State Criminal Motion to Suppress - Michigan

Michigan Criminal Law Updated July 6, 2026 Free Word and PDF

STATE OF MICHIGAN

Party Role
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff
v. Case No. [XX-XXXX-FH/FC]
[DEFENDANT'S FULL LEGAL NAME], Defendant

IN THE ☐ CIRCUIT COURT ☐ DISTRICT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY]
Hon. [JUDGE]

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

(AND REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY ("WALKER") HEARING)


TABLE OF CONTENTS

  1. Introduction & Relief Requested
  2. Statement of Relevant Facts
  3. Legal Standards
    3.1 Constitutional Protections
    3.2 Michigan Rules of Evidence
    3.3 Good-Faith Exception (Government's Burden)

  4. Argument & Application
    4.1 Lack of Probable Cause / Invalid Warrant
    4.2 Warrantless Search & Seizure
    4.3 Fruit-of-the-Poisonous-Tree Doctrine

  5. Request for Evidentiary ("Walker") Hearing

  6. Conclusion & Prayer for Relief
  7. Notice of Hearing
  8. Verification / Affidavit
  9. Proof of Service

1. INTRODUCTION & RELIEF REQUESTED

NOW COMES the Defendant, [DEFENDANT], by and through appointed/retained counsel, [LAW FIRM / ATTORNEY], and respectfully moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to:

  • U.S. Const. amend. IV and XIV;
  • Mich. Const. 1963, art. I, § 11;
  • MCR 2.119 (Motion Practice, applicable to this criminal proceeding via MCR 6.001(D)) and MCR 6.110(D) (evidentiary/exclusionary determinations); and
  • MRE 104(a)-(c), 401-403,

to suppress and preclude the use at trial of all physical, testimonial, digital, derivative, and observational evidence seized on or about [DATE] at [LOCATION] as set forth more fully below.

Defendant further requests an evidentiary ("Walker") hearing and any other relief this Court deems just and proper.


2. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

  1. On [DATE], at approximately [TIME], officers of the [AGENCY] approached [PROPERTY/VEHICLE] located at [ADDRESS].
  2. [Describe encounter, seizure, search, statements, arrests, warrants (if any)].
  3. [Specify any warrant affidavit defects, staleness, false statements, or omissions].
  4. All challenged evidence is identified as [ITEMS] (collectively, the "Challenged Evidence").

A sworn affidavit from [DEFENDANT / WITNESS] is attached as Exhibit A. Certified discovery materials are attached as Exhibits B-D.


3. LEGAL STANDARDS

3.1 Constitutional Protections

  • The Fourth Amendment and Mich. Const. 1963, art. I, § 11 strictly prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. Absent a compelling reason, Michigan courts construe art. I, § 11 to provide the same protection as the Fourth Amendment. People v. Goldston, 470 Mich. 523, 530-531 (2004).
  • The prosecution bears the burden of proving the reasonableness of a warrantless search or, where a warrant issued, the sufficiency of probable cause and particularity.

3.2 Michigan Rules of Evidence

  • MRE 104(a) requires the Court to decide preliminary questions concerning the existence of a privilege and the admissibility of evidence.
  • MRE 104(c) requires that hearings on the admissibility of confessions or other motions to suppress evidence in criminal trials be conducted outside the hearing of the jury.
  • Relevance (MRE 401-403) is conditioned on lawful procurement; evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment or art. I, § 11 is generally inadmissible as substantive evidence. In re Forfeiture of $176,598, 443 Mich. 261, 265 (1993); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
  • Exclusion of derivative ("fruit") evidence is required where the primary evidence is tainted, subject to the independent-source, inevitable-discovery, and attenuation doctrines.
  • To the extent any privilege (e.g., attorney-client, spousal) bears on the admissibility of a challenged statement, privilege questions are governed by MRE 501, which leaves privilege to the common law except as modified by statute or court rule.

3.3 Good-Faith Exception (Government's Burden)

  • Michigan recognizes a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, adopted in People v. Goldston, 470 Mich. 523 (2004), following United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Under this exception, evidence seized in objectively reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant later found defective is not automatically suppressed.
  • The exception does not apply where the warrant affidavit is so lacking in indicia of probable cause that official reliance on it was objectively unreasonable. People v. Goldston, 470 Mich. at 531; see also People v. Thomson, No. 168669 (Mich. Nov. 26, 2025) (reaffirming that the good-faith exception does not rescue a warrant affidavit that fails to connect the items to be seized with the suspected criminal activity).
  • Where the warrant is facially deficient, or reliance was objectively unreasonable, the exception fails and suppression is required.

4. ARGUMENT & APPLICATION

4.1 Lack of Probable Cause / Invalid Warrant

  1. The warrant affidavit contained material omissions and misstatements, undermining any probable cause determination.
  2. The remaining content, excised of taint, is insufficient to justify invasion of [PROPERTY].

4.2 Warrantless Search & Seizure

  1. No exigency existed; police had ample time to secure a warrant.
  2. Defendant never consented. Any alleged consent was neither voluntary nor informed.

4.3 Fruit-of-the-Poisonous-Tree Doctrine

All statements and tangible evidence recovered subsequently are causally connected to the original illegality and must therefore be excluded.


5. REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY ("WALKER") HEARING

Pursuant to MCR 6.110(D) and MRE 104(a) and (c), Defendant requests a live evidentiary hearing to:

a. Permit cross-examination of the affiant and seizing officers;
b. Develop a full factual record on voluntariness, probable cause, and good-faith; and
c. Allow the Court to make explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law.


6. CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that this Court:

  1. Grant this Motion;
  2. Suppress the Challenged Evidence and all fruits thereof;
  3. Order the State to refrain from referencing such evidence at any stage of trial;
  4. Conduct an evidentiary hearing forthwith; and
  5. Grant such further relief as is just and equitable.

7. NOTICE OF HEARING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the foregoing Motion will be brought on for hearing before the Honorable [JUDGE], on [DATE], at [TIME] a.m./p.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, at the [COURT ADDRESS].


8. VERIFICATION / AFFIDAVIT

I, [DEFENDANT/COUNSEL], being first duly sworn, state that the factual averments contained in ¶¶ __ through __ are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

_________________________________
[NAME]
Subscribed and sworn before me on [DATE].
_________________________________
Notary Public, State of Michigan, County of [COUNTY]
My commission expires: [DATE]


9. PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that on [DATE], I served a true copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress Evidence, together with all exhibits, upon [PROSECUTOR NAME & ADDRESS] via [E-mail / MiFILE electronic filing / hand-delivery] pursuant to MCR 2.107.

_________________________________
[NAME], [Title]


SIGNATURE BLOCK

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]
Attorneys for Defendant

By: __________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME] (P-[BAR NO.])
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE] | [EMAIL]

Date: [DATE]


SOURCES AND REFERENCES

  • Mich. Const. 1963, art. I, § 11: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-Article-I-11
  • Michigan Court Rules, Chapter 6 (Criminal Procedure), including MCR 6.001(D) and MCR 6.110: https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/rules-instructions-administrative-orders/michigan-court-rules/court-rules-book-ch-6-responsive-html5.zip/index.html
  • Michigan Court Rules, Chapter 2 (Civil Procedure), including MCR 2.107 and MCR 2.119: https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/rules-instructions-administrative-orders/michigan-court-rules/court-rules-book-ch-2-responsive-html5.zip/index.html
  • Michigan Rules of Evidence: https://www.courts.michigan.gov/492ca5/siteassets/rules-instructions-administrative-orders/rules-of-evidence/michigan-rules-of-evidence.pdf
  • People v. Goldston, 470 Mich. 523 (2004): https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/Opinions/Final/SCt/20040715_S122364_35_goldston2nov03_op.pdf
  • People v. Walker (On Rehearing), 374 Mich. 331 (1965)
  • MiFILE (Michigan's statewide e-filing system): https://mifile.courts.michigan.gov/

Insert Image

Insert Table

Watch Ezel in action (sample case)Choose a plan

All changes saved
Save
Export
Export as DOCX
Export as PDF
Generating PDF...
state_criminal_motion_to_suppress_mi.pdf
Ready to export as PDF or Word
AI is editing...
Chat
Review

Draft it in the editor

The AI drafts each section from your answers and you review every word. Drafting from scratch takes hours; finish yours for $99 one time.

  • Built on this template
    Uses the Michigan version and the statutes it cites.
  • Formatted like the template
    Captions, numbering and layout stay intact.
  • AI editing
    Rewrite any section from your own notes.
  • Export as PDF and Word
    Yours to review, sign, or file.
Secure checkout via Stripe
Need to customize this document?

About this template

Last updated
July 6, 2026
Citations checked
July 6, 2026
Jurisdiction
Michigan
Category
Criminal Law

Legal authority

  • Mich. Const. 1963, art. I, § 11 (Searches and Seizures)
  • U.S. Const. amend. IV and XIV
  • MCR 2.119 (Motion Practice), applicable to criminal proceedings via MCR 6.001(D)
  • MCR 6.110(D) and (E) (Preliminary Examination; Exclusionary Rulings; Probable Cause Finding)
  • MCR 2.107 (Service and Filing of Pleadings and Other Documents), applicable via MCR 6.001(D)
  • MRE 104(a)-(c) (Preliminary Questions)
  • MRE 401-403 (Relevance)
  • MRE 501 (Privilege in General)
  • People v. Walker (On Rehearing), 374 Mich. 331 (1965)
  • People v. Goldston, 470 Mich. 523 (2004)

Criminal law paperwork covers every stage of a criminal case, from the first appearance and bail motion through pretrial motions, plea agreements, sentencing, and appeals. Deadlines in criminal cases are short and often unforgiving, and constitutional rights can be waived just by missing a filing. Using the right motion at the right time can mean the difference between evidence getting suppressed, charges getting reduced, or a case getting dismissed entirely.

Not legal advice

This template is provided for informational purposes. We recommend having an attorney review any legal document before signing, especially for high-value or complex matters.

Checked against the law it cites

A reviewer verified this template's legal citations against the official source on July 6, 2026.

Draft your State Criminal Motion to Suppress in the editor

Answer a few questions, let the AI editor draft each section from your answers, review it, and download Word and PDF. $99 one time, or $249 per month for every document and every Ezel app.