State Criminal Motion to Suppress Evidence

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR THE COUNTY OF [________________________________]

STATE OF OREGON,

Plaintiff,

v.                  Case No. [________________________________]

[________________________________],

Defendant.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE;

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT;

REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING;

DECLARATION OF COUNSEL;

[PROPOSED] ORDER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Notice of Motion
2. Motion to Suppress Evidence
3. Statement of Facts
4. Memorandum of Law
   - A. Applicable Legal Framework and Burden of Proof
   - B. Oregon's Independent and Broader State Constitutional Protections
   - C. Ground One: Warrantless Search Without Valid Exception
   - D. Ground Two: Defective or Insufficient Warrant
   - E. Ground Three: Search or Seizure Exceeding Lawful Scope
   - F. Ground Four: Unlawful Traffic Stop or Investigatory Detention
   - G. Ground Five: Miranda Violations and Involuntary Statements
   - H. Ground Six: Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
   - I. The State Cannot Invoke the Federal Good-Faith Exception Under Oregon Law
   - J. Oregon's Automobile Exception Differs from Federal Law
5. Request for Evidentiary Hearing
6. Conclusion
7. Declaration of Counsel
8. [Proposed] Order
9. Certificate of Service
10. Oregon-Specific Practice Notes

1. NOTICE OF MOTION

TO: The District Attorney of [________________________________] County, and to the above-entitled Court.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on [__/__/____] at [____] ☐ a.m. / ☐ p.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Courtroom [____] of the [________________________________] County Circuit Court, located at [________________________________], Defendant [________________________________], by and through undersigned counsel, will and hereby does move this Court for an order suppressing:

☐ All physical evidence seized from ☐ Defendant's person / ☐ Defendant's vehicle / ☐ Defendant's residence at [________________________________] / ☐ other location: [________________________________];

☐ All statements, admissions, and confessions obtained from Defendant on or about [__/__/____];

☐ All fruits, instrumentalities, and derivative evidence obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the unlawful search, seizure, stop, or interrogation;

☐ The following specifically identified items of evidence:
a. [________________________________]
b. [________________________________]
c. [________________________________]
d. [________________________________]

☐ All evidence obtained as a result of observations made during the unlawful ☐ stop / ☐ detention / ☐ entry / ☐ search;

☐ Any and all other evidence tainted by the constitutional violations described herein.

This Motion is brought pursuant to:

• Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution;
• The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
• ORS 133.673 (motions to suppress evidence);
• ORS 133.693 (challenge to truth of evidence supporting warrant);
• ORS 136.432 (statutory exclusionary rule limitations);
• The Oregon Evidence Code; and
• All applicable Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure and Uniform Trial Court Rules.

2. MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

Defendant [________________________________] respectfully moves this Court for an order suppressing all evidence described in the Notice of Motion above on the following grounds:

☐ Ground One -- Warrantless Search: The evidence was obtained through a warrantless search conducted without valid probable cause and without any applicable exception to the warrant requirement recognized under Oregon law.

☐ Ground Two -- Defective Warrant: The search warrant authorizing the seizure was defective because it ☐ was not supported by probable cause / ☐ contained material misrepresentations or omissions in the supporting affidavit / ☐ was overbroad in scope / ☐ was stale / ☐ was facially deficient / ☐ other: [________________________________].

☐ Ground Three -- Scope Exceeded: The search or seizure exceeded the scope authorized by the warrant or by any applicable exception, in violation of Article I, Section 9, and the Fourth Amendment.

☐ Ground Four -- Unlawful Stop or Detention: Defendant was subjected to an unlawful traffic stop, investigatory stop, or detention without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and all evidence derived from the stop must be suppressed.

☐ Ground Five -- Miranda/Involuntary Statements: Statements obtained from Defendant were taken ☐ without Miranda warnings / ☐ after an inadequate or defective Miranda advisement / ☐ after Defendant invoked the right to silence / ☐ after Defendant invoked the right to counsel / ☐ under circumstances rendering the statements involuntary.

☐ Ground Six -- Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: All derivative evidence is causally linked to the primary constitutional violation and must be suppressed because the State cannot establish any recognized exception (independent source, inevitable discovery, or attenuation).

☐ Other grounds: [________________________________]

The State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged evidence was lawfully obtained. ORS 133.673(3). For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum of Law below, the State cannot meet that burden.

