State Criminal Motion to Suppress - Nebraska

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [COUNTY] COUNTY, NEBRASKA

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

(Neb. Const. art. I, § 7; U.S. Const. amend. IV; Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-822, 29-115)

[DATE]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Preliminary Statement
2. Procedural Posture & Request for Hearing
3. Statement of Relevant Facts
4. Grounds for Suppression
5. Burden of Proof & Standard of Review
6. Prayer for Relief
7. Reservation of Rights
8. Verification
9. Certificate of Service
10. Proposed Order (Exhibit A)

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

COMES NOW the Defendant, [DEFENDANT NAME] ("Defendant"), by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to U.S. Const. amend. IV, Neb. Const. art. I, § 7, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-822 (physical evidence and property seized during an unlawful search or seizure), and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-115 (statements allegedly taken involuntarily or in violation of the Fifth or Sixth Amendments), to suppress the physical, testimonial, and derivative evidence described herein. In support thereof, Defendant states as follows:

II. PROCEDURAL POSTURE & REQUEST FOR HEARING

1. Defendant was charged by [Complaint/Information/Indictment] filed on [FILING DATE] in the District Court of [COUNTY] County, Nebraska, which has general and original jurisdiction over felony criminal matters under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-302.

2. This Motion is timely filed pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-822, which requires that a motion to suppress physical evidence obtained by an unlawful search and seizure be filed at least ten days before trial or at the time of arraignment, whichever is later, absent good cause shown for later filing. To the extent Defendant also challenges the admissibility of a statement, this Motion is likewise timely under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-115, which imposes the same ten-day filing requirement for suppression of a statement alleged to be involuntary or taken in violation of the Fifth or Sixth Amendments.

3. Defendant respectfully requests an evidentiary hearing. For the warrantless search alleged here, the State must show that an exception to the warrant requirement applies. Defendant separately identifies below the grounds for challenging any warrant-based search or statement.

III. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

4. On [DATE] at approximately [TIME], officers of the [LAW-ENFORCEMENT AGENCY] entered [LOCATION] and conducted [DESCRIPTION OF SEARCH/SEIZURE].

5. The officers lacked a warrant at the time of entry.
   —OR—
   Officers obtained Warrant No. [WARRANT #] issued by [JUDGE] at [TIME], based on an affidavit by [AFFIANT] containing the assertions summarized below.

6. [Provide concise chronology of events: detention, questioning, seizure of items, statements made, etc.]

7. No Miranda warnings were provided until [TIME/LATER], after Defendant had already given statements and/or consent allegedly obtained by officers.

IV. GROUNDS FOR SUPPRESSION

A. Unlawful Search & Seizure

8. The warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment and Neb. Const. art. I, § 7 because no recognized exception (e.g., consent, exigency, plain view, search incident to arrest, automobile exception) applied. Under both provisions, a defendant's capacity to claim protection against an unreasonable search depends on whether the defendant had a legitimate, subjectively and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the place or item searched.

9. Alternatively, if the State relies on the warrant dated [DATE], the affidavit lacked probable cause because:
   a. It relied on conclusory statements without factual nexus;
   b. Material information was omitted and/or false;
   c. The place to be searched and items to be seized were not described with sufficient particularity to prevent the executing officers from having unreasonably broad discretion in determining what to seize.

B. Invalid/Warrantless Arrest

10. Defendant's arrest occurred absent probable cause where officers lacked articulable facts connecting Defendant to any crime.

C. Miranda / Custodial Interrogation Issues

11. Defendant seeks suppression of statements obtained through custodial interrogation before Miranda warnings were given. Defendant also challenges the later statements because [SPECIFIC FACTS SHOWING COERCION, AN INEFFECTIVE WARNING, OR AN INVALID WAIVER]. A prior unwarned statement alone does not automatically exclude a later voluntary statement after an effective warning and waiver. State v. Juranek, 287 Neb. 846, 844 N.W.2d 791 (2014).

D. Fruits-of-the-Poisonous-Tree

12. Defendant seeks exclusion of evidence derived from the unlawful search or seizure described above, and of any statements for which the separate grounds in paragraph 11 are established.

E. Lack of Good-Faith Reliance

13. The State cannot invoke the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule because no objectively reasonable officer could believe the search or seizure was lawful under the circumstances described. Under Nebraska law, application of the good-faith exception is a question of law that turns on whether the officers acted in objectively reasonable good faith in reliance on the warrant, viewed under the totality of the circumstances surrounding the warrant's issuance, including information outside the four corners of the affidavit. State v. Kruse, 303 Neb. 799, 931 N.W.2d 148 (2019); State v. Sprunger, 283 Neb. 531, 811 N.W.2d 235 (2012) (applying the existing warrant-reliance good-faith rule). The good-faith exception does not apply where (1) the issuing magistrate was misled by information in the affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false but for reckless disregard of the truth; (2) the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his or her judicial role; (3) the affidavit is so lacking in indicia of probable cause that official belief in its existence is entirely unreasonable; or (4) the warrant is so facially deficient that the executing officers could not reasonably presume it valid.

V. BURDEN OF PROOF & STANDARD OF REVIEW

14. For a search or seizure without a warrant, the State bears the burden of showing that an exception to the warrant requirement applies. State v. Vyhnalek, 19 Neb. App. 904, 814 N.W.2d 768 (2012). For a warrant-based challenge, Defendant identifies the alleged defect in paragraph 9; any asserted good-faith reliance is addressed in paragraph 13.

15. Defendant requests suppression if the State fails to justify the warrantless search or if Defendant establishes another applicable ground stated above.

16. Defendant preserves all objections to the admissibility of the State's evidence under the Nebraska Rules of Evidence, including relevance (Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 27-401 to 27-403), character evidence (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404), hearsay (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-802), and authentication (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901).

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that this Court:

A. Conduct an evidentiary hearing on this Motion;
B. Suppress all physical evidence, statements, identifications, and derivative evidence obtained on [DATE] or thereafter;
C. Order the State to refrain from any mention or introduction of such evidence before the jury; and
D. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

VII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

17. Defendant reserves all rights to file additional motions, including motions in limine, and to supplement or amend this Motion should new facts or legal grounds arise.

VIII. VERIFICATION

I, [ATTORNEY NAME], counsel for Defendant, hereby certify that the foregoing statements of fact are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry.

_____________________________________
/s/ [ATTORNEY NAME], Nebraska Bar No. [___]
[LAW FIRM]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE]
[EMAIL]

IX. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the ___ day of __________, 20__, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress Evidence upon the [County Attorney/Prosecuting Attorney] by:

☐ Hand Delivery
☐ U.S. Mail, postage prepaid
☐ Electronic Filing (JUSTICE eFiling System) with eService pursuant to the Nebraska Supreme Court's electronic filing rules

_____________________________________
/s/ [ATTORNEY NAME]

X. EXHIBIT A – PROPOSED ORDER

(Draft only; court may modify.)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [COUNTY] COUNTY, NEBRASKA

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Upon consideration of Defendant's Motion, the evidence adduced, and arguments of counsel, the Court finds that the search, seizure, and/or interrogation at issue violated Defendant's constitutional rights and that no good-faith exception applies. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that all evidence listed in ¶ [NUMBER] of Defendant's Motion, and any fruits thereof, are hereby SUPPRESSED and shall not be introduced at trial or any other proceeding.

SO ORDERED this ___ day of __________, 20__.

_________________________________
Judge of the District Court
[COUNTY] County, Nebraska