IN THE [CIRCUIT/MUNICIPAL] COURT OF [COUNTY] COUNTY, MISSOURI

[STATE OF MISSOURI]

v.

[DEFENDANT NAME],

Defendant.

Case No.: [__]
Division: [____]

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

[AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW]

[// GUIDANCE: This template is drafted for use in Missouri state criminal proceedings and is intended to comply with Missouri Supreme Court Rules 24.04–24.05, Article I § 15 of the Missouri Constitution, and controlling Fourth-Amendment jurisprudence. Customize bracketed fields, verify local-court formatting preferences, and attach supporting exhibits.]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction & Relief Requested ............................................................. [__]
2. Procedural Posture ............................................................................. [__]
3. Statement of Relevant Facts ................................................................. [__]
4. Legal Standards ................................................................................... []
   4.1 Burden of Proof ............................................................................... []
   4.2 Exclusionary Rule & “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” .............................. []
   4.3 Good-Faith Exception ..................................................................... []
5. Argument ............................................................................................. []
   5.1 Lack of Reasonable Suspicion / Probable Cause ................................... []
   5.2 Invalid or Facially Deficient Warrant .................................................. []
   5.3 Unconstitutional Execution of Warrant .............................................. []
   5.4 Involuntary or Tainted Statements ..................................................... []
   5.5 Inapplicability of the Good-Faith Exception ....................................... []
6. Request for Evidentiary Hearing ............................................................. [__]
7. Conclusion & Prayer for Relief ............................................................... [__]
8. Certificate of Service ............................................................................ [__]

(Page numbers to be inserted prior to filing.)

1. INTRODUCTION & RELIEF REQUESTED

Comes now Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME] (“Defendant”), by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Court pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 15 of the Missouri Constitution, and Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.05, to suppress and exclude:
a. All physical evidence seized from Defendant’s person, vehicle, and/or residence on [DATE];
b. All oral and written statements allegedly made by Defendant subsequent to the unlawful seizure; and
c. All derivative evidence obtained therefrom.

2. PROCEDURAL POSTURE

1. Defendant was charged by [Indictment/Information] filed on [DATE] with [list offenses].
2. Discovery provided on [DATE] reveals that the State intends to introduce the evidence identified in Section 1 at trial.
3. This Motion is timely filed within the period for pre-trial motions under Rule 24.04 and in advance of the presently scheduled trial date of [DATE].

[// GUIDANCE: Insert any prior motions, rulings, or suppression issues already litigated.]

3. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

[Provide a concise, numbered chronology of events leading to the seizure and/or interrogation. Reference exhibit labels you will attach—e.g., police reports, dash-cam video, warrant affidavit, body-cam footage.]

4. LEGAL STANDARDS

4.1 Burden of Proof

The State bears the burden of justifying a warrantless search or, where a warrant issued, of showing its validity and proper execution. Once Defendant establishes a prima facie violation, the burden shifts to the State to prove admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence.

4.2 Exclusionary Rule & “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”

Evidence obtained in violation of constitutional protections must be suppressed, along with any “fruit” derived therefrom. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).

4.3 Good-Faith Exception

Missouri recognizes the limited good-faith exception articulated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), but the State must affirmatively demonstrate officers’ “objectively reasonable” reliance on a warrant that is not “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief unreasonable.”

[// GUIDANCE: While federal case law is controlling on U.S. Const. questions, cite Missouri precedent if available and verified.]

5. ARGUMENT

5.1 The Initial Stop / Seizure Was Unsupported by Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause

1. Officers detained Defendant without articulable, particularized facts warranting a Terry stop.
2. Mere presence in a “high-crime area” coupled with innocuous conduct does not satisfy the Fourth Amendment threshold.
3. All evidence secured after the unlawful detention is subject to suppression.

5.2 The Search Warrant Was Facial­ly Deficient

1. The affidavit omitted critical facts, relied on conclusory assertions, and failed to establish a nexus between alleged criminal activity and the place searched.
2. Stale information rendered any probable-cause finding invalid at the time of issuance.

5.3 Even If the Warrant Were Valid, Officers Exceeded Its Scope

1. Officers searched areas and containers not authorized by the warrant.
2. Execution during nighttime hours violated statutory constraints without a judicial finding of necessity.

5.4 Defendant’s Statements Were the Direct Product of the Illegal Search and Seizure

1. Any Miranda advisements were tainted by the prior constitutional violation.
2. No attenuation or intervening circumstance dissipated the causal chain.

5.5 The State Cannot Invoke the Good-Faith Exception

1. Reliance on a warrant obtained through material omissions or false statements is per se unreasonable.
2. An objectively reasonable officer would have recognized the warrant’s deficiencies.
3. The Leon exception therefore does not apply.

6. REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Pursuant to Rule 24.05, Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing at which the State must establish the admissibility of the challenged evidence. Defendant anticipates examination of the affiant-officer(s), introduction of dash-cam and body-cam footage, and live testimony concerning the circumstances of the search and seizure.

[// GUIDANCE: Insert estimated time needed for hearing and witness list if required by local rule.]

7. CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that this Court:
1. Conduct an evidentiary hearing;
2. Enter an Order suppressing all evidence and statements identified herein;
3. Preclude the State from referencing such evidence at any stage of trial; and
4. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

8. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [DATE], a true and correct copy of the foregoing was [e-filed/hand-delivered/mailed] to [Prosecutor’s Name and Address].

Respectfully submitted,
plaintext

[ATTORNEY NAME], # [MO BAR NO.]
[Law Firm / Public Defender]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]
Telephone: [--_]
Email: [___]
Counsel for Defendant

ATTACHMENTS

A. Search Warrant & Affidavit (Ex. A)
B. Incident/Investigation Report (Ex. B)
C. Dash-Cam Video (Ex. C) – lodged with Clerk
D. Body-Cam Transcript (Ex. D)

[// GUIDANCE: Attach only materials already produced in discovery or otherwise obtainable under open-records rules. File confidential material under seal consistent with local court rules.]

PROPOSED ORDER

plaintext
IN THE [CIRCUIT/MUNICIPAL] COURT OF [COUNTY] COUNTY, MISSOURI
State of Missouri v. [Defendant]

Case No.: [_____]

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence, the arguments of counsel, and the evidence adduced, the Court finds that the challenged evidence was obtained in violation of Defendant’s rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 15 of the Missouri Constitution. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is SUSTAINED, and the evidence described in the Motion is SUPPRESSED and excluded from use in the State’s case-in-chief.

SO ORDERED this _ day of _, 20.

JUDGE
[// GUIDANCE: Some Missouri courts prefer counsel to submit a separate proposed order; confirm local preference.]