Missouri State Criminal Motion to Suppress Evidence

IN THE [________________________________] COURT OF [________________________________] COUNTY, MISSOURI

☐ Circuit Court   ☐ Associate Circuit Court   ☐ Municipal Court

STATE OF MISSOURI,

Plaintiff,

v.                 Case No.: [________________________________]

[________________________________],       Division: [____]

Defendant.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

(Pursuant to Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 24.05; RSMo § 542.296; U.S. Const. amend. IV, XIV; Mo. Const. Art. I, § 15)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction and Relief Requested
2. Procedural Posture
3. Statement of Relevant Facts
4. Legal Standards
5. Argument
6. Request for Evidentiary Hearing
7. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief
8. Certificate of Service
9. Proposed Order

I. INTRODUCTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED

COMES NOW Defendant, [________________________________] ("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, Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.05, and RSMo § 542.296, to suppress and exclude:

(a) All physical evidence seized from Defendant's ☐ person ☐ vehicle ☐ residence ☐ other: [________________________________] on [__/__/____];

(b) All oral, written, and recorded statements allegedly made by Defendant subsequent to the unlawful seizure;

(c) All derivative evidence obtained therefrom ("fruit of the poisonous tree"); and

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

II. PROCEDURAL POSTURE

1. Defendant was charged by ☐ Indictment ☐ Information ☐ Complaint filed on [__/__/____] with the following offenses:

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

3. Discovery produced on [__/__/____] reveals that the State intends to introduce the evidence identified in Section I at trial.

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

5. This Motion is timely filed within the period for pre-trial motions under Rule 24.04 and RSMo § 542.296, which requires the motion to be made "before the commencement of the trial" unless the movant was unaware of the grounds or had no opportunity to raise them earlier.

III. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

The following facts are derived from discovery materials, police reports, body-worn and dash-cam 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 [________________________________]
   ☐ Execution of Search Warrant No. [________________________________], issued by [________________________________] on [__/__/____]
   ☐ Dispatch call regarding [________________________________]
   ☐ Anonymous tip or informant information
   ☐ Purported consensual encounter
   ☐ Other: [________________________________]

3. Officers conducted a search of Defendant's ☐ person ☐ vehicle ☐ residence ☐ other: [________________________________] and seized the following items:
   - [________________________________]
   - [________________________________]
   - [________________________________]

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

5. ☐ Defendant was placed under arrest at [____] ☐ a.m. ☐ p.m. ☐ Officers questioned Defendant ☐ before ☐ after providing Miranda warnings. ☐ Miranda warnings were never provided.

6. Defendant made the following alleged statements: [________________________________].

7. Additional relevant facts: [________________________________].

IV. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Constitutional Protections

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 15 of the Missouri Constitution protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Missouri Supreme Court has held that Article I, Section 15 is "coextensive with the Fourth Amendment; consequently, the same analysis applies under both provisions." State v. Pike, 162 S.W.3d 464, 472 (Mo. 2005); State v. Sund, 215 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Mo. 2007).

Article I, Section 15 provides:

"That the people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes, effects and electronic communications and data, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or seize any person or thing, or access electronic data or communication, shall issue without describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized, or the data or communication to be accessed, as nearly as may be; nor without probable cause, supported by written oath or affirmation."

B. Statutory Framework — RSMo § 542.296

RSMo § 542.296 provides that a motion to suppress may be based upon the grounds that the:

1. Search and seizure was made without a warrant and without lawful authority;
2. Warrant was improper on its face or illegally issued, including without a proper showing of probable cause;
3. Property seized was not described in the warrant and the officer was not otherwise lawfully privileged to seize it;
4. Warrant was illegally executed by the officer; or
5. Search and seizure violated rights under Section 15 of Article I of the Missouri Constitution, or the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

C. Procedural Requirements — Rule 24.05

Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.05 governs motions to suppress in criminal proceedings. The motion must be in writing, filed before the commencement of trial, and state the facts supporting the claimed illegality. The court shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion.

D. Burden of Proof

"The burden of going forward with the evidence and the risk of nonpersuasion shall be upon the state to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the motion to suppress should be overruled." RSMo § 542.296(6) (emphasis added). This statutory allocation of the burden is critical: once Defendant files a motion stating facts showing the search was unlawful, the State must affirmatively justify the search. State v. Milliorn, 794 S.W.2d 181, 184 (Mo. 1990).

E. Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment or Article I, § 15 is inadmissible, along with all derivative evidence ("fruit of the poisonous tree"). Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85 (1963); State v. Rutter, 93 S.W.3d 714, 723 (Mo. 2002).

Three narrow exceptions may apply: (1) independent source, (2) inevitable discovery, and (3) attenuation of the taint. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984). The State bears the burden of establishing any exception.

F. Good-Faith Exception

Missouri recognizes the good-faith exception under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). However, 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 in its existence entirely unreasonable." Leon, 468 U.S. at 923; State v. Collings, 450 S.W.3d 741, 751 (Mo. 2014). The exception does not apply to warrantless searches.

V. ARGUMENT

A. The Initial Stop / Seizure Lacked Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause

1. Officers detained Defendant without articulable, particularized facts warranting a Terry stop. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968); State v. Lammers, 479 S.W.3d 624, 633 (Mo. 2016).

2. Mere presence in a "high-crime area" coupled with innocuous conduct does not satisfy the Fourth Amendment threshold. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000).

3. ☐ The traffic stop was unreasonably extended beyond its original purpose without independent reasonable suspicion. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354-55 (2015); State v. Nylon, 544 S.W.3d 218, 222 (Mo. App. 2018).

