State Criminal Motion to Suppress - Montana

IN THE [ORDINAL] JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

[COUNTY] COUNTY, STATE OF MONTANA

Cause No. [___]
Judge: [Hon. __________]

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, BRIEF IN SUPPORT,

NOTICE OF HEARING, AND PROPOSED ORDER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction
2. Statement of Facts
3. Issues Presented

4. Legal Standards
   4.1 Governing Constitutional Provisions
   4.2 Montana Rules of Evidence
   4.3 Suppression Procedure & Burden of Proof

5. Argument
   5.1 The Warrantless Search Was Unconstitutional
   5.2 The Seized Evidence Is "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree"
   5.3 Montana's Good-Faith Doctrine

6. Request for Evidentiary Hearing

7. Conclusion & Prayer for Relief
8. Certification of Compliance (Rule-Dependent)
9. Certificate of Service
10. Notice of Hearing
11. Proposed Order

1. Introduction

Comes now the Defendant, [DEFENDANT NAME] ("Defendant"), by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Mont. Const. art. II, §§ 10-11, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-302, and Mont. R. Evid. [INSERT RULE], to suppress the following identified evidence allegedly obtained through the challenged search and seizure on [DATE]: [LIST ITEMS AND STATEMENTS].

2. Statement of Facts

[Insert statement of facts.]

3. Issues Presented

1. Whether the warrantless search of Defendant's [vehicle/home/person] violated Mont. Const. art. II, §§ 10-11 and the Fourth Amendment.
2. Which identified items or statements, including any claimed derivative items, must be excluded after findings on causation and applicable limits.
3. Whether the State may invoke any good-faith exception notwithstanding Montana's more protective constitutional framework.

4. Legal Standards

4.1 Governing Constitutional Provisions

• U.S. Const. amend. IV.
• Mont. Const. art. II, § 11 ("Searches and Seizures"): "The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, electronic data and communications, homes and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place, to seize any person or thing, or to access electronic data or communications shall issue without describing the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized, or without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing."
• Mont. Const. art. II, § 10 ("Right of Privacy"): "The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest." The Montana Supreme Court applies Article II, Section 10 in tandem with Article II, Section 11 to afford broader protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than the Fourth Amendment provides on its own.

4.2 Montana Rules of Evidence

• Mont. R. Evid. 401-403 (relevance, and exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time).
• Mont. R. Evid. 602 (lack of personal knowledge).
• Mont. R. Evid. 901 (requirement of authentication or identification).

4.3 Suppression Procedure & Burden of Proof

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-302 governs motions to suppress evidence obtained by an unlawful search and seizure:

1. A defendant aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the court to suppress as evidence anything obtained by the unlawful search and seizure.
2. If the motion states facts that, if true, would show that the evidence should be suppressed, the court shall hear the merits of the motion at the omnibus hearing or at a later date if the court orders.
3. If the motion is granted, the evidence is not admissible at trial.

A related but distinct statute, Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-301, separately governs suppression of an involuntary confession or admission; where Defendant also challenges the voluntariness of a statement, that motion should be brought under § 46-13-301 and the State bears the burden of proving voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence.

For a search-and-seizure challenge under § 46-13-302, once Defendant establishes a prima facie case of illegality, the burden shifts to the State to prove the search was lawful by a preponderance of the evidence.

5. Argument

5.1 The Warrantless Search Was Unconstitutional

1. Absent a duly-issued warrant satisfying Mont. Const. art. II, § 11, a search is per se unreasonable unless it falls within a "jealously and carefully drawn" exception.

2. No recognized exception -- consent, incident to arrest, automobile, exigency, plain-view, community-caretaker -- applies on the facts presented.

   • Consent: Defendant unequivocally refused consent.
   • Exigency: Officers had ample opportunity to obtain a warrant but failed to do so.

3. The officers therefore violated both federal and state constitutional protections, including the heightened privacy protection Montana courts apply under Article II, Section 10 alongside Article II, Section 11.

5.2 The Seized Evidence Is "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree"

Defendant seeks suppression of [IDENTIFY EACH CLAIMED DERIVATIVE ITEM OR STATEMENT] because [STATE THE CAUSAL FACTS CONNECTING IT TO THE CHALLENGED SEARCH OR SEIZURE]. For a federal Fourth Amendment claim, the Court should decide whether the item was acquired by exploitation of the illegality or through sufficiently distinguishable means, considering any asserted independent source, inevitable discovery, or attenuation. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487–88 (1963); Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443–44 (1984). Address any distinct remedy under Mont. Const. art. II, §§ 10–11 separately. Section 46-13-302(3) states the trial effect of a granted motion; it does not itself establish that every later item is a suppressible fruit.

5.3 Montana's Good-Faith Doctrine

The Montana Supreme Court has never adopted the federal good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule (see United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)) as applied to violations of the Montana Constitution, and has expressly rejected prior invitations to do so. See State v. Rushton, 264 Mont. 248, 870 P.2d 1355 (1994). Montana's broader constitutional privacy and search-and-seizure protections under Article II, Sections 10 and 11 counsel against extending Leon to state-constitutional violations. Counsel should not assume the federal good-faith exception applies in a Montana suppression proceeding and should brief this issue directly if the State raises Leon.

6. Request for Evidentiary Hearing

Pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-302(2), Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing for the Court to:
a. Receive testimony and exhibits regarding the facts surrounding the search;
b. Determine the credibility of the officers involved; and
c. Resolve disputed issues of material fact necessary to decide this Motion.

7. Conclusion & Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that this Court:

1. GRANT the Motion to Suppress;
2. EXCLUDE from evidence at trial each identified item or statement for which the Court finds a causal and legal basis for suppression after considering applicable limits;
3. ORDER such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this ___ day of __________, 20___.

/s/ ___________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
Counsel for Defendant

8. Certification of Compliance (if required)

I certify that this brief contains ___ words, exclusive of caption, certificates, tables, and appendices, in compliance with [LOCAL RULE OR ORDER].

9. Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress was served upon the [County] County Attorney's Office by [☐ hand-delivery ☐ U.S. Mail ☐ Full Court Enterprise (FCE) e-filing system] on this ___ day of __________, 20___.

/s/ ___________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
Counsel for Defendant

10. Notice of Hearing

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned will bring the foregoing Motion on for hearing before the Honorable [JUDGE NAME] of the [ORDINAL] Judicial District Court, [COUNTY] County, located at [courthouse address], on the ___ day of __________, 20__, at ___ __.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard.

DATED this ___ day of __________, 20___.

/s/ ___________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
Counsel for Defendant

11. Proposed Order

IN THE [ORDINAL] JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, [COUNTY] COUNTY
Cause No. [___]

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

Upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Suppress, the briefs and evidence submitted, and the arguments of counsel, the Court finds that the search and seizure conducted on [DATE] violated Mont. Const. art. II, §§ 10-11 and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's Motion to Suppress is GRANTED;

2. The following identified items are inadmissible at trial pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-302(3):
   a. [LIST DIRECT ITEMS AND GROUNDS];
   b. [LIST DERIVATIVE ITEMS OR STATEMENTS AND ITEM-SPECIFIC CAUSATION AND APPLICABLE-LIMIT FINDINGS];

3. The State shall make no reference, directly or indirectly, to the suppressed evidence in the presence of the jury.

SO ORDERED this ___ day of __________, 20__.

__________________________________
District Court Judge