State Criminal Motion to Suppress - Nevada

IN THE [________________________________] JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF [________________________________]

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Hearing Date: [__/__/____]   Time: [____] ☐ a.m. ☐ p.m.

Counsel for Defendant:
[________________________________], Esq. (Nevada Bar No. [________________________________])
[________________________________] (Law Firm)
[________________________________] (Address)
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Notice of Motion

2. Memorandum of Points and Authorities

   • 2.1 Introduction
   • 2.2 Statement of Relevant Facts
   • 2.3 Issues Presented
   • 2.4 Legal Standard
   • 2.5 Argument
   • 2.6 Request for Evidentiary Hearing
   • 2.7 Conclusion and Prayer for Relief

3. Declaration of Counsel

4. Proposed Order
5. Certificate of Service
6. Affirmation Pursuant to NRS 239B.030

1. NOTICE OF MOTION

TO THE STATE OF NEVADA AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the date and time indicated above — or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard — Defendant [________________________________] ("Defendant") will and hereby does move this Court for an order suppressing and excluding from evidence:

(a) The following physical, testimonial, and documentary evidence obtained from the challenged search and/or seizure on [__/__/____] at [________________________________]: [IDENTIFY EACH ITEM];

(b) The following identified statements, with the ground for suppressing each: [STATEMENT, DATE, AND GROUND];

(c) The following identified derivative items, to the extent the Court finds a causal link to the challenged conduct and no applicable limit on exclusion: [ITEM AND CAUSAL FACTS]; and

(d) The following identified observations, identifications, or testimony for which Defendant establishes a suppression ground: [IDENTIFY].

This Motion is brought pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 18 of the Nevada Constitution, NRS 174.125, NRS 179.085, and all other applicable law.

2. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2.1 Introduction

The evidence the State seeks to introduce at trial was obtained in violation of Defendant's constitutional rights under both the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 18 of the Nevada Constitution. Defendant requests suppression under the standards applicable to the challenged search. An evidentiary hearing is requested if disputed facts material to this Motion require one.

2.2 Statement of Relevant Facts

1. On [__/__/____], Defendant was charged by ☐ Indictment ☐ Information ☐ Criminal Complaint with:

2. Trial is presently scheduled for [__/__/____] before the Honorable [________________________________].

3. On [__/__/____] at approximately [____] ☐ a.m. ☐ p.m., officers with the [________________________________] (law enforcement agency) initiated contact with Defendant at [________________________________].

4. The basis for the initial encounter was:
   ☐ Traffic stop for alleged violation of [________________________________]
   ☐ Execution of Search Warrant No. [________________________________], issued by [________________________________]
   ☐ Anonymous tip / informant information
   ☐ Purported consensual encounter
   ☐ Other: [________________________________]

5. Officers ☐ applied for and obtained Search Warrant No. [________________________________] from ☐ Justice of the Peace ☐ District Court Judge [________________________________] on [__/__/____]. The supporting affidavit was sworn by [________________________________], who relied primarily on [________________________________].

6. Officers executed the warrant at [____] ☐ a.m. ☐ p.m. on [__/__/____], employing ☐ knock-and-announce entry ☐ no-knock entry ☐ forced entry ☐ other: [________________________________].

7. During the search, officers seized:

   • [________________________________]
   • [________________________________]
   • [________________________________]

8. Defendant was ☐ detained ☐ arrested and questioned for approximately [________________________________]. ☐ Miranda warnings were provided. ☐ Miranda warnings were not provided.

9. Additional factual details are set forth in the attached exhibits:

   • Exhibit A: Search Warrant and Affidavit
   • Exhibit B: Police Report / Incident Report
   • Exhibit C: Body-Worn Camera Transcript / Footage Log
   • Exhibit D: [________________________________]

2.3 Issues Presented

1. Whether the ☐ warrant was supported by probable cause ☐ warrantless search was justified by a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.
2. Whether the manner of execution violated constitutional or statutory requirements.
3. Whether Defendant's statements were obtained in violation of Miranda and/or as fruit of an unconstitutional search.
4. Whether the State can invoke the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

2.4 Legal Standard

A. Constitutional Framework.

The Fourth Amendment provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." U.S. Const. amend. IV.

Article 1, Section 18 of the Nevada Constitution provides parallel protection: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but on probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, and the person or persons, and thing or things to be seized."

The Nevada Supreme Court has held that Article 1, Section 18 may provide greater protection than its federal counterpart in certain circumstances. State v. Bayard, 119 Nev. 241, 248 (2003).

B. Burden of Proof.

The burden depends on the basis for the search and the issue contested. For example, when the State relies on a third party's consent to justify a warrantless search, it bears the burden of establishing that person's actual or apparent authority. Lastine v. State, 134 Nev. 538, 541-42 (2018). Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless an established exception applies. State v. Lloyd, 129 Nev. 739, 743 (2013).