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The following facts are based on discovery materials provided to date, police reports, and counsel's investigation. Defendant reserves the right to supplement or amend these facts based on testimony elicited at the evidentiary hearing.

A. Background and Investigation

3.1. On or about [__/__/____], officers of the [________________________________] ☐ Police Department / ☐ Sheriff's Office / ☐ Oregon State Police began an investigation into alleged [________________________________].

3.2. The investigation involved: [________________________________]

3.3. The officer(s) involved in the search, seizure, or stop at issue include:

B. The Stop, Detention, or Initial Contact

3.4. On [__/__/____] at approximately [____] ☐ a.m. / ☐ p.m., at or near [________________________________], officers:

☐ Conducted a traffic stop of Defendant's vehicle, a [________________________________] (year/make/model), bearing Oregon license plate [________________________________].
☐ Approached Defendant on foot at [________________________________].
☐ Arrived at Defendant's residence located at [________________________________].
☐ Encountered Defendant at [________________________________] under the following circumstances: [________________________________].

3.5. The stated basis for the initial contact was: [________________________________]

3.6. The duration of the stop or detention was approximately [____] minutes.

C. The Search and/or Seizure

3.7. Officers conducted a search of:
☐ Defendant's person
☐ Defendant's vehicle, including ☐ passenger compartment / ☐ trunk / ☐ glove compartment / ☐ containers within the vehicle / ☐ cell phone or electronic device
☐ Defendant's residence at [________________________________], including the following rooms/areas: [________________________________]
☐ Defendant's ☐ backpack / ☐ bag / ☐ purse / ☐ luggage / ☐ other container: [________________________________]
☐ Other: [________________________________]

3.8. The stated justification for the search was:
☐ Search warrant issued by [________________________________] on [__/__/____]
☐ Consent allegedly given by Defendant
☐ Search incident to arrest
☐ Plain view
☐ Exigent circumstances
☐ Automobile exception
☐ Inventory search
☐ Protective sweep / Terry frisk
☐ Probation/parole search condition
☐ Other: [________________________________]

3.9. The following evidence was seized: [________________________________]

D. Statements and Interrogation

3.10. ☐ Defendant was / ☐ Defendant was not given Miranda warnings.

3.11. If Miranda warnings were given:
☐ Warnings were given at approximately [____] ☐ a.m. / ☐ p.m. by Officer [________________________________].
☐ Warnings were given ☐ orally / ☐ in writing / ☐ from a printed card.
☐ Defendant ☐ signed / ☐ did not sign a written waiver form.
☐ Defendant ☐ verbally waived / ☐ did not verbally waive Miranda rights.

3.12. Defendant made the following statements to law enforcement: [________________________________]

3.13. The circumstances of the interrogation include:
☐ Location: [________________________________]
☐ Duration: approximately [____] minutes/hours
☐ Number of officers present: [____]
☐ Defendant was ☐ handcuffed / ☐ not handcuffed
☐ Defendant was ☐ in a police vehicle / ☐ in an interrogation room / ☐ at the scene / ☐ other: [________________________________]
☐ Defendant was ☐ told he/she was free to leave / ☐ not told he/she was free to leave
☐ Defendant ☐ requested an attorney / ☐ requested to stop questioning / ☐ neither

E. Warrant Information (If Applicable)

3.14. ☐ A search warrant was obtained.
☐ Warrant No.: [________________________________]
☐ Issued by: Judge/Magistrate [________________________________]
☐ Date issued: [__/__/____]
☐ Date executed: [__/__/____]
☐ Affiant: [________________________________]
☐ The warrant and supporting affidavit are attached as Exhibit [____].

☐ No search warrant was obtained. The search was conducted without judicial authorization.

4. MEMORANDUM OF LAW

A. Applicable Legal Framework and Burden of Proof

Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution provides:

"No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized."

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides parallel but narrower protections:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Burden of Proof. Under ORS 133.673(3), when a defendant moves to suppress evidence, the State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged evidence was lawfully obtained. This burden applies to all searches and seizures, whether conducted with or without a warrant. See State v. Davis, 295 Or. 227, 237, 666 P.2d 802 (1983).

