State Criminal Motion to Suppress - Rhode Island

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPERIOR COURT
[COUNTY] COUNTY

Cr. No. [___]

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

[Rhode Island Const. art. I, § 6; U.S. Const. amend. IV; R.I. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3), 41(f); R.I. R. Evid. 401–403]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction & Relief Requested .................................... 2
2. Statement of Relevant Facts ........................................ 2
3. Issues Presented ................................................... 3

4. Applicable Legal Standards ......................................... 3
   4.1 Constitutional & Statutory Framework .......................... 3
   4.2 Rhode Island Evidentiary Standards ............................ 4

5. Argument ........................................................... 4
   5.1 Absence of Probable Cause ..................................... 4
   5.2 Defective or Overbroad Warrant ................................ 5
   5.3 Non-Compliance with Rule 41 Procedural Requirements ........... 6
   5.4 Fruits of an Unlawful Search and Seizure ...................... 7
   5.5 Inapplicability of the Good-Faith Exception ................... 7

6. Request for Evidentiary Hearing .................................... 8

7. Conclusion & Prayer for Relief ..................................... 8
8. Certification of Service .......................................... 9
9. Proposed Order .................................................... 10

1. INTRODUCTION & RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME] (“Defendant”), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) and Rule 41(f) of the Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, to suppress all physical evidence, statements, and any derivative fruits obtained as a result of the search conducted on [DATE] at [LOCATION] (the “Challenged Search”).

Defendant further requests an evidentiary hearing on the issues raised herein and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

2. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

1. On [DATE], law-enforcement officers of [AGENCY] executed Search Warrant No. [___] at [LOCATION].
2. The affidavit supporting the warrant was sworn by [AFFIANT NAME] and relied primarily on [e.g., anonymous tip / confidential informant].

3. During execution, officers seized:
   a. [ITEM 1]
   b. [ITEM 2]

4. Defendant was present and placed under arrest at [TIME].

5. Defendant filed the instant motion within the time limits established by Rule 12(b)(3).

3. ISSUES PRESENTED

A. Whether the Challenged Search violated article I, § 6 of the Rhode Island Constitution and the Fourth Amendment for lack of probable cause.
B. Whether the warrant was facially overbroad and/or stale.
C. Whether officers violated mandatory execution procedures under Rule 41(d)–(e).
D. Whether any good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule can save evidence obtained under a warrant that is constitutionally infirm or executed unlawfully.

4. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

4.1 Constitutional & Statutory Framework

1. Article I, § 6 of the Rhode Island Constitution and the Fourth Amendment prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. Rhode Island's warrant clause requires a "complaint in writing" and describes the place and things "as nearly as may be"; the Fourth Amendment separately requires probable cause, oath or affirmation, and particular description. The quoted Rhode Island phrases are not federal constitutional text.

2. Rule 41 of the Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure governs issuance and execution of search warrants, requiring, inter alia:

   • Probable cause supported by a written application and affidavit sworn before a judicial officer authorized to issue warrants, Rule 41(c);
   • A warrant identifying the property and naming or describing the person or place to be searched, Rule 41(c);
   • Execution within seven (7) days of the date of the warrant, Rule 41(d);
   • Service of a copy of the warrant and a receipt for property taken upon the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken, and a prompt return with a verified written inventory of any property seized, Rule 41(d);
   • Filing of the warrant, supporting affidavits, and inventory with the clerk within fourteen (14) days of issuance, Rule 41(e).

3. A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move to suppress evidence under Rule 41(f) on the grounds that: (i) the property was illegally seized without a warrant; (ii) the warrant is insufficient on its face; (iii) the property seized is not that described in the warrant; (iv) there was no probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant issued; or (v) the warrant was illegally executed.

4.2 Rhode Island Evidentiary Standards

Relevant evidence must satisfy R.I. R. Evid. 401 and may be excluded under Rule 403 where its unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value. An unlawful search may support exclusion under the applicable constitutional remedy doctrine. Rule 41(f) also permits a motion based on specified warrant defects, including illegal execution; a procedural defect does not itself resolve whether exclusion is warranted. See Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusion does not automatically follow even from a federal Fourth Amendment violation).

5. ARGUMENT

5.1 Absence of Probable Cause

1. The affidavit relies on uncorroborated hearsay from an untested confidential informant.
2. No independent police investigation corroborated the informant’s claims.
3. The affiant omitted [IDENTIFY FACT AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE], which bears on the reliability of [IDENTIFY PROBABLE-CAUSE ASSERTION]. Defendant asks the Court to assess the affidavit's veracity and whether including that fact would change the probable-cause determination; an alleged omission does not itself show that the issuing judicial officer lacked neutrality.
4. Accordingly, probable cause was lacking, rendering the warrant invalid.

5.2 Defective or Overbroad Warrant

1. The warrant fails to describe with particularity the alleged contraband, permitting a general search.
2. Several categories (e.g., “any and all electronic devices”) are not tied to the alleged offense, risking exploratory rummaging.
3. Such overbreadth violates article I, § 6 and the Fourth Amendment; evidence seized under an overbroad warrant must be suppressed.

