STATE OF MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT – [___] JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF [____]
State of Minnesota, │ Court File No.: [_]
Plaintiff, │
│ Judge: [Hon. ______]
v. │
│
[DEFENDANT FULL NAME], │
Defendant. │
NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION, AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW
TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
Date of Hearing: [___]
Time of Hearing: [__]
Location: [____] – [Courtroom No. __]
Counsel for Defendant: [__]
Counsel for State: [__]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Introduction
- Procedural Posture and Notice of Motion
- Statement of Relevant Facts
- Applicable Legal Standards
4.1 Constitutional Protections
4.2 Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure
4.3 Burden of Proof & Standing - Argument
5.1 Warrantless Search and Seizure – No Exception Applies
5.2 Invalid Warrant – Lack of Probable Cause / Staleness / Misrepresentations
5.3 Scope of Search Exceeded Warrant Authority
5.4 Fruit-of-the-Poisonous-Tree – Derivative Evidence & Statements
5.5 Good-Faith Exception Inapplicable Under Minnesota Law - Requested Relief
- Oral Argument Request
- Verification / Affidavit of Counsel
- Proposed Order (attached as Exhibit A)
- Certificate of Service
1. INTRODUCTION
Defendant [DEFENDANT FULL NAME] (“Defendant”) respectfully moves this Court for an Order suppressing all physical evidence, electronic data, and statements obtained as a result of the unlawful search and seizure described herein. This Motion is made pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Article I, § 10 of the Minnesota Constitution; and the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[// GUIDANCE: Insert a concise case-specific overview (e.g., “Police searched Defendant’s residence without a warrant and seized a laptop …”).]
2. PROCEDURAL POSTURE AND NOTICE OF MOTION
Pursuant to the scheduling order dated [____] and Minn. R. Crim. P. 10 et seq., Defendant hereby provides written notice of the following:
• Relief Sought: Suppression of evidence identified in Section 5 and exclusion of any derivative fruits at trial;
• Legal Grounds: Constitutional violations, statutory violations, procedural defects;
• Evidentiary Hearing: Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing under the Rules of Criminal Procedure;
• Time Required: Counsel estimates [____] hours.
Service of this Motion, supporting affidavit(s), and proposed order has been made upon the prosecutor of record in accordance with Minn. R. Crim. P. 33.04 and local court rules. (See Certificate of Service below.)
3. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
[// GUIDANCE: Provide a chronologically ordered, numbered statement of facts supported by citation to discovery materials, police reports, body-worn camera footage, and any affidavits. Use neutral, objective language and include only facts material to the suppression issues.]
- On [DATE], Officer [NAME] conducted a traffic stop of Defendant’s vehicle …
- Without obtaining a warrant, officers entered Defendant’s residence at [TIME] …
- …
4. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
4.1 Constitutional Protections
• The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring warrants to be supported by probable cause and to describe with particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized.
• Article I, § 10 of the Minnesota Constitution provides coextensive—and in certain contexts broader—protection than the Fourth Amendment.
4.2 Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure
Pre-trial suppression motions challenging evidence obtained through searches and seizures are governed by Minn. R. Crim. P. 10–11 and must be brought within the deadlines set by the Court’s scheduling order. The State bears the burden of proving both the legality of the search/seizure and the admissibility of the evidence.
[// GUIDANCE: Cite additional rule provisions only if certain; otherwise reference the Rules generally.]
4.3 Burden of Proof & Standing
Defendant bears the initial burden of production to establish a prima facie claim of illegality. Upon such showing, the burden shifts to the State to justify the challenged conduct. Defendant has standing because [explain ownership/possessory interest or privacy expectation].
5. ARGUMENT
5.1 Warrantless Search and Seizure – No Exception Applies
- Law enforcement conducted a search of [LOCATION] without a warrant.
- The State may argue exceptions such as consent, exigency, search incident to arrest, inventory, or automobile exception; however, the record shows:
a. No voluntary, knowing, and intelligent consent was obtained;
b. No exigent circumstances existed;
c. [Other exceptions] are inapplicable.