When a defendant challenges evidence seized during a warrantless search and states in the motion that the search was warrantless, the burden shifts entirely to the State to prove the reasonableness of the search. The defendant need not prove anything further to trigger the State's burden. See State v. Owens, 302 Or. 196, 206, 729 P.2d 524 (1986).

B. Oregon's Independent and Broader State Constitutional Protections

Oregon courts have consistently held that Article I, Section 9, provides broader protections against unreasonable searches and seizures than the Fourth Amendment. The Oregon Supreme Court interprets Article I, Section 9, as an independent source of rights, applying its own methodology and not simply tracking federal precedent. See State v. Campbell, 306 Or. 157, 163-64, 759 P.2d 1040 (1988) (rejecting federal "reasonable expectation of privacy" test and holding that Article I, Section 9 protects against governmental intrusions into the privacy and security of one's person, home, papers, and effects regardless of whether one has a subjective expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable).

Critical Oregon-federal divergences include:

1. No Good-Faith Exception. Oregon rejects the federal good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule established in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Under Oregon law, evidence obtained in violation of Article I, Section 9, must be suppressed regardless of the officer's subjective good faith. See State v. Davis, 295 Or. 227, 666 P.2d 802 (1983); State v. Tanner, 304 Or. 312, 745 P.2d 757 (1987).

2. No Federal Automobile Exception. Oregon does not recognize the broad federal automobile exception that permits warrantless searches of vehicles based solely on probable cause. Under Oregon law, the mere mobility of a vehicle does not create per se exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search. Officers must demonstrate actual, specific exigent circumstances beyond the inherent mobility of the automobile. See State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268, 721 P.2d 1357 (1986); Oregon v. McCarthy, 369 Or. 129, 501 P.3d 1013 (2021) (overruling prior per se exigency rule and holding that warrantless seizure or search of automobile must be based on actual exigent circumstances).

3. Broader Protection Against Seizures During Traffic Stops. Oregon provides greater protections during traffic stops. An officer who stops a vehicle for a traffic infraction may not, without independent reasonable suspicion, extend the stop to investigate unrelated criminal activity. See State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or. 695, 451 P.3d 939 (2019); State v. Rodgers, 347 Or. 610, 227 P.3d 695 (2010).

4. Independent Analysis of Consent. Oregon applies a more rigorous analysis of consent to search, requiring that consent be truly voluntary and not the product of express or implied coercion. Mere submission to a claim of lawful authority does not constitute valid consent. See State v. Hall, 339 Or. 7, 115 P.3d 908 (2005).

5. Broader Protection of Conversations and Electronic Communications. Oregon protects individuals' conversations and electronic communications more broadly under Article I, Section 9, than federal law protects them under the Fourth Amendment. See State v. Campbell, 306 Or. 157, 759 P.2d 1040 (1988) (telephone conversations); State v. Pittman, 360 Or. 118, 378 P.3d 59 (2016).

6. Search Incident to Arrest -- Narrower in Oregon. Under Oregon law, the fact of a lawful custodial arrest does not by itself justify a full search of the arrestee's person for evidence of crime. See State v. Caraher, 293 Or. 741, 653 P.2d 942 (1982) (holding that Article I, Section 9, does not recognize an unqualified right to search incident to arrest for evidence); State v. Owens, 302 Or. 196, 729 P.2d 524 (1986).

C. Ground One: Warrantless Search Without Valid Exception

4.1. The warrantless search of Defendant's ☐ person / ☐ vehicle / ☐ residence / ☐ belongings / ☐ other: [________________________________] was conducted without a valid warrant. Under both Article I, Section 9, and the Fourth Amendment, warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable, and the burden falls on the State to prove the applicability of a recognized exception. See State v. Davis, 295 Or. at 237.

4.2. No valid exception applies:

a. Consent.
☐ Defendant did not consent to the search.
☐ Any purported consent was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because: [________________________________].
☐ Consent was the product of express or implied coercion, including: [________________________________].
☐ Defendant's consent was obtained only after the unlawful stop or detention, rendering it tainted fruit of the prior illegality. See State v. Hall, 339 Or. 7, 115 P.3d 908 (2005).
☐ The scope of any consent was exceeded because: [________________________________].

