiant ☐ knowingly ☐ recklessly included false statements or omitted material facts, specifically: [________________________________].

3. When the false statements are excised and the omitted facts included, the remaining content of the affidavit is insufficient to establish probable cause.

D. Defendant's Statements Must Be Suppressed as Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

1. Defendant seeks suppression of [IDENTIFY EACH STATEMENT] because [EXPLAIN ITS CAUSAL LINK TO THE ASSERTED UNLAWFUL SEARCH OR SEIZURE]. Later timing alone does not establish taint. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487–88 (1963).

2. ☐ Miranda warnings, if given, do not cure the taint of a prior constitutional violation where the causal connection between the illegality and the statements has not been broken by sufficient intervening circumstances. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-04 (1975); State v. Ingram, 279 Kan. 745, 754 (2005).

3. ☐ Defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

4. No exception to the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine applies:

   • There was no independent source for the statements;
   • Inevitable discovery does not apply because [________________________________]; and
   • The taint was not attenuated because [________________________________].

E. The Good-Faith Exception Does Not Apply

1. The good-faith exception under Leon is inapplicable because:
   ☐ No warrant was obtained; officers could not have relied on one in good faith.
   ☐ The affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render reliance entirely unreasonable.
   ☐ The affiant made knowing or reckless misrepresentations.
   ☐ The warrant was facially deficient.

2. The exclusionary rule retains its full deterrent force under these circumstances and suppression is the appropriate remedy. Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 238 (2011).

VI. REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3216(2), and K.S.A. 22-3215(3) for a challenged confession or admission, Defendant respectfully requests an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed issues of material fact, including but not limited to:

1. The officers' basis for initiating contact with Defendant;
2. The existence or absence of voluntary consent;
3. The presence or absence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion;
4. The scope and manner of the search;
5. The circumstances of Defendant's detention and any statements;
6. The timeline of events relative to Miranda warnings; and
7. The veracity of the warrant affidavit (if applicable).

Defendant anticipates calling the following witnesses:

• [________________________________]
• [________________________________]
• [________________________________]

Estimated hearing time: [____] hours.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that this Court:

A. Schedule and conduct an evidentiary hearing pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3216(2) and, for a challenged confession or admission, K.S.A. 22-3215(3);

B. Enter an Order suppressing each identified physical item for which the Court finds exclusion required;

C. Enter an Order suppressing the identified statements to the extent required by the applicable ground and findings;

D. Enter an Order suppressing each identified derivative item, observation, or identification for which the Court finds a causal and legal basis for exclusion after considering applicable limits;

E. At the final conclusion of the case, order suppressed property restored to the party entitled to it under K.S.A. 22-3216(2), unless it is otherwise subject to lawful detention;

F. Instruct the State to refrain from using evidence outside the scope of the Court’s suppression ruling, and reserve any proposed impeachment use for a separate ruling on the identified evidence and ground for exclusion if Defendant testifies; and

G. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this [____] day of [________________________________], 20[____].

[________________________________]
[________________________________], KS Bar No. [________________________________]
[________________________________] (Law Firm)
[________________________________] (Street Address)
[________________________________] (City, State, ZIP)
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]
Counsel for Defendant

VIII. VERIFICATION

Declarant: [________________________________]. Select the declaration for the place of signing under K.S.A. 53-601(a), then sign and date only that declaration.

☐ Signed in Kansas: I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [__/__/____].

Signature: [________________________________]

☐ Signed outside Kansas: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Kansas that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [__/__/____].

Signature: [________________________________]

IX. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the [____] day of [________________________________], 20[____], I ☐ electronically filed ☐ hand-delivered ☐ mailed a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Memorandum in Support to:

[________________________________], ☐ Assistant County Attorney ☐ Assistant District Attorney ☐ Other authorized prosecutor: [TITLE]
Office of the ☐ County Attorney ☐ District Attorney for [________________________________] County
[________________________________] (Address)
[________________________________] (Email)

[________________________________]
[________________________________], Counsel for Defendant

X. PROPOSED ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [________________________________] COUNTY, KANSAS

Case No. [________________________________]

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

NOW on this [____] day of [________________________________], 20[____], the Court, having considered Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence, the State's response, the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, and the arguments of counsel, hereby FINDS and ORDERS as follows:

1. The search and seizure conducted on [__/__/____] violated ☐ the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ☐ Section 15 of the Kansas Bill of Rights ☐ both.

2. The good-faith exception ☐ does ☐ does not apply.

3. ☐ The following identified physical items are SUPPRESSED: [LIST AND GROUNDS].
   ☐ The following identified statements are SUPPRESSED: [LIST, GROUNDS, AND SCOPE].
   ☐ The following identified derivative items are SUPPRESSED after these causation and applicable-limit findings: [LIST AND FINDINGS].
   ☐ The Motion is DENIED for the reasons stated on the record.

4. The State is ☐ prohibited from using the evidence identified in this order to the extent stated above. The Court ☐ reserves ☐ decides the following proposed impeachment use: [IDENTIFY EVIDENCE, GROUND FOR EXCLUSION, AND RULING]. If reserved, the State shall seek a ruling outside the jury’s presence before offering that evidence. Impeachment admissibility depends on the constitutional ground for exclusion. Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586, 590 (2009).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[________________________________]
Judge of the District Court

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• K.S.A. 22-3216 — Motion to suppress procedure: https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch22/022_032_0016.html
• K.S.A. 22-3215 — Motion to suppress confession or admission: https://www.ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch22/022_032_0015.html
• K.S.A. 22-2502 — Search warrants; issuance; probable cause requirement: https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch22/022_025_0002.html
• Kansas Bill of Rights, § 15: https://ksrevisor.gov/kanconst/092_001_0015.html
• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) — Exclusionary rule applies to states
• Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) — Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) — Stop-and-frisk standard
• Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) — Challenge to warrant affidavit veracity
• United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) — Good-faith exception
• State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490 (2010) — Section 15 interpreted coextensively with the Fourth Amendment; Kansas good-faith exception for reasonable reliance on a later-invalidated statute
• State v. Neighbors, 299 Kan. 234 (2014) — Section 15 provides the same protection as the Fourth Amendment; warrantless-entry exceptions (emergency aid)
• State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599 (2006) — Staleness of warrant information
• State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763 (2007) — Warrantless search presumption; voluntariness of consent