State Criminal Motion to Suppress - New Mexico

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

[____] JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF [____________]

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

(pursuant to Rule 5-212 NMRA; U.S. Const. amend. IV; and N.M. Const. art. II, § 10)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction.......................................................... 2
2. Procedural Posture.................................................... 2
3. Statement of Relevant Facts.......................................... 3
4. Issues Presented..................................................... 4

5. Legal Standards...................................................... 4
   5.1 Constitutional Protections........................................ 4
   5.2 New Mexico Suppression Doctrine................................... 5
   5.3 Good-Faith Exception – Non-Applicability........................... 5

6. Argument............................................................. 6
   6.1 Warrantless Search / Invalid Warrant............................... 6
   6.2 Absence of Valid Exception........................................ 7
   6.3 Fruits of the Poisonous Tree...................................... 7
   6.4 Rejection of Federal Good-Faith Reliance.......................... 8

7. Relief Requested..................................................... 8

8. Request for Evidentiary Hearing...................................... 8
9. Compliance with Rule 5-212 NMRA....................................... 9
10. Reservation of Additional Objections................................ 9
11. Conclusion.......................................................... 9
12. Certificate of Service.............................................. 10
13. Proposed Order...................................................... 11

1. Introduction

Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME] (“Defendant”) respectfully moves this Court to suppress the tangible evidence, statements, and observations identified below, together with each identified derivative item for which the facts and governing law support exclusion (collectively, the “Challenged Evidence”).

2. Procedural Posture

1. An Information or Indictment was filed on [DATE], charging Defendant with [CHARGES].
2. The State has produced discovery indicating that the Challenged Evidence forms a substantial part of its case-in-chief.
3. Trial is currently set for [DATE]. This Motion is filed no less than sixty (60) days prior to the scheduled trial date and is therefore timely under Rule 5-212(C) NMRA.

3. Statement of Relevant Facts

1. On [DATE/TIME], officers from the [AGENCY] approached Defendant’s [residence/vehicle/person] at [LOCATION].
2. Officers [obtained / did not obtain] a warrant numbered [WARRANT NO.], issued on [DATE/TIME] by Judge [NAME].
3. The warrant affidavit relied on information from [SOURCE], which, upon review, contained material misstatements and omissions.
4. Officers executed the warrant and seized [ITEMS]. No exigent circumstances were present.
5. Defendant was arrested and transported to [FACILITY], where officers conducted a custodial interrogation without administering Miranda warnings.
6. The State intends to introduce the seized items and Defendant’s post-arrest statements at trial.
7. The directly challenged items are [IDENTIFY EACH ITEM]; the claimed derivative items are [IDENTIFY EACH ITEM AND EXPLAIN HOW THE ASSERTED VIOLATION LED TO IT].

4. Issues Presented

A. Whether the search and seizure of Defendant violated the Fourth Amendment and Article II, § 10 of the New Mexico Constitution.
B. Whether any recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies.
C. Whether the State asserts an independent ground for admitting the evidence and whether that ground applies on these facts.

5. Legal Standards

5.1 Constitutional Protections

• U.S. Const. amend. IV prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
• N.M. Const. art. II, § 10 provides co-equal but independent protection, requiring suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence.

5.2 New Mexico Suppression Doctrine

• Rule 5-212 NMRA governs motions to suppress in district court. Rule 5-212(A) covers motions for return of property and suppression of its use as evidence; Rule 5-212(B) covers suppression of a confession, admission, or other evidence obtained in violation of any constitutional right.
• Rule 5-212(C) NMRA requires that a motion to suppress be filed no less than sixty (60) days prior to trial, unless the trial court waives the time requirement upon a showing of good cause. Any motion to suppress filed before trial must be decided before trial, to preserve the State's right to appeal any order suppressing evidence. See City of Santa Fe v. Marquez, 2012-NMSC-031, ¶ 28, 285 P.3d 637.
• Rule 5-212(D) NMRA requires the court to receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to decide the motion. At a suppression hearing, the Rules of Evidence — other than the rules on privileges — do not apply, so hearsay is admissible at the hearing itself. Rule 11-104(A) NMRA; Rule 11-1101(D)(1) NMRA.

5.3 Good-Faith Exception – Non-Applicability in New Mexico

While federal jurisprudence recognizes a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, New Mexico does not recognize that exception under Article II, § 10. State v. Gutierrez, 1993-NMSC-062, ¶ 50. Defendant asks the Court to suppress the challenged evidence because [STATE THE VIOLATION AND ADDRESS ANY DISTINCT GROUND FOR ADMISSION RAISED BY THE STATE].