b. Exigent Circumstances.
☐ No exigent circumstances existed at the time of the search.
☐ Any claimed exigency was manufactured or created by law enforcement. See State v. Stevens, 311 Or. 391, 812 P.2d 20 (1991).
☐ Officers had ample time and opportunity to obtain a warrant but failed to do so.
☐ The purported exigency of ☐ imminent destruction of evidence / ☐ officer safety / ☐ hot pursuit / ☐ other: [________________________________] did not exist because: [________________________________].

c. Search Incident to Arrest.
☐ The arrest itself was unlawful, and no valid search incident to arrest can flow from an unlawful arrest.
☐ Under Oregon law, the search exceeded the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest. See State v. Caraher, 293 Or. 741 (1982); State v. Owens, 302 Or. 196 (1986).
☐ The search was not contemporaneous with the arrest.
☐ The search of containers, vehicles, or areas beyond Defendant's immediate control exceeded the permissible scope. See State v. Fry, 180 Or. App. 237, 43 P.3d 1134 (2002).

d. Plain View.
☐ The plain-view doctrine does not apply because: [________________________________].
☐ The officer was not lawfully present at the vantage point from which the observation was made.
☐ The incriminating nature of the item was not immediately apparent without manipulation or further examination.

e. Inventory Search.
☐ The inventory search was not conducted pursuant to standardized departmental policy.
☐ The inventory was a pretext for an investigatory search.
☐ The scope of the inventory exceeded departmental policy.

D. Ground Two: Defective or Insufficient Warrant

4.3. The search warrant is defective and the evidence seized pursuant to it must be suppressed because:

☐ Lack of Probable Cause. The affidavit in support of the warrant failed to establish probable cause because: [________________________________]. The affidavit contained ☐ conclusory statements / ☐ stale information (the events described occurred more than [____] days before the warrant application) / ☐ an insufficient nexus between the alleged criminal activity and the place to be searched. See State v. Castilleja, 345 Or. 255, 192 P.3d 1261 (2008).

☐ Material Misrepresentations or Omissions (Franks Challenge). Pursuant to ORS 133.693 and Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), the affiant ☐ included material false statements / ☐ omitted material facts, which, if corrected, would negate probable cause. Specifically: [________________________________]. Under Oregon law, a challenge to the veracity of a warrant affidavit may be raised under ORS 133.693, which permits the defendant to challenge the truth of evidence offered in support of the warrant. See State v. Mains, 295 Or. 640, 669 P.2d 1112 (1983).

☐ Overbreadth. The warrant failed to particularly describe the ☐ place to be searched / ☐ items to be seized, in violation of the particularity requirements of Article I, Section 9. The warrant authorized a general, exploratory search. Specifically: [________________________________].

☐ Improper Execution. The warrant was not executed in compliance with ORS 133.575 because: [________________________________]. ☐ The warrant was executed outside the authorized time period. ☐ Officers failed to knock and announce. ☐ The warrant was executed at a location not described in the warrant.

☐ No Good-Faith Saving. Even if the warrant were found defective, Oregon does not recognize the federal good-faith exception. State v. Davis, 295 Or. 227 (1983); State v. Tanner, 304 Or. 312 (1987). Evidence obtained pursuant to a defective warrant must be suppressed regardless of the officer's belief in the warrant's validity.

E. Ground Three: Search or Seizure Exceeding Lawful Scope

4.4. Even assuming arguendo that the initial search or seizure was lawful, officers exceeded its permissible scope:

☐ Officers searched areas or containers not described in the warrant: [________________________________].
☐ Officers seized items not described in the warrant: [________________________________].
☐ Officers searched Defendant's ☐ cell phone / ☐ computer / ☐ electronic device without specific authorization in the warrant. Under both Oregon and federal law, a warrant authorizing the search of a residence does not automatically authorize the search of electronic devices found therein. See Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014).
☐ Officers extended a permissible pat-down into a full search by: [________________________________].
☐ Officers exceeded the scope of Defendant's limited consent by: [________________________________].

F. Ground Four: Unlawful Traffic Stop or Investigatory Detention

4.5. The traffic stop or investigatory detention of Defendant was unlawful:

☐ No Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause for the Stop. Officers lacked ☐ probable cause to believe a traffic violation had occurred / ☐ reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity was afoot. The stated basis for the stop was: [________________________________]. This basis was insufficient because: [________________________________].

