State Criminal Motion to Suppress

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction & Relief Requested
2. Statement of Facts
3. Legal Standard

4. Argument
   4.1. Constitutional Violation
   4.2. Absence of a Recognized Exception to the Warrant Requirement
   4.3. The Good-Faith Exception Does Not Apply
   4.4. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

5. Request for Evidentiary Hearing

6. Conclusion & Prayer for Relief
7. Certificate of Service
8. Proposed Order

1. INTRODUCTION & RELIEF REQUESTED

Comes now the Defendant, [DEFENDANT'S FULL LEGAL NAME] ("Defendant"), by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, and Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2)(C), to suppress and exclude from evidence:

a. All physical evidence seized on or about [DATE];
b. Any statements, admissions, or confessions allegedly made by Defendant on or about [DATE]; and
c. Every derivative item, observation, or item of testimony constituting the "fruit" of the foregoing.

2. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On [DATE] at approximately [TIME], officers of the [AGENCY] conducted a [search / traffic stop / seizure] of Defendant located at [LOCATION].
2. The officers [obtained / did not obtain] a warrant issued pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 41 prior to the search.
3. As a result of the search, law enforcement seized [describe items] and elicited statements from Defendant.
4. [If a confession is at issue: Defendant was placed in custody and interrogated by [OFFICER/DETECTIVE NAME] without first being advised of, or without validly waiving, the rights described in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and protected under Article I, Section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution.]
5. The operative facts are more fully set forth in the [Affidavit of _______], attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.

3. LEGAL STANDARD

1. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of persons to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; evidence obtained in violation thereof is inadmissible under the federal exclusionary rule.
2. Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution affords protections that are, in a number of respects, coextensive with — and in some contexts more protective than — the Fourth Amendment.
3. Under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2)(C), a motion to suppress evidence must be raised before trial; failure to timely raise it, absent good cause, waives the objection. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12(f).
4. Once the Defendant establishes a basis for challenging the search or seizure, the State bears the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the challenged search, seizure, or statement was constitutionally obtained.
5. If a confession or admission is at issue, the State must additionally establish that Defendant was properly advised of the Miranda rights (where custodial interrogation occurred) and that any statement was knowing and voluntary under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and Article I, Section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution. See State v. Smith, 834 S.W.2d 915 (Tenn. 1992).

4. ARGUMENT

4.1 Constitutional Violation

The warrantless [search / seizure] of Defendant and his property constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution absent a specifically established exception to the warrant requirement.

4.2 Absence of a Recognized Exception to the Warrant Requirement

The State cannot credibly rely on any recognized exception to the warrant requirement — including but not limited to consent, search incident to arrest, exigent circumstances, the automobile exception, or the plain-view doctrine — because:

a. [Explain why no valid consent existed / why the search exceeded its scope / why no exigency was present]; and
b. The officers lacked [probable cause / articulable reasonable suspicion] at the time of the intrusion.

4.3 The Good-Faith Exception Does Not Apply

1. In State v. McElrath, 569 S.W.3d 565 (Tenn. 2019), the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted a good-faith exception to the state exclusionary rule modeled on Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009), holding that evidence will not be suppressed where police error is the result of mere negligence rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements. The McElrath Court nonetheless ordered suppression on the facts before it because the recordkeeping failure at issue was systemic rather than an isolated negligent mistake.
2. Separately, in State v. Lowe, 552 S.W.3d 842 (Tenn. 2018), the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-108 — which purported to create a broad statutory good-faith exception for Rule 41 violations — is unconstitutional as an impermissible legislative encroachment on the Tennessee Supreme Court's authority to define exceptions to the exclusionary rule, in violation of the separation-of-powers clause of the Tennessee Constitution. The State therefore may not rely on Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-108 to excuse the constitutional or Rule 41 violation(s) at issue in this case. Notwithstanding invalidation of the statute, the Lowe Court simultaneously recognized (as a matter of the judiciary's own exclusionary-rule doctrine, not the statute) a narrow good-faith exception for inconsequential clerical errors made by an issuing magistrate under Rule 41 that do not affect the substance of the warrant — a considerably narrower exception than the statute purported to create.

3. Here, even assuming a warrant issued, the executing officers lacked objective, reasonable, good-faith reliance because:
   a. The warrant affidavit was [facially deficient / contained deliberate or reckless falsehoods];
   b. The issuing magistrate abandoned the neutral-and-detached role; or
   c. The defect was not a mere negligent or clerical error of the kind at issue in Lowe and McElrath, but reflects [systemic error / reckless disregard of constitutional requirements / an absence of any warrant or recognized warrant-based reliance whatsoever], such that no good-faith exception recognized under Tennessee law can apply.

4. [If applicable: The confession likewise cannot be salvaged by any good-faith doctrine because the constitutional defect (failure to administer Miranda warnings / involuntariness) is not a warrant-execution error to which McElrath or Lowe's good-faith analysis extends.]

4.4 Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Pursuant to the exclusionary rule, all evidence obtained directly or indirectly from the unconstitutional search, seizure, or interrogation must be suppressed, including:

• Physical evidence listed supra § 1(a);
• Statements referenced supra § 1(b); and
• Investigative leads and testimonial evidence derived therefrom.

5. REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12(e) to resolve factual disputes regarding:

1. [Whether probable cause existed];
2. [Whether valid consent was given];
3. [Whether Defendant was in custody and properly advised of, and validly waived, the Miranda rights]; and
4. Any other material facts the Court deems pertinent.

6. CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that this Court:

1. Grant this Motion in its entirety;
2. Suppress all evidence and statements described herein;
3. Prohibit any reference to such evidence at trial; and
4. Grant such other and further relief as justice may require.

Respectfully submitted this ___ day of __________, 20__.

___________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
Attorney for Defendant
[Firm Name]
[Address]
[Telephone] | [Email]
BPR No. [___]

7. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress Evidence has been served upon the Office of the District Attorney General for the [__th] Judicial District by [hand-delivery / e-mail / e-filing system] on this ___ day of __________, 20__.

___________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]

8. PROPOSED ORDER

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion, the evidence presented, and the arguments of counsel, the Court finds that the search, seizure, or interrogation at issue violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and/or Article I, Section 7 or Article I, Section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution, and that no exception to the warrant requirement, and no applicable good-faith exception recognized under State v. McElrath, 569 S.W.3d 565 (Tenn. 2019), or State v. Lowe, 552 S.W.3d 842 (Tenn. 2018), saves the evidence obtained.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:

1. The Motion to Suppress is GRANTED;
2. All evidence and statements identified in the Motion are hereby SUPPRESSED and excluded from use at trial; and
3. The State is prohibited from making any reference to the suppressed evidence before the jury.

SO ORDERED this ___ day of __________, 20__.

___________________________________
[JUDGE'S NAME]
Judge, ☐ Criminal Court ☐ Circuit Court

ADDITIONAL PRACTICE NOTES