6. Argument

6.1 The Search Was Conducted Without a Valid Warrant or With an Invalid Warrant

1. The warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause because [SPECIFY DEFICIENCIES].
2. Even if the warrant appeared facially valid, Defendant contends that the affiant deliberately or recklessly made the following false statements or omissions: [IDENTIFY EACH STATEMENT OR OMISSION AND EVIDENCE OF INTENT]. After correcting the affidavit, probable cause is lacking because [EXPLAIN MATERIALITY]. State v. Sneed, No. A-1-CA-41763, ¶¶ 30, 32 (N.M. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2026).

6.2 No Exception to the Warrant Requirement Applies

1. Consent was neither voluntary nor informed under the totality of circumstances.
2. No exigent circumstances existed: officers had ample time to secure the scene and seek a warrant supported by lawful probable cause.
3. Plain-view doctrine is inapplicable because the incriminating nature of the items was not immediately apparent and officers were not lawfully present.

6.3 Fruits of the Poisonous Tree

Defendant seeks suppression of [IDENTIFY EACH DERIVATIVE ITEM, INCLUDING ANY STATEMENT] because [EXPLAIN THE CAUSAL LINK TO THE ASSERTED VIOLATION]. The Court should decide whether each item was obtained through that violation and whether any asserted independent source, inevitable discovery, attenuation, or other applicable limit affects exclusion. Mere discovery after the search is insufficient. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487–88 (1963); Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443–44 (1984) (federal standards; separately analyze Article II, Section 10). A Miranda-only claim about an unwarned statement requires its own remedy analysis.

6.4 The State Cannot Invoke the Federal Good-Faith Exception

Under Gutierrez, an officer's asserted good-faith reliance on a warrant does not itself answer a violation of Article II, Section 10. Defendant asks the Court to address any distinct ground for admission the State raises.

7. Relief Requested

Defendant asks this Court to:
A. Suppress each identified physical item for which the Court finds exclusion required.
B. Suppress each identified derivative item or statement for which the Court finds a sufficient causal and legal ground for exclusion.
C. Restrict use of the evidence actually suppressed to the extent required by the applicable ground and the Court's findings; reserve any disputed impeachment or other use for a separate ruling.
D. Order such further relief as justice requires.

8. Request for Evidentiary Hearing

Pursuant to Rule 5-212(D) NMRA, Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing at which the Court receives evidence on factual issues necessary to decide this motion, including the validity of the warrant affidavit and the voluntariness of any alleged consent.

9. Compliance with Rule 5-212 NMRA

This Motion is:

1. In writing and timely filed.
2. Supported by specific facts and legal authority.
3. Served on the State contemporaneously herewith.

10. Reservation of Additional Objections

Defendant reserves the right to raise additional suppression grounds that may become apparent through continued discovery, pre-trial rulings, or newly disclosed evidence.

11. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons and those that may be adduced at hearing, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion in its entirety.

Respectfully submitted this ___ day of __________, 20__.

_____________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
[State Bar No.]
[LAW FIRM]
[Address]
[Phone] | [Email]
Attorney for Defendant

12. Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on the ___ day of __________, 20__, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress Evidence was [mailed / hand-delivered / emailed] to:

[PROSECUTOR NAME]
[Office of the District Attorney]
[Address / Email]

_____________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]

13. Proposed Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

[____] JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF [____________]

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence, the Court having considered the motion, the State's response, the evidence and argument presented, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises,

FINDS that the search and seizure at issue violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution;

FINDS that [STATE THE WARRANT OR EXCEPTION FINDINGS]. New Mexico does not recognize a good-faith warrant-reliance exception to the exclusionary rule under Article II, Section 10. See State v. Gutierrez, 1993-NMSC-062, 116 N.M. 431, 863 P.2d 1052. The Court makes these item-specific findings on causation and any distinct ground for admission: [FINDINGS];

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:

1. The Motion is GRANTED.
2. The following identified items are SUPPRESSED on the stated grounds: [LIST EACH ITEM, GROUND, AND SCOPE OF EXCLUSION]. The State may not introduce them in its case-in-chief to the extent stated here. Any disputed impeachment or other use requires a separate ruling under applicable law.
3. The State shall notify its trial witnesses of the scope of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this ___ day of __________, 20__.

__________________________________
DISTRICT JUDGE