☐ Unlawful Extension of the Stop. Officers unlawfully extended the duration of a lawful traffic stop beyond the time reasonably necessary to address the reason for the stop. Specifically, officers: [________________________________]. Under Oregon law, once the purpose of a traffic stop has been concluded, continued detention requires independent reasonable suspicion. See State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or. 695, 451 P.3d 939 (2019); State v. Rodgers, 347 Or. 610, 227 P.3d 695 (2010).

☐ Pretextual Stop. The traffic stop was a pretext for an unrelated criminal investigation. Although federal law permits pretextual stops under Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), Oregon law provides broader protections. Under Article I, Section 9, a stop that is objectively lawful may still violate Oregon's constitution if the officer's actual purpose was to investigate unrelated criminal activity. See State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or. at 714-15.

☐ Unlawful Request to Exit Vehicle or Perform Field Sobriety Tests. Officers lacked reasonable suspicion to order Defendant out of the vehicle or to request field sobriety tests.

☐ Unlawful Canine Sniff. A canine sniff conducted during the stop ☐ unlawfully extended the stop beyond its permissible duration / ☐ was conducted without independent reasonable suspicion. See State v. Mesenbrink, 190 Or. App. 422, 78 P.3d 1268 (2003).

G. Ground Five: Miranda Violations and Involuntary Statements

4.6. Statements obtained from Defendant must be suppressed because:

☐ No Miranda Warnings. Defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation without being advised of Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); Or. Const. Art. I, § 12.

☐ Defective Miranda Warnings. The Miranda advisement was incomplete or inaccurate because: [________________________________].

☐ Invocation of Right to Silence. Defendant unambiguously invoked the right to remain silent by ☐ stating: [________________________________] / ☐ refusing to answer questions / ☐ other: [________________________________]. Officers continued questioning in violation of Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975).

☐ Invocation of Right to Counsel. Defendant unambiguously requested an attorney by ☐ stating: [________________________________] / ☐ other: [________________________________]. Officers continued or re-initiated questioning in violation of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).

☐ Involuntary Statements. The statements were not the product of Defendant's free and rational will because: [________________________________]. Factors bearing on voluntariness include: ☐ duration of interrogation ([____] hours) / ☐ Defendant's age ([____]) / ☐ Defendant's mental condition / ☐ intoxication / ☐ deprivation of food, water, or sleep / ☐ promises of leniency / ☐ threats or coercion / ☐ deceptive interrogation tactics. See State v. Vondehn, 348 Or. 462, 236 P.3d 691 (2010).

☐ Oregon Article I, Section 12 Provides Broader Protection. Oregon's privilege against self-incrimination under Article I, Section 12, affords greater protection than the Fifth Amendment in certain circumstances. See State v. Vondehn, 348 Or. 462 (2010).

H. Ground Six: Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

4.7. All derivative evidence obtained as a consequence of the primary constitutional violation must be suppressed under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963); State v. Hall, 339 Or. 7 (2005).

4.8. The following evidence is fruit of the initial illegality:

☐ Physical evidence discovered only as a result of Defendant's unlawfully obtained statements.
☐ Statements obtained only after and as a result of the unlawful search or seizure.
☐ Identifications made only as a result of unlawfully obtained information.
☐ Evidence discovered at a secondary location identified only through unlawfully obtained evidence.
☐ Other derivative evidence: [________________________________].

4.9. The State cannot invoke any recognized exception to the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine:

☐ Independent Source: The State cannot demonstrate that the derivative evidence was discovered through a source wholly independent of the constitutional violation.
☐ Inevitable Discovery: The State cannot prove by a preponderance that the evidence inevitably would have been discovered through lawful means.
☐ Attenuation: The causal chain between the illegality and the discovery of the evidence has not been sufficiently attenuated by intervening circumstances or the passage of time.

I. The State Cannot Invoke the Federal Good-Faith Exception Under Oregon Law

4.10. This section applies whenever the State argues that officers acted in good faith reliance on a warrant, statute, or established practice.

Oregon categorically rejects the federal good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. In State v. Davis, 295 Or. 227, 666 P.2d 802 (1983), the Oregon Supreme Court held that Article I, Section 9, requires suppression of unconstitutionally obtained evidence without regard to the officer's subjective belief in the legality of the search. This holding was reaffirmed in State v. Tanner, 304 Or. 312, 745 P.2d 757 (1987), and has been consistently followed.