C. Probable Cause.

A warrant must rest on a magistrate's practical, common-sense finding that the affidavit establishes a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched. The totality of the circumstances includes an informant's veracity and basis of knowledge; an anonymous tip is evaluated in that setting. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983).

D. Particularity and Scope.

A warrant must describe with particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized. An incorporated probable-cause affidavit cannot expand the scope of the search beyond the warrant's express terms. Smith v. State, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 19, 545 P.3d 716, 720-22 (2024).

E. Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.

For a Fourth Amendment claim, derivative evidence requires an item-specific causal inquiry and consideration of any applicable independent-source, inevitable-discovery, or attenuation limit. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487–88 (1963); Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443–44 (1984). A failure to give Miranda warnings alone does not establish actual coercion or automatically taint every later item. Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 304–09 (1985). Analyze any Nevada constitutional ground separately.

F. Good-Faith Exception.

Nevada recognizes the good-faith exception under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant (or a statute) later found invalid may be admissible only if officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on the warrant or statute. Byars v. State, 130 Nev. 848, 854, 336 P.3d 939, 943 (2014) (holding forced blood draw taken in objectively reasonable reliance on Nevada's implied-consent statute was not subject to suppression even though the statute was later held unconstitutional). Four circumstances preclude good-faith reliance: (1) the affiant was reckless or dishonest; (2) the magistrate abandoned a neutral role; (3) the affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that official belief in its existence was unreasonable; or (4) the warrant was so facially deficient that the executing officer could not reasonably presume it valid. Leon, 468 U.S. at 923. The exception is not unlimited: where officers exceed the scope of a validly issued warrant, the good-faith exception does not excuse the resulting unconstitutional search or seizure. Smith v. State, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 19, 545 P.3d 716, 722-24 (2024) (good-faith exception did not apply where an incorporated probable-cause affidavit could not expand the warrant's express scope, and suppression of the resulting forensic search was required).

2.5 Argument

A. The Warrant Lacked Probable Cause / The Warrantless Search Was Unjustified

☐ Warrant Challenge:

1. The affidavit relied almost exclusively on an uncorroborated, anonymous informant whose veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge were not established. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238.

2. The affiant offered no timely surveillance or independent corroboration to establish that criminal activity was occurring at the location to be searched.

3. The information was stale — the alleged observations occurred approximately [____] days/weeks before warrant issuance — without evidence of ongoing criminal activity. Sgro v. United States, 287 U.S. 206, 210 (1932).

4. If the warrant lacked probable cause, identify each item obtained through its execution and address any applicable limit on exclusion: [________________________________].

☐ Warrantless Search Challenge:

1. No warrant was obtained, and no recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies.

2. Consent: ☐ No consent was given. ☐ Any purported consent was not voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, including [________________________________]. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973).

3. Exigent Circumstances: ☐ No exigency existed. Officers had ample opportunity to obtain a warrant. Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011).

4. Search Incident to Arrest: ☐ The search exceeded the scope permitted under Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), and Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009).

5. Terry Stop/Frisk: ☐ Officers lacked reasonable suspicion under NRS 171.123 to justify the initial investigatory detention and/or reasonable belief that Defendant was armed and dangerous. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

6. Automobile Exception: ☐ Officers lacked probable cause to believe the vehicle contained contraband or evidence. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).

B. The Execution Was Constitutionally Defective

1. ☐ Officers did not comply with knock-and-announce requirements under NRS 179.055, and no exigent circumstances justified a no-knock entry. Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995).

2. ☐ The search exceeded the warrant's scope — officers searched areas and/or containers not reasonably capable of concealing the items described in the warrant.

3. ☐ Officers detained Defendant beyond the time reasonably necessary to execute the warrant. ☐ Officers questioned Defendant while in custody without Miranda warnings; identify the resulting statements: [________________________________]. An unwarned statement is not necessarily involuntary; allege any actual coercion separately. Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 304–09 (1985).

4. ☐ The warrant was served outside 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and it contained no direction authorizing service at any time upon a showing of good cause. NRS 179.045(6)(d).

C. Defendant's Statements Must Be Suppressed

1. Defendant seeks suppression of [IDENTIFY STATEMENTS] because [EXPLAIN HOW THE ASSERTED UNLAWFUL SEARCH OR SEIZURE LED TO EACH STATEMENT]. Later timing alone does not establish taint. Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 487–88.

2. ☐ Miranda warnings were not provided prior to custodial interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

3. ☐ Even if Miranda warnings were given, they did not cure the taint of the prior constitutional violation. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975).

4. Any claimed attenuation, independent source, or inevitable discovery issue should be addressed for each identified item: [FACTS AND AUTHORITY]. A Miranda-only claim requires separate analysis from a Fourth Amendment fruit claim. Elstad, 470 U.S. at 304–09.

D. The Good-Faith Exception Does Not Apply

1. ☐ No warrant existed; officers could not have relied on one in good faith.

