IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [COUNTY] COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA

[JUDICIAL DISTRICT]

State of North Dakota,
                                     Plaintiff,

v.

[DEFENDANT NAME],
                                     Defendant.

Case No.: [CASE NO.]

NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, AND REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

[// GUIDANCE: North Dakota practice customarily requires a separate “Notice of Motion” preceding the motion body. Remove or adapt if your judicial district follows a different convention.]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction .......................................................... 2
2. Procedural Posture ..................................................... 2
3. Statement of Facts ..................................................... 3
4. Definitions ............................................................ 4
5. Argument ............................................................... 5
     A. Legal Standard .................................................. 5
     B. Application to the Facts ........................................ 7
6. Relief Requested ....................................................... 9
7. Oral Argument & Evidentiary Hearing .................................... 9
8. Reservation of Rights .................................................. 9
9. Conclusion ............................................................. 9
10. Proposed Order (Exhibit A) ............................................ 10
11. Certificate of Service ................................................ 11

[// GUIDANCE: Delete the Table of Contents if the motion remains under ~10 pages after customization; it is optional under most ND local rules.]

1. Introduction

Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME] (“Defendant”), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to N.D.R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C), the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article I, § 8 of the North Dakota Constitution, and controlling North Dakota law, for an order suppressing all physical evidence, observations, and statements obtained as a result of the unlawful search and seizure conducted on [DATE] and for all further relief the Court deems just and proper.

2. Procedural Posture

1. On [DATE], law-enforcement officers of the [AGENCY] arrested Defendant following a stop/search of [the Subject Vehicle/the Defendant’s residence] and seized the items enumerated in the accompanying Inventory Return.
2. The State filed a criminal information on [DATE] charging Defendant with [COUNT(S)].
3. Discovery materials were provided on [DATE]. Upon review, Defendant determined grounds exist to challenge the legality of the search, seizure, and any derivative evidence.
4. This motion is timely under N.D.R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C) and local scheduling orders.

3. Statement of Facts

[// GUIDANCE: Provide a concise, chronologically ordered narrative that will be accepted as true for purposes of this motion unless the State produces contrary evidence. Include only facts material to suppression.]

1. At approximately [TIME] on [DATE], Officer [NAME] initiated a traffic stop of Defendant’s [YEAR/MAKE/MODEL] at [LOCATION] for an alleged [STATED REASON].
2. Without obtaining a warrant and absent valid consent, officers conducted a [hand search/dog sniff/inventory] of the vehicle.
3. Officers located and seized [LIST OF ITEMS] (“Seized Items”).
4. Defendant was transported to [FACILITY], where officers obtained statements following interrogation without Miranda warnings.
5. The stop, detention, search, and seizure lasted approximately [DURATION] minutes.
6. No search warrant or written consent form exists in discovery.

4. Definitions

For ease of reference, capitalized terms have the meanings assigned below.
“Defendant” means [DEFENDANT NAME].
“Officers” means the sworn law-enforcement personnel involved in the detention, search, seizure, or interrogation of Defendant.
“Seized Items” has the meaning given in Section 3, ¶ 3.
“Subject Vehicle” means the [YEAR/MAKE/MODEL] referenced in Section 3, ¶ 1.
“Search” and “Seizure” include any governmental intrusion within the scope of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 8 of the North Dakota Constitution.

[// GUIDANCE: Add or delete defined terms as appropriate. Keep list alphabetical.]

5. Argument

A. Legal Standard

1. Constitutional Protection
   a. The Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 8 protect against unreasonable searches and seizures and require warrants supported by probable cause.
   b. Evidence obtained in violation of these provisions is presumptively inadmissible under the exclusionary rule.

2. Motion to Suppress
   N.D.R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C) authorizes a defendant to seek suppression of evidence obtained through unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful means. The State bears the burden of proving the legality of the search and seizure once the defendant presents a prima facie challenge.

3. Good-Faith Exception
   North Dakota recognizes a limited good-faith exception whereby evidence may be admitted if officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on a facially valid warrant or binding precedent. The exception does not apply where:
   i. The warrant is so lacking in probable cause that reliance is unreasonable;
   ii. The issuing magistrate wholly abandons a detached and neutral role;
   iii. The warrant is facially deficient; or
   iv. Officers engage in deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent misconduct.
   [// GUIDANCE: Tailor sub-paragraphs to the specific facts and controlling precedent relevant in your district.]

B. Application to the Facts

1. Lack of Reasonable Suspicion / Probable Cause
   The traffic stop was unsupported by articulable, particularized facts establishing a reasonable suspicion that Defendant violated any law. Absent such suspicion, all evidence obtained during the ensuing detention must be suppressed.

2. Warrantless Search of the Subject Vehicle
   a. No exception to the warrant requirement was present. The inventory, automobile, and consent exceptions are inapplicable for the following reasons:
   i. Inventory Exception: Officers failed to follow a standardized policy.
   ii. Automobile Exception: No probable cause existed at the time of the search.
   iii. Consent Exception: Any purported consent was not voluntary under the totality-of-the-circumstances.
   b. Absent a valid exception, the warrantless search violated constitutional mandates.

3. Fruits of the Poisonous Tree
   Any statements or derivative evidence obtained following the unlawful search are tainted and must likewise be excluded.

4. Inapplicability of the Good-Faith Exception
   Officers could not have reasonably believed their conduct was lawful because:
   • They lacked a warrant or exigent circumstances;
   • They knowingly deviated from departmental policy; and
   • The unlawfulness of the intrusion was obvious to a reasonable officer.

[// GUIDANCE: Insert specific record citations (e.g., body-cam timestamp, dispatch log) to fortify each sub-argument.]

6. Relief Requested

Defendant respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order:
1. Suppressing all physical evidence, observations, and statements obtained as a result of the unlawful detention, search, and seizure on [DATE];
2. Suppressing any fruits derived therefrom;
3. Prohibiting the State from introducing the Seized Items or any derivative evidence at trial or other proceedings; and
4. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

7. Oral Argument & Evidentiary Hearing

Pursuant to N.D.R. Crim. P. 47 and local practice, Defendant requests oral argument and an evidentiary hearing to resolve any factual disputes material to this motion.

8. Reservation of Rights

Defendant expressly reserves the right to supplement, amend, or renew this motion upon receipt of additional discovery or a ruling from the Court.

9. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, and based on the entire record herein, Defendant respectfully asks that the Court grant the Motion to Suppress and all requested relief.

10. Proposed Order (Exhibit A)

[ATTACH SEPARATE ONE-PAGE ORDER FOR THE JUDGE’S SIGNATURE]

[// GUIDANCE: North Dakota judges often prefer a short “Proposed Order” attached as the final page or separate document.]

11. Certificate of Service

I certify that on [DATE], I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress Evidence by [METHOD OF SERVICE] upon:

[PROSECUTOR NAME]
[OFFICE/ADDRESS]
[EMAIL]

/s/ [ATTORNEY NAME]
[ATTORNEY NAME] (ND Bar # [BAR NUMBER])
[LAW FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE] | [EMAIL]
Counsel for Defendant

[// GUIDANCE: Verify local electronic-filing rules for additional certification language.]