5.3 Non-Compliance with Rule 41 Procedural Requirements

1. Execution occurred on [DATE], [NUMBER] days after issuance—beyond the seven-day limit prescribed by Rule 41(d).
2. Officers failed to provide Defendant with a copy of the warrant and a receipt/inventory for the property taken, as required by Rule 41(d).
3. [If applicable: The warrant, supporting affidavit, and inventory were not filed with the clerk within fourteen (14) days of issuance as required by Rule 41(e).]
4. Defendant asks the Court to determine whether each identified departure rendered execution unlawful under Rule 41(f)(5) and, if so, whether suppression is the appropriate remedy in light of its effect on the search and the controlling law. The receipt, inventory, return, and filing allegations require separate analysis; they do not automatically require suppression.

5.4 Fruits of an Unlawful Search and Seizure

1. All items seized during the Challenged Search, as well as derivative evidence (including Defendant’s postarrest statements), constitute fruits of the poisonous tree.
2. Suppression must extend to direct and indirect products of the illegality to effectuate the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule.

5.5 Inapplicability of the Good-Faith Exception

1. The Rhode Island Supreme Court has never squarely adopted the federal good-faith exception recognized in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), for purposes of the exclusionary rule under article I, section 6 of the Rhode Island Constitution. On multiple occasions, the Court has expressly declined to reach the State's good-faith argument where it resolved the appeal on probable-cause grounds instead. See, e.g., State v. Pinkerton, No. 2024-104-C.A. (R.I. 2026) (declining to address the State's good-faith exception argument); State v. Cosme, 57 A.3d 295, 299 n.7 (R.I. 2012) (same).
2. Even under the narrower federal Leon standard, the good-faith exception does not apply where, as here, the affidavit was "so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable," or where the warrant was executed in a manner so divergent from its terms that no reasonably well-trained officer could have relied on it in good faith. Leon, 468 U.S. at 923.
3. Because Rhode Island has not affirmatively extended a good-faith safe harbor to warrants of this character, and because the defects here go to the existence of probable cause and the legality of execution—not to a mere technical or clerical error—suppression remains the appropriate remedy.

6. REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Defendant requests a hearing under Rule 41(f) to resolve the following disputed facts: [IDENTIFY DISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING MATERIALS]. If Defendant challenges the warrant affidavit under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), Defendant makes the required substantial preliminary showing by identifying [SPECIFIC FALSE STATEMENT OR MATERIAL OMISSION], explaining why the affiant acted deliberately or recklessly [FACTS], attaching an offer of proof [AFFIDAVITS OR OTHER RELIABLE MATERIALS], and showing why the corrected affidavit would lack probable cause [ANALYSIS]. A Franks hearing is requested only if that showing is made; the separate Rule 41 execution questions should be heard as the Court determines appropriate.

7. CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF

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

A. Grant the Motion to Suppress and exclude all evidence obtained during and subsequent to the Challenged Search;
B. Order the State to return seized property not otherwise contraband;
C. Preclude the State from introducing any derivative statements or evidence; and
D. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

8. CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the ___ day of __________, 20__, a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress Evidence was served by [E-FILE / HAND / FIRST-CLASS MAIL] upon [NAME], Esq., [TITLE] of the Office of the Attorney General, [ADDRESS].

___[SIGNATURE]___
[ATTORNEY NAME], Esq. (#_____)
[LAW FIRM]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE] | [EMAIL]

9. PROPOSED ORDER

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPERIOR COURT
[COUNTY] COUNTY

Cr. No. [___]

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence, any memoranda and affidavits filed, and arguments of counsel, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED. All evidence seized on [DATE] at [LOCATION], together with any custodial statements or derivative evidence, is SUPPRESSED.

ENTER: ___________________________
Date: _____________
Justice, Superior Court

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• R.I. Const. art. I, § 6 (search and seizure) — https://www.rilegislature.gov/riconstitution/Constitution/C01.aspx
• R.I. Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 41 (Search and Seizure), including Rule 41(f) (Motion to Suppress Evidence) — https://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/superiorcourt/Documents/SuperiorCourtRulesOfCriminalProcedure.pdf
• State v. Byrne, 972 A.2d 633 (R.I. 2009) (probable-cause/four-corners standard)
• State v. Cosme, 57 A.3d 295 (R.I. 2012) (declining to reach good-faith exception argument)
• State v. Verrecchia, 880 A.2d 89 (R.I. 2005)
• State v. Patino, 93 A.3d 40 (R.I. 2014) (affirming in part and vacating in part the Superior Court's 2012 suppression order) — https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/12-263.pdf
• State v. Pinkerton, No. 2024-104-C.A. (R.I. 2026) (declining to reach good-faith exception argument) — https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/Supreme-24-104.pdf
• United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (federal good-faith exception, not squarely adopted by the Rhode Island Supreme Court)
• Rhode Island Rules of Evidence 401–403 — https://www.courts.ri.gov/Legal-Resources/Documents/RulesOfEvidence.pdf