2. ☐ No objectively reasonable officer could rely on a warrant resting on attenuated, stale, and uncorroborated information.

3. ☐ The warrant was facially deficient — it failed to specify particular items or lacked locational particularity.

4. ☐ The affiant's omission of material facts (e.g., [________________________________]) constitutes reckless disregard for the truth, vitiating good-faith reliance. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

2.6 Request for Evidentiary Hearing

Defendant requests a hearing on disputed material facts. For a hearing to test the warrant affidavit's veracity under Franks, Defendant must make a substantial preliminary showing, supported by an offer of proof, that the affiant knowingly or recklessly included a material false statement necessary to the probable-cause finding. The identified statement, supporting reasons, and affidavits or other reliable witness statements (or an explanation of their absence) are: [________________________________]. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56, 171-72 (1978). A challenge to probable cause on the affidavit's face alone does not itself meet that hearing standard.

Defendant requests that the Court permit testimony from:

• The affiant officer(s)
• The executing officer(s)
• [________________________________] (additional witnesses)

Estimated hearing time: [____] hours.

2.7 Conclusion and Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Grant an evidentiary hearing on this Motion;

B. Upon the Court's findings, suppress each identified item for which the governing constitutional ground and causal facts require exclusion;

C. Suppress the identified statements to the extent required by the applicable Miranda, voluntariness, or Fourth Amendment analysis;

D. Order the return of property unlawfully seized pursuant to NRS 179.085;

E. Preclude the State from using the challenged evidence to the extent the Court rules it inadmissible, while reserving any disputed impeachment use for a separate ruling if Defendant testifies; and

F. Grant such further relief as justice requires.

3. DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

I, [________________________________], declare as follows:

1. I am counsel of record for Defendant [________________________________] in the above-captioned matter.

2. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein except where otherwise indicated, and could competently testify thereto.

3. The factual assertions in this Motion are based upon review of discovery materials provided by the State, investigation conducted by defense counsel and/or defense investigator, and information provided by Defendant.

4. This Declaration is executed to support Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Nevada that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this [____] day of [________________________________], 20[____], at [________________________________], Nevada.

[________________________________]
[________________________________], Esq.
Counsel for Defendant

4. PROPOSED ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence is ☐ GRANTED ☐ DENIED.

☐ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the evidence identified as [LIST EACH DIRECT AND DERIVATIVE ITEM] is suppressed on these item-specific grounds and findings concerning causation and any applicable limit: [FINDINGS AND SCOPE OF EXCLUSION]. Any requested impeachment use requires a separate ruling by the Court.

☐ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State shall return to Defendant all property seized that is not contraband on or before [__/__/____].

☐ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State shall refrain from referring to suppressed evidence before the jury unless the Court first authorizes a particular use.

DATED this [____] day of [________________________________], 20[____].

[________________________________]
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

5. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress Evidence, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declaration of Counsel, and Proposed Order was served upon:

[________________________________], Deputy District Attorney
Office of the District Attorney, [________________________________] County
[________________________________] (Address / Email)

by ☐ hand delivery ☐ electronic service through the court's e-filing system ☐ first-class mail.

[________________________________]
[________________________________], Counsel for Defendant

6. AFFIRMATION PURSUANT TO NRS 239B.030

The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document does not contain the social security number of any person.

[________________________________]
[________________________________], Esq.
Nevada Bar No. [________________________________]

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• NRS 174.125 — Motions required before trial: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-174.html
• NRS 179.085 — Motion for return of property and suppression of evidence
• NRS 171.123 — Temporary detention by peace officer
• NRS 179.045(6)(d) — Time for service of search warrant
• NRS 179.055 — Manner of execution; knock-and-announce
• NRS 239B.030 — Social security number affirmation requirement
• Nevada Constitution, Art. 1, § 18 — Search and seizure protections
• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) — Exclusionary rule
• Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) — Fruit of the poisonous tree
• Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) — Challenging warrant affidavit veracity
• United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) — Good-faith exception
• State v. Lloyd, 129 Nev. 739 (2013) — Warrantless searches and exceptions
• State v. Bayard, 119 Nev. 241, 71 P.3d 498 (2003) — Article 1, § 18 independent analysis
• Byars v. State, 130 Nev. 848, 336 P.3d 939 (2014) — Good-faith exception applied to reliance on since-invalidated implied-consent statute
• Smith v. State, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 19, 545 P.3d 716 (2024) — Good-faith exception does not excuse a search exceeding the warrant's express scope
• Nevada Legislature, NRS Chapter 179 (Search Warrants; Motions for Return of Property and to Suppress Evidence): https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-179.html
• Nevada Legislature, NRS Chapter 171 (Proceedings to Commitment; Temporary Detention): https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-171.html
• Shouse Law Group, "Motion to Suppress Evidence" in Nevada: https://www.shouselaw.com/nv/defense/process/motion-to-suppress-evidence/