4. All evidence secured after the unlawful detention is subject to suppression.

B. The Search Warrant Was Facially Deficient / Lacked Probable Cause

1. The affidavit omitted critical facts, relied on conclusory assertions, and failed to establish a nexus between alleged criminal activity and the place to be searched. State v. Berry, 801 S.W.2d 64, 67 (Mo. 1990).

2. Information in the affidavit was stale — the alleged observations occurred approximately [____] days before warrant issuance without indication of continuing criminal activity.

3. The warrant failed to describe with particularity the items to be seized, rendering it an impermissible general warrant. Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004).

4. ☐ A Franks hearing is warranted because the affiant ☐ knowingly ☐ recklessly included false statements or omitted material facts: [________________________________]. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

C. Officers Exceeded the Scope of the Warrant

1. Officers searched areas and containers not authorized by the warrant and not reasonably capable of concealing the described items.

2. ☐ Execution during nighttime hours violated RSMo § 542.291 without a specific judicial finding of necessity.

3. ☐ Officers failed to comply with knock-and-announce requirements under RSMo § 542.301.

D. No Exception to the Warrant Requirement Applies

1. Consent: ☐ No consent was given. ☐ Purported consent was involuntary under the totality of the circumstances, including [________________________________]. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973); State v. Stover, 388 S.W.3d 138, 150 (Mo. 2012).

2. Exigent Circumstances: ☐ No exigency existed. Officers had ample time to obtain a warrant. Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011).

3. Search Incident to Arrest: ☐ The search exceeded the permissible scope or the underlying arrest was unlawful. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969); Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009).

4. Automobile Exception: ☐ Officers lacked probable cause. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).

5. Plain View: ☐ The incriminating nature of the items was not immediately apparent. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990).

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

E. Defendant's Statements Were the Product of the Illegal Search and Seizure

1. Any Miranda advisements were tainted by the prior constitutional violation. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975).

2. No attenuation or intervening circumstance sufficient to dissipate the causal chain exists.

3. ☐ Miranda warnings were never given; statements are independently excludable under the Fifth Amendment. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

F. The Good-Faith Exception Does Not Apply

1. ☐ No warrant existed; officers could not rely on one in good faith.

2. ☐ Reliance on a warrant obtained through material omissions or false statements is per se unreasonable.

3. ☐ An objectively reasonable officer would have recognized the warrant's deficiencies.

4. The Leon exception does not apply, and the exclusionary rule retains full force. State v. Collings, 450 S.W.3d 741, 751 (Mo. 2014).

VI. REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Pursuant to Rule 24.05 and RSMo § 542.296, Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing at which the State must establish the admissibility of the challenged evidence. Defendant anticipates:

1. Examination of the affiant officer(s);
2. Examination of the arresting/searching officer(s);
3. Introduction of dash-cam and body-cam footage;
4. Live testimony concerning the circumstances of the search, seizure, and any statements; and
5. Testimony of [________________________________] (additional witnesses).

Estimated hearing time: [____] hours.

VII. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that this Court:

A. Conduct an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Rule 24.05;

B. Enter an Order suppressing all evidence and statements identified herein;

C. Preclude the State from referencing such evidence at any stage of trial;

D. Order the return of unlawfully seized property to Defendant; and

E. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

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

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

VIII. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Incorporated Memorandum of Law was ☐ e-filed ☐ hand-delivered ☐ mailed to:

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

[________________________________]
[________________________________], Counsel for Defendant

IX. PROPOSED ORDER

IN THE [________________________________] COURT OF [________________________________] COUNTY, MISSOURI

State of Missouri v. [________________________________]
Case No.: [________________________________]

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

Upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence, the response of the State, the evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing held on [__/__/____], and the arguments of counsel, the Court FINDS and ORDERS as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. [________________________________]
2. [________________________________]
3. [________________________________]

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

1. The challenged evidence ☐ was ☐ was not 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.

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

ORDER:

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress is ☐ SUSTAINED ☐ OVERRULED, and:

☐ The following evidence is SUPPRESSED and excluded from use in the State's case-in-chief:
(a) [________________________________]
(b) [________________________________]
(c) All derivative evidence.

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

SO ORDERED this [____] day of [________________________________], 20[____].

[________________________________]
JUDGE

ATTACHMENTS CHECKLIST

☐ Exhibit A — Search Warrant and Affidavit
☐ Exhibit B — Incident / Investigation Report
☐ Exhibit C — Dash-Cam Video (lodged with Clerk)
☐ Exhibit D — Body-Cam Transcript / Footage Log
☐ Exhibit E — [________________________________]

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• RSMo § 542.296 — Motion to suppress, grounds for: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=542.296
• Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 24.05 — Motions to suppress: https://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/ClerkHandbooksP2RulesOnly.nsf/c0c6ffa99df4993f86256ba50057dcb8/5ccc9b6bd64e933586256ca6005213df
• Missouri Constitution, Art. I, § 15 — Search and seizure protections
• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) — Exclusionary rule
• Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) — Fruit of the poisonous tree
• Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) — Challenging warrant affidavit veracity
• United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) — Good-faith exception
• State v. Pike, 162 S.W.3d 464 (Mo. 2005) — Art. I, § 15 coextensive with Fourth Amendment
• State v. Sund, 215 S.W.3d 719 (Mo. 2007) — Missouri search and seizure analysis
• State v. Milliorn, 794 S.W.2d 181 (Mo. 1990) — Burden of proof on the State
• State v. Collings, 450 S.W.3d 741 (Mo. 2014) — Good-faith exception in Missouri
• State v. Lammers, 479 S.W.3d 624 (Mo. 2016) — Terry stop analysis