Accordingly, the seizure violates both federal and state constitutional protections, requiring suppression.
5.2 Invalid Warrant – Lack of Probable Cause / Staleness / Misrepresentations
Even assuming a warrant was obtained, suppression is warranted because:
• The warrant affidavit lacked sufficient probable cause;
• Information relied upon was stale;
• Material omissions/misstatements undermined judicial neutrality.
[// GUIDANCE: Where misrepresentations are alleged, prepare a Franks-type proffer and request an evidentiary hearing.]
5.3 Scope of Search Exceeded Warrant Authority
Officers seized items and searched areas not described or reasonably encompassed by the warrant, in violation of the particularity requirement.
5.4 Fruit-of-the-Poisonous-Tree – Derivative Evidence & Statements
All derivative evidence (including statements, observations, and subsequent warrants based on tainted information) must be excluded as fruits of the initial illegality.
5.5 Good-Faith Exception Inapplicable Under Minnesota Law
While federal law recognizes a limited good-faith exception, Minnesota has consistently afforded greater protection, declining to apply that exception where a warrant is facially deficient or where officers fail to act objectively reasonably. Even if the Court were to consider a good-faith analysis, the facts demonstrate that reliance on the warrant (or lack thereof) was objectively unreasonable.
6. REQUESTED RELIEF
Defendant respectfully requests that the Court issue an Order:
- Suppressing all physical evidence seized from [LOCATION/ITEMS];
- Suppressing all statements obtained from Defendant subsequent to the unlawful search and seizure;
- Precluding the State from introducing any derivative evidence (“fruits”) obtained as a consequence of the illegal conduct; and
- Granting any further relief the Court deems just and equitable.
7. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUEST
Pursuant to local practice, Defendant requests oral argument and an evidentiary hearing of approximately [____] hours. Witnesses anticipated include [NAME], [NAME], and any law enforcement officers involved.
8. VERIFICATION / AFFIDAVIT OF COUNSEL
I, [ATTORNEY NAME], under penalty of perjury, affirm that the factual statements contained herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, based on review of discovery materials and investigation conducted to date.
Date: [____] Respectfully submitted,
[LAW FIRM NAME]
By: _____
[ATTORNEY NAME], Attorney No. [_____]
[Address] | [Phone] | [Email]
Counsel for Defendant
9. PROPOSED ORDER
(Attach as Exhibit A and submit in Word-processing format for the Court’s convenience.)
STATE OF MINNESOTA — DISTRICT COURT — [] JUDICIAL DISTRICT
County of [_]State of Minnesota, │ Court File No.: [____]
Plaintiff, │
│ ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
v. │ MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
[DEFENDANT], │
Defendant. │The Court, having heard argument, reviewed the record, and being duly advised, HEREBY ORDERS:
1. All evidence seized on [DATE] from [LOCATION/ITEMS] is SUPPRESSED.
2. All statements made by Defendant subsequent to the illegal search and seizure are SUPPRESSED.
3. The State shall not introduce any evidence that is the fruit of the suppressed evidence.
4. [Additional relief, if any.]
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: [____]
Judge of District Court
10. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on [DATE] I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Motion, Motion, Memorandum of Law, and Proposed Order upon the prosecuting attorney by [hand delivery / electronic filing service / mail] in accordance with Minn. R. Crim. P. and the [County] e-filing system.
[ATTORNEY NAME]
[// GUIDANCE:
1. Review local district-specific motion practice requirements (e.g., word limits, signature blocks, meet-and-confer certifications).
2. File and serve within deadlines set by the omnibus/scheduling order.
3. Attach supporting exhibits (warrant affidavit, body-cam footage transcript excerpts, etc.) and cite them in the Statement of Facts.
4. Consider submitting a separate memorandum if page limits necessitate.
5. Verify that any affidavits are properly notarized per Minn. Stat. ch. 358.
6. Preserve objections on the record during the suppression hearing for potential appellate review.
]