[// GUIDANCE: Delete all bracketed guidance comments, fill all placeholders, and conform the caption block to the specific court’s local rules before filing.]

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

CIRCUIT COURT – ☐ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

COUNTY OF ☐

State of South Dakota,
    Plaintiff,

v.

[DEFENDANT NAME],
    Defendant.

Case No.: [___]

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

(With Incorporated Memorandum of Law and Request for Evidentiary Hearing)

[DEFENDANT NAME] (“Defendant”), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to U.S. Const. amend. IV; S.D. Const. art. VI, § 11; and S.D. Codified Laws ch. 23A-32, to suppress all evidence and derivative fruits obtained as a result of the unlawful search, seizure, and interrogation described herein, and in support states as follows:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction
2. Procedural Posture
3. Factual Background
4. Argument
   4.1 Governing Legal Standard
   4.2 The Warrantless Search Was Unreasonable
   4.3 Alternatively, the Warrant Was Constitutionally Defective
   4.4 Scope of the Search Exceeded Any Lawful Authorization
   4.5 Statements and Derivative Evidence Must Also Be Suppressed
   4.6 Good-Faith Exception Does Not Apply
5. Request for Evidentiary Hearing
6. Conclusion & Prayer for Relief
7. Notice of Motion
8. Verification / Counsel Affidavit
9. Certificate of Service

1. Introduction

1.1 Defendant seeks suppression of:
 a. Physical evidence seized from [LOCATION] on [DATE];
 b. Any and all observations made by law-enforcement officers during said search; and
 c. All statements obtained from Defendant subsequent to, and as a direct result of, the unlawful governmental conduct.

1.2 The challenged evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and its South Dakota constitutional analogue. Absent suppression, Defendant’s fundamental rights will be irreparably prejudiced.

2. Procedural Posture

2.1 Defendant was charged by [COMPLAINT/INFORMATION/INDICTMENT] filed on [DATE] with [LIST COUNT(S)].

2.2 Discovery produced by the State on [DATE] revealed that the evidence at issue was obtained through the search described in Section 3, infra. Defendant timely files this Motion within the period prescribed by S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-8-3 and any applicable local rules.

3. Factual Background

[// GUIDANCE: Set forth only those facts you can substantiate by record, affidavit, or anticipated testimony.]

3.1 On [DATE/TIME], Officers [NAMES] entered [LOCATION] without a warrant.

3.2 Defendant was [detained/arrested] and questioned on-scene, after which officers seized [ITEMS].

3.3 The alleged basis for entry was [E.G., anonymous tip, protective sweep, consent, search warrant issued by Magistrate [NAME]]. The facts demonstrate no lawful justification, as detailed below.

4. Argument

4.1 Governing Legal Standard

4.1.1 A defendant aggrieved by an unlawful search or seizure may move to suppress resulting evidence. See S.D. Codified Laws ch. 23A-32; U.S. Const. amend. IV; S.D. Const. art. VI, § 11.

4.1.2 The State bears the burden of proving the legality of the search by a preponderance of the evidence once a defendant establishes a prima facie violation.

4.2 The Warrantless Search Was Unreasonable

4.2.1 Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable absent a narrow, well-delineated exception. None apply here:
 a. No valid consent – Defendant unequivocally withheld consent;
 b. No exigency – Officers had time to secure a warrant but failed to do so;
 c. No plain-view doctrine – Officers were unlawfully present when observations were made.

4.2.2 Accordingly, all items seized must be suppressed as primary evidence obtained in violation of constitutional protections.

4.3 Alternatively, the Warrant Was Constitutionally Defective

[Include this subsection only if a warrant was issued.]

4.3.1 The supporting affidavit lacked probable cause because it relied on:
 a. Stale information;
 b. Unsupported anonymous tips; and
 c. Boilerplate language devoid of particularized facts.

4.3.2 A neutral magistrate could not have found probable cause under these circumstances, rendering the warrant facially invalid.

4.4 Scope of the Search Exceeded Any Lawful Authorization

4.4.1 Even assuming arguendo that a warrant or exception existed, officers searched areas (e.g., closed containers, adjoining structures) that were outside any permissible scope. Evidence seized from impermissible areas must therefore be suppressed.

4.5 Statements and Derivative Evidence Must Also Be Suppressed

4.5.1 Defendant’s statements were obtained following the unlawful search and constitute fruit of the poisonous tree.

4.5.2 Additionally, officers failed to honor Defendant’s [right to counsel / Miranda rights], providing an independent basis for suppression.

4.6 Good-Faith Exception Does Not Apply

4.6.1 Application of the good-faith exception is foreclosed where:
 a. Officers acted in objectively unreasonable reliance on a warrant lacking indicia of probable cause;
 b. The affidavit was so lacking in particularized facts that belief in its validity was entirely unreasonable; or
 c. Officers’ conduct demonstrated flagrant disregard for constitutional requirements.

4.6.2 Any purported reliance here was objectively unreasonable; thus, the exclusionary rule’s deterrent purpose will be served only by suppression.

5. Request for Evidentiary Hearing

5.1 Defendant invokes the right to a full evidentiary hearing under S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-8-4 to resolve factual disputes surrounding the search, seizure, and interrogation.

[// GUIDANCE: Attach supporting affidavits or cite to discovery materials establishing sufficient factual dispute.]

6. Conclusion & Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issues raised herein;
2. Suppress all physical evidence, observations, and statements obtained as a result of the unconstitutional search and seizure;
3. Exclude from trial any derivative evidence or testimony; and
4. Grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

7. Notice of Motion

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned will bring the foregoing Motion on for hearing before the Honorable [JUDGE NAME], at the [COURTHOUSE], [COURTROOM NUMBER], [ADDRESS], on [DATE] at [TIME], or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard.

8. Verification / Counsel Affidavit

I, [ATTORNEY NAME], counsel for Defendant, certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of South Dakota that the statements of fact contained herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Date: ______________

__________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME], Esq.
S.D. Bar No. [___]
[LAW FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE] | [EMAIL]

9. Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress was served upon [PROSECUTOR NAME], [TITLE], [OFFICE/ADDRESS], by [HAND-DELIVERY / E-MAIL / E-FILING] on this ___ day of [MONTH], 20__.

__________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]

[// GUIDANCE:
1. Review local circuit-court rules for any unique caption, filing, or service requirements.
2. If the motion challenges both search-warrant validity and custodial interrogation, keep Sections 4.3 and 4.5; otherwise remove unused sections.
3. Attach any exhibits (e.g., warrant, affidavit, police reports) with proper exhibit labels.
4. Consider adding a proposed order in jurisdictions where one is customarily filed with the motion.
5. Confirm statutory citations before filing; adjust section numbers if necessary.]