Nevada State Criminal Motion to Suppress Evidence

IN THE [________________________________] JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

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

STATE OF NEVADA,

Plaintiff,

v.             Case No.: [________________________________]

[________________________________],      Dept. No.: [____]

Defendant.

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) All physical, testimonial, and documentary evidence obtained as a result of the search and/or seizure conducted on or about [__/__/____] at [________________________________];

(b) All statements made by Defendant subsequent to the unlawful detention and/or interrogation;

(c) All derivative evidence flowing from the foregoing unconstitutional conduct ("fruit of the poisonous tree"); and

(d) All observations, identifications, and law enforcement testimony arising from the challenged search and seizure.

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. Because the State cannot meet its burden of demonstrating the lawfulness of the challenged search and seizure, suppression is required. An evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve disputed issues of fact material to this Motion.

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.

When a defendant challenges the admissibility of evidence, the prosecution bears the burden of demonstrating the legality of the search and seizure by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Lloyd, 129 Nev. 739, 743 (2013); Parson v. State, 116 Nev. 928, 932 (2000). Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, subject to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967).

C. Probable Cause.

A warrant must be issued upon a neutral magistrate's finding of a "fair probability" that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983); Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1186 (2008). The totality of the circumstances must be examined, and reliance on uncorroborated, anonymous tips is insufficient without independent verification.

D. Particularity and Scope.

A warrant must describe with particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized. An overbroad or vague warrant constitutes an impermissible general warrant. Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 557 (2004); State v. Beckman, 129 Nev. 481, 486 (2013).

E. Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.

Evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights is inadmissible. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Derivative evidence must also be excluded unless the causal chain is sufficiently attenuated, the evidence was obtained from an independent source, or it would inevitably have been discovered. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85 (1963); Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984).

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 later found invalid may be admissible only if officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on the warrant. Four circumstances preclude good-faith reliance: (1) the affiant was reckless or dishonest; (2) the warrant was facially insufficient; (3) the magistrate abandoned a neutral role; or (4) officers relied on stale information. Leon, 468 U.S. at 923; State v. O'Brien, 132 Nev. 194, 200 (2016).

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. Absent probable cause, the warrant was invalid and all evidence seized thereunder must be suppressed.

☐ 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 and interrogated Defendant without Miranda warnings, rendering subsequent statements involuntary.

4. ☐ The warrant was executed outside authorized hours without a judicial finding of necessity. NRS 179.045.

C. Defendant's Statements Must Be Suppressed

1. Statements obtained following the unconstitutional search and seizure are tainted as fruit of the poisonous tree. Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 484-85.

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. No attenuation, independent source, or inevitable discovery exception applies.

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

Pursuant to constitutional due-process guarantees and controlling Nevada authority, Defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing where a substantial preliminary showing establishes a colorable claim that the warrant was unsupported by probable cause, that material facts were omitted or misrepresented, or that the search was otherwise unlawful. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-72 (1978); State v. Lloyd, 129 Nev. 739 (2013).

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 hearing, suppress all evidence obtained directly or indirectly from the search and seizure on [__/__/____];

C. Suppress all statements made by Defendant following the unconstitutional conduct;

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

E. Preclude the State from referencing any suppressed evidence at any stage of trial; 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 all evidence seized on [__/__/____], all statements made by Defendant, and any derivative evidence, are suppressed and may not be introduced at trial or for any other purpose.

☐ 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 any reference to the suppressed evidence in the presence of the jury.

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 — Time of execution 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) — Burden on prosecution
• State v. Bayard, 119 Nev. 241 (2003) — Article 1, § 18 independent analysis
• State v. O'Brien, 132 Nev. 194 (2016) — Good-faith exception in Nevada
• Shouse Law Group, "Motion to Suppress Evidence" in Nevada: https://www.shouselaw.com/nv/defense/process/motion-to-suppress-evidence/