The rationale is straightforward: Oregon's exclusionary rule is grounded in the text and purpose of Article I, Section 9, itself -- not in a judicially created deterrence rationale. As the Oregon Supreme Court explained, the exclusionary rule is "a constitutionally mandated remedy for a violation of Article I, [S]ection 9," not merely a prophylactic tool subject to cost-benefit balancing. Davis, 295 Or. at 237-38.

Therefore, even if officers relied in subjective good faith on a warrant later found defective, on a statute later found unconstitutional, or on an established law enforcement practice, suppression remains the mandatory remedy under Oregon law.

J. Oregon's Automobile Exception Differs from Federal Law

4.11. Under federal law, the automobile exception permits warrantless searches of vehicles when officers have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime, regardless of whether actual exigent circumstances exist. See California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991); United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982).

Oregon law rejects this broad exception. Under Article I, Section 9, the mere fact that a vehicle is inherently mobile does not create a per se exigency justifying a warrantless search. The Oregon Supreme Court has held that officers must demonstrate actual, particularized exigent circumstances in each case. See State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268, 721 P.2d 1357 (1986).

In Oregon v. McCarthy, 369 Or. 129, 501 P.3d 1013 (2021), the Oregon Supreme Court definitively abandoned the per se exigency rule for automobile searches and held that any warrantless seizure or search of an automobile must be justified by actual exigent circumstances. The court stated that the automobile's mobility, standing alone, does not satisfy this requirement.

Accordingly, if the State relies on the automobile exception to justify the warrantless search of Defendant's vehicle, the State must prove not merely that there was probable cause but that actual, specific exigent circumstances -- beyond the vehicle's inherent mobility -- made obtaining a warrant impracticable.

☐ In this case, no such exigent circumstances existed because: [________________________________].
☐ Officers had ample time and resources to obtain a telephonic or electronic warrant.
☐ The vehicle was already ☐ immobilized / ☐ impounded / ☐ parked / ☐ otherwise secured at the time of the search.
☐ Defendant was already ☐ arrested / ☐ detained / ☐ handcuffed / ☐ secured in a patrol vehicle at the time of the search, eliminating any risk of evidence destruction or flight.

5. REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

5.1. Pursuant to ORS 133.673(1) and (4), Defendant respectfully requests that this Court conduct a full evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed factual issues concerning the legality of the search, seizure, stop, and/or interrogation at issue.

5.2. An evidentiary hearing is necessary because the following material facts are in dispute:

☐ Whether officers had probable cause or reasonable suspicion for the ☐ stop / ☐ search / ☐ seizure / ☐ arrest.
☐ The circumstances under which Defendant's purported consent was obtained.
☐ Whether Defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes at the time of interrogation.
☐ Whether Defendant invoked the right to silence or the right to counsel.
☐ Whether exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless search.
☐ Whether the warrant affidavit contained material misrepresentations or omissions.
☐ The scope of the search and whether it exceeded the warrant's authorization.
☐ Other: [________________________________].

5.3. Defendant requests that the following witnesses be available for live testimony and cross-examination:

5.4. Defendant anticipates the hearing will require approximately [____] ☐ hours / ☐ half-day / ☐ full day.

6. CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, the evidence challenged herein was obtained in violation of Defendant's rights under Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The State cannot meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence was lawfully obtained.

Defendant respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issues raised herein;

B. Suppress all evidence identified in this Motion, including all physical evidence, statements, and derivative evidence;

C. Preclude the State from introducing, referencing, or relying upon any suppressed evidence at trial, sentencing, or any other proceeding; and

D. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: [__/__/____]

_______________________________________________
[________________________________], OSB No. [________________________________]
Attorney for Defendant [________________________________]
[________________________________] (Firm Name)
[________________________________] (Street Address)
[________________________________], Oregon [____] (City, Zip)
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

7. DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

I, [________________________________], declare as follows:

1. I am the attorney of record for Defendant [________________________________] in the above-captioned matter. I am admitted to the Oregon State Bar, member number [________________________________]. I have personal knowledge of the procedural history of this case and the facts set forth herein.

