State Criminal Motion to Suppress - New Jersey

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION — CRIMINAL PART
[COUNTY] COUNTY

Indictment No.: [INDICTMENT NO.]

NOTICE OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO R. 3:5-7, CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL, MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT, REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND PROPOSED ORDER

I. Notice of Motion

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the above Return Date, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned attorney for Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME] will move before the Honorable [JUDGE NAME], J.S.C., at the [COURTHOUSE ADDRESS], for an Order, pursuant to R. 3:5-7 and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, suppressing the physical evidence, statements, observations, and any fruits thereof obtained as a result of the unlawful [search / seizure] that occurred on [DATE] at/on [LOCATION].

Defendant further requests:

1. An evidentiary hearing pursuant to R. 3:5-7(c) if material facts are disputed;
2. Leave to file supplemental briefing after completion of discovery/hearing; and
3. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

II. Preliminary Statement

This motion seeks suppression of all evidence obtained from the warrantless [search / stop / seizure] of Defendant and of the [SUBJECT PREMISES / VEHICLE / PERSON] on [DATE]. Because the search was conducted without a warrant, the State bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the legality of the police conduct and the admissibility of the seized evidence. Because the police acted without a valid warrant and no recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies, suppression is constitutionally mandated.

III. Definitions

For clarity and consistency, the following capitalized terms are used herein:

1. "Defendant" means [DEFENDANT FULL NAME].
2. "Subject Premises" means the location searched, specifically [ADDRESS / VEHICLE DESCRIPTION].
3. "Subject Evidence" means all tangible items, documents, digital data, observations, and statements obtained during or as a result of the challenged police conduct.
4. "Law Enforcement Officers" means all officers, agents, or personnel involved in the investigation or search at issue.
5. "Search" collectively refers to any search, seizure, detention, interrogation, or surveillance activity challenged by this Motion.

IV. Procedural Posture

1. Defendant was indicted on [MM/DD/YYYY] under Indictment No. [NUMBER] for alleged violations of [LIST CHARGES].
2. Discovery provided to date indicates that on [DATE], without a warrant, Law Enforcement Officers conducted a [describe search/seizure].
3. Pursuant to R. 3:10-2(a), the dates for filing, briefing, and hearing of pretrial motions in this matter were set at/following the arraignment/status conference (or Initial Case Disposition Conference) held on [MM/DD/YYYY], and this Motion is filed in accordance with the Court's Scheduling Order dated [DATE]. See R. 3:5-7(f) (failure to timely move waives objection to admission of the evidence at trial, absent good cause).

V. Statement of Relevant Facts

[STATEMENT OF FACTS]

VI. Applicable Legal Standards

1. Constitutional Protection.
   - U.S. Const. amend. IV prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
   - N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 7 incorporates nearly identical language and, as construed by the New Jersey Supreme Court, affords protection that is co-extensive with — and in numerous respects greater than — its federal counterpart.

2. Burden of Proof. Where the search or seizure was conducted without a warrant, the State bears the burden of proving the validity of the search or seizure. Warrantless searches are presumptively invalid, and the State must justify the search by clear and convincing (or at minimum a preponderance of the) evidence establishing that it falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. R. 3:5-7(b) governs the sequence of briefing on the motion.

3. No Good-Faith Exception in New Jersey. Unlike federal law, which recognizes a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule for reliance on a facially valid but later-invalidated warrant, see United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), the New Jersey Supreme Court has expressly declined to adopt that exception under the New Jersey Constitution. State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 145–58 (1987). Evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search or seizure in New Jersey is therefore subject to exclusion regardless of the officers' good-faith reliance on a defective warrant.

4. Voluntariness of Consent. The State must establish, by clear and positive evidence, that any consent to search was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, free from coercion or duress, and — where applicable — that the person consenting knew of the right to refuse consent. State v. Johnson, 68 N.J. 349, 353–54 (1975).

VII. Argument

POINT I — THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND ARTICLE I, ¶ 7 OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION

[ARGUMENT — POINT I]

POINT II — ANY PURPORTED CONSENT WAS INVOLUNTARY AND INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE SEARCH

[ARGUMENT — POINT II]

POINT III — NEW JERSEY RECOGNIZES NO GOOD-FAITH EXCEPTION, AND SUPPRESSION IS THE MANDATED REMEDY

[ARGUMENT — POINT III]

POINT IV — ALL DIRECT AND DERIVATIVE EVIDENCE CONSTITUTES "FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE" AND MUST BE SUPPRESSED

[ARGUMENT — POINT IV]

VIII. Request for Evidentiary Hearing

Pursuant to R. 3:5-7(c), if material facts bearing on the legality of the search, the voluntariness of any consent, or any other issue relevant to suppression are disputed, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court conduct an evidentiary hearing (with testimony taken in open court) to resolve those disputes.

IX. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order:

A. Suppressing all Subject Evidence and the fruits thereof;
B. Precluding the State from introducing such evidence at trial;
C. Granting an evidentiary hearing, if necessary; and
D. Awarding such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

X. Certification of Counsel (R. 1:4-4)

I, [ATTORNEY NAME], of full age, hereby certify as follows pursuant to R. 1:4-4:

1. I am counsel for Defendant in the above-captioned matter.
2. The factual statements contained herein are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, based upon discovery received and investigation conducted to date.
3. This Certification is made in support of Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence.

I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

Dated: [MM/DD/YYYY]

_________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]

XI. Proposed Form of Order

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION — CRIMINAL PART
[COUNTY] COUNTY

Indictment No.: [INDICTMENT NO.]

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by [ATTORNEY NAME], attorney for Defendant, on notice to the [COUNTY] County Prosecutor, and the Court having reviewed the submissions of counsel, heard oral argument, and, where applicable, held an evidentiary hearing pursuant to R. 3:5-7(c); and for good cause shown;

IT IS on this ___ day of __________, 20__, ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence is GRANTED;
2. All evidence described as "[SUBJECT EVIDENCE]" and any fruits thereof are hereby SUPPRESSED pursuant to R. 3:5-7(e) and shall not be admitted at trial; and
3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on all counsel of record.

_________________________________
Hon. [JUDGE NAME], J.S.C.

XII. Proof of Service (R. 1:5-2)

I, [ATTORNEY NAME], certify that on [MM/DD/YYYY] I served a copy of (1) the within Notice of Motion, Certification, Memorandum of Law, and Proposed Order; and (2) all supporting exhibits, upon the [COUNTY] County Prosecutor by [HAND DELIVERY / EMAIL / E-FILING VIA ECOURTS CRIMINAL] in accordance with R. 1:5-2.

_________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]

Sources and References

• N.J. Ct. R. 3:5-7, Motion to Suppress Evidence and for Return of Property — Rules Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey (njcourts.gov/attorneys/rules-of-court)
• N.J. Ct. R. 3:10-2, Time and Manner of Making Motion; Hearing on Motion — Rules Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey (njcourts.gov/attorneys/rules-of-court)
• N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 7
• U.S. Const. amend. IV
• State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95 (1987), https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1987/105-n-j-95-1.html (verified-via: Justia mirror of official N.J. Reports; holding confirmed still good law as of a February 2025 amicus brief filed with the New Jersey Supreme Court citing Novembrino for New Jersey's continued rejection of the Leon good-faith exception)
• United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)
• State v. Johnson, 68 N.J. 349 (1975) (consent must be knowing and voluntary, with awareness of the right to refuse)
• New Jersey Judiciary, eCourts Criminal (njcourts.gov/attorneys/ecourts) — the Judiciary's electronic filing system for the Superior Court, Law Division, Criminal Part