Kansas State Criminal Motion to Suppress Evidence

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [________________________________] COUNTY, KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Plaintiff,

v.                 Case No. [________________________________]

[________________________________],

Defendant.              Division: [____]

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

(Pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3216; 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, 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) All tangible evidence seized on or about [__/__/____] during the search of Defendant's ☐ person ☐ vehicle ☐ residence ☐ other: [________________________________] located at [________________________________];

(b) All oral, written, or recorded statements allegedly made by Defendant subsequent to the unlawful detention and/or interrogation on [__/__/____];

(c) All derivative evidence obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the foregoing unconstitutional conduct ("fruit of the poisonous tree"); and

(d) All observations, identifications, and testimony of law enforcement officers arising from the unlawful search and seizure.

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 timely filed pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3216(1), which requires that a motion to suppress be made "before trial" in the court having jurisdiction to try the case. This Motion is filed more than [____] days before the scheduled trial date and within the deadline established by the Court's scheduling order dated [__/__/____].

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.)

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 recognized that Section 15 of the Kansas Bill of Rights is "textually, historically, and jurisprudentially distinct" from the Fourth Amendment and may afford greater protections than its federal counterpart. State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490, 498 (2010); State v. Neighbors, 299 Kan. 234, 240 (2014).

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

K.S.A. 22-3216 provides that "[p]rior to the trial a defendant aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move for the return of property and to suppress as evidence anything so obtained." The motion "shall be in writing and state facts showing wherein the search and seizure were unlawful." K.S.A. 22-3216(1).

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).

C. Burden of Proof

Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under both 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). Once the Defendant demonstrates that a search was conducted without a warrant, the burden shifts to the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the search fell within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. K.S.A. 22-3216(2); State v. Fitzgerald, 286 Kan. 1124, 1127 (2008).

Where a warrant was obtained, the Defendant bears the initial burden of challenging the warrant's validity. If the Defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that the affiant made deliberate or reckless misstatements, a Franks hearing is warranted. 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

Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment or Section 15 must be suppressed, along with all derivative evidence obtained as a result of the primary illegality. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85 (1963); State v. Ibarra, 282 Kan. 530, 540 (2006).

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine requires suppression of derivative evidence unless the State can establish one of three narrow exceptions: (1) independent source, (2) inevitable discovery, or (3) attenuation of the taint. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984); Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (2016).

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, knowing, and intelligent, given the coercive circumstances of the encounter, including [________________________________]. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 248-49 (1973); State v. Edgar, 296 Kan. 513, 524 (2013).

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. Because the search was warrantless and no exception applies, all evidence obtained must be suppressed.

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. All statements made by Defendant following the unlawful search and seizure are tainted by the antecedent constitutional violation and must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85 (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), 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);

B. Enter an Order suppressing all physical evidence seized on [__/__/____];

C. Enter an Order suppressing all oral, written, and recorded statements made by Defendant;

D. Enter an Order suppressing all derivative evidence, observations, and identifications obtained as a result of the unconstitutional conduct;

E. Order the return of all unlawfully seized property to the party entitled thereto pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3216(3);

F. Instruct the State to refrain from any reference to the suppressed evidence at any stage of trial; 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

I, [________________________________], hereby verify under penalty of perjury pursuant to K.S.A. 53-601 that the foregoing statements of fact are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Date: [__/__/____]

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 District Attorney
Office of the District Attorney, [________________________________] County
[________________________________] (Address)
[________________________________] (Email)

[________________________________]
[________________________________], Counsel for Defendant

X. PROPOSED ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [________________________________] COUNTY, KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS v. [________________________________]
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. ☐ All physical evidence seized on the above date is hereby SUPPRESSED.
   ☐ All statements made by Defendant are hereby SUPPRESSED.
   ☐ All derivative evidence is hereby SUPPRESSED.
   ☐ The Motion is DENIED for the reasons stated on the record.

4. The State is ☐ prohibited from referencing the suppressed evidence at trial.

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
• 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) — Kansas Bill of Rights independent analysis
• State v. Neighbors, 299 Kan. 234 (2014) — Section 15 broader protections
• State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599 (2006) — Staleness of warrant information
• State v. Edgar, 296 Kan. 513 (2013) — Voluntariness of consent
• State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763 (2007) — Warrantless search presumption