2. This Motion is based upon my review of the following materials:
   ☐ Police reports and supplemental reports
   ☐ Search warrant and supporting affidavit
   ☐ Discovery materials provided by the State on [__/__/____]
   ☐ Audio and/or video recordings of ☐ the stop / ☐ the search / ☐ the interrogation
   ☐ Body-worn camera footage
   ☐ In-car camera footage
   ☐ Defendant's account of events
   ☐ Independent investigation by defense counsel
   ☐ Other: [________________________________]

3. The factual assertions in Sections 1 through 3 of the accompanying Motion and Memorandum are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

4. True and correct copies of the following documents are attached as exhibits and incorporated herein by reference:

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

Executed on [__/__/____] at [________________________________], Oregon.

_______________________________________________
[________________________________], OSB No. [________________________________]

8. [PROPOSED] ORDER

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR THE COUNTY OF [________________________________]

STATE OF OREGON,

Plaintiff,

v.                  Case No. [________________________________]

[________________________________],

Defendant.

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

This matter came before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence. The Court has reviewed Defendant's Motion, Memorandum of Law, and Declaration, the State's response, all exhibits and records on file, and ☐ the testimony and evidence presented at evidentiary hearing on [__/__/____] / ☐ the parties' written submissions and oral argument.

The Court, having considered the applicable provisions of Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution; the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; ORS 133.673; ORS 133.693; and ORS 136.432, and being fully advised, FINDS AND ORDERS as follows:

FINDINGS

☐ The evidence was obtained in violation of Defendant's rights under Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.
☐ The evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
☐ The State has failed to meet its burden of proving by a preponderance that the evidence was lawfully obtained. ORS 133.673(3).
☐ The warrant was not supported by probable cause.
☐ The warrant affidavit contained material misrepresentations or omissions.
☐ The warrantless search was not justified by any recognized exception.
☐ The traffic stop or detention was not supported by reasonable suspicion.
☐ The stop was unlawfully extended beyond its permissible scope.
☐ Defendant's statements were obtained in violation of Miranda.
☐ Defendant's statements were involuntary.
☐ The derivative evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree.
☐ Other findings: [________________________________].

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's Motion to Suppress is GRANTED ☐ in full / ☐ in part.

2. The following evidence is SUPPRESSED and shall not be introduced, referenced, or relied upon by the State for any purpose at trial, sentencing, or any other proceeding in this case:

a. [________________________________]
b. [________________________________]
c. [________________________________]
d. All fruits, instrumentalities, and derivative evidence thereof.

3. ☐ The State's request for reconsideration or additional briefing is ☐ granted / ☐ denied.

4. ☐ Additional orders: [________________________________].

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

_______________________________________________
Honorable [________________________________]
Circuit Court Judge

9. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence, Memorandum of Law, Request for Evidentiary Hearing, Declaration of Counsel, and [Proposed] Order upon the following party by the method(s) indicated below, in compliance with ORCP 9:

[________________________________]
☐ Deputy District Attorney / ☐ Senior Deputy District Attorney
[________________________________] County District Attorney's Office
[________________________________] (Address)
[________________________________], Oregon [____]

Method of Service:
☐ Oregon Judicial Department electronic filing system (File & Serve Oregon / Oregon eCourt)
☐ Email to: [________________________________]
☐ Hand delivery
☐ United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid
☐ Facsimile to: [________________________________]

Dated: [__/__/____]

_______________________________________________
[________________________________], OSB No. [________________________________]
Attorney for Defendant

10. OREGON-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

Filing and Procedural Requirements

• UTCR 4.060 (Motion Requirements): All motions must state with particularity the grounds and relief sought. A motion to suppress must be sufficiently specific to give the State reasonable notice of the contentions it must meet at the hearing. See State v. Laundy, 103 Or. App. 134, 796 P.2d 652 (1990).

• UTCR 4.070 (Summary of Argument): For motions exceeding ten pages, UTCR 4.070 requires inclusion of a summary of argument. If this motion exceeds ten pages after customization, insert a summary section between the Table of Contents and the Notice of Motion.

• Electronic Filing: Most Oregon circuit courts now require electronic filing through the Oregon Judicial Department's eCourt system (File & Serve Oregon). Confirm requirements with the clerk of the specific county circuit court.

• Timing: File the motion within the time prescribed by the court's scheduling order. If no scheduling order governs, file the motion sufficiently in advance of trial to permit a hearing. Failure to timely raise suppression issues may result in waiver.

Hearing Preparation

• Subpoena Officers: Use ORCP 55 to subpoena all officers involved in the search, seizure, stop, or interrogation for live testimony at the suppression hearing.
• Request Discovery: Ensure that you have obtained all relevant discovery before the hearing, including police reports, warrant affidavits, body-worn camera and in-car camera footage, dispatch records, CAD logs, and any digital evidence.
• Prepare Cross-Examination: Focus on the specific factual basis for the stop, search, or seizure; the timeline; the sequence of events; and any deviations from departmental policy.
• Motion in Limine: Consider filing a contemporaneous motion in limine to preclude any reference to suppressed evidence at trial.

Key Oregon Suppression Cases

Search and Seizure -- General Principles:

• State v. Campbell, 306 Or. 157, 759 P.2d 1040 (1988) -- Oregon's independent methodology for Article I, Section 9 analysis; rejection of federal "reasonable expectation of privacy" test.
• State v. Davis, 295 Or. 227, 666 P.2d 802 (1983) -- No good-faith exception under Oregon law; exclusionary rule is constitutionally mandated.
• State v. Tanner, 304 Or. 312, 745 P.2d 757 (1987) -- Reaffirming rejection of good-faith exception.
• State v. Owens, 302 Or. 196, 729 P.2d 524 (1986) -- Burden on State to justify warrantless search.

Search Incident to Arrest:

• State v. Caraher, 293 Or. 741, 653 P.2d 942 (1982) -- Arrest alone does not justify full search of person for evidence.
• State v. Fry, 180 Or. App. 237, 43 P.3d 1134 (2002) -- Scope limitations on search incident to arrest.

Automobile Searches:

• State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268, 721 P.2d 1357 (1986) -- Oregon rejects broad federal automobile exception.
• Oregon v. McCarthy, 369 Or. 129, 501 P.3d 1013 (2021) -- Warrantless automobile search requires actual exigent circumstances.

Traffic Stops and Investigatory Detentions:

• State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or. 695, 451 P.3d 939 (2019) -- Officers cannot extend traffic stop without independent reasonable suspicion.
• State v. Rodgers, 347 Or. 610, 227 P.3d 695 (2010) -- Scope and duration of traffic stops.

Consent:

• State v. Hall, 339 Or. 7, 115 P.3d 908 (2005) -- Rigorous voluntariness analysis for consent searches.

Miranda and Statements:

• State v. Vondehn, 348 Or. 462, 236 P.3d 691 (2010) -- Oregon's broader protections under Article I, Section 12.

Warrant Requirements:

• State v. Castilleja, 345 Or. 255, 192 P.3d 1261 (2008) -- Probable cause requirements for warrant affidavits.
• State v. Mains, 295 Or. 640, 669 P.2d 1112 (1983) -- Procedure for challenging truth of warrant affidavit.

Sources and References

• Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 9 -- https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/Pages/OrConst.aspx
• ORS 133.673 (Motions to Suppress Evidence) -- https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_133.673
• ORS 133.693 (Challenge to Truth of Evidence) -- https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_133.693
• ORS 136.432 (Limitation on Court's Authority to Suppress) -- https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_136.432
• ORS Chapter 133 (Arrest and Related Procedures; Search and Seizure) -- https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors133.html
• Oregon Uniform Trial Court Rules (UTCR) -- https://www.courts.oregon.gov/rules/UTCR/Pages/default.aspx
• OCDLA Library of Defense, Suppression Motions -- https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/
• Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon v. McCarthy, 369 Or. 129 (2021) (automobile exception) -- https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2021/s067608.html
• Criminal Legal News, "Oregon Supreme Court Announces Abandonment of Per Se Exigency Rule" -- https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2022/feb/15/oregon-supreme-court-announces-abandonment-se-exigency-rule-automobile-exception/
• Institute for Justice, "State Con Law Case of the Week: Oregon Stops" -- https://ij.org/cje-post/state-con-law-case-of-the-week-oregon-stops/
• State v. Campbell, 306 Or. 157, 759 P.2d 1040 (1988)
• State v. Davis, 295 Or. 227, 666 P.2d 802 (1983)
• State v. Caraher, 293 Or. 741, 653 P.2d 942 (1982)
• State v. Vondehn, 348 Or. 462, 236 P.3d 691 (2010)
• State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268, 721 P.2d 1357 (1986)
• State v. Hall, 339 Or. 7, 115 P.3d 908 (2005)
• State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or. 695, 451 P.3d 939 (2019)