State Criminal Motion to Suppress - Washington

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction
2. Statement of Relevant Facts
3. Evidence Sought to Be Suppressed

4. Legal Authority & Argument
   4.1 Unlawful Search and/or Seizure (U.S. Const. amend. IV; Wash. Const. art. I, § 7)
   4.2 Lack of Probable Cause / Particularity (CrR 2.3)
   4.3 Miranda / Fifth Amendment Violations (if applicable)
   4.4 Fruits of the Poisonous Tree
   4.5 Good-Faith Exception Does Not Apply

5. Burden of Proof & Required Findings

6. Request for Relief
7. Conclusion
8. Certification of Counsel (CrR 3.6)
9. Certificate of Service
10. Proposed Order

1. Introduction

COMES NOW the Defendant, [DEFENDANT NAME] ("Defendant"), by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Washington Superior Court Criminal Rule 3.6 ("CrR 3.6"), respectfully moves this Court for an order suppressing the evidence more fully described below (the "Subject Evidence"). Suppression is required because the Subject Evidence was obtained in violation of Defendant's rights under:

• The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
• Article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution, which independently and more broadly protects against government intrusion into a person's "private affairs" without "authority of law," see State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808 (1986) (setting forth the six nonexclusive criteria for determining when Article I, section 7 provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment);
• Washington Criminal Rules ("CrR"), including but not limited to CrR 2.3 and CrR 3.1; and
• Washington Rules of Evidence ("ER"), including but not limited to ER 402-403 and ER 602.

2. Statement of Relevant Facts

Provide a concise, chronologically ordered statement of facts supported by citations to attached declarations, police reports, audio/video recordings, or other exhibits. Identify:

• Date, time, and location of the encounter/search/seizure;
• All officers/agencies involved;
• Whether a warrant existed (attach and label as Exhibit A if so);
• Statements allegedly made by Defendant;
• Chain of custody highlights for the Subject Evidence.

3. Evidence Sought to Be Suppressed

The Defendant seeks suppression and exclusion of:

1. Physical Evidence: [e.g., 14 g. of suspected methamphetamine seized from Defendant's vehicle];
2. Testimonial Evidence: All oral or written statements allegedly made by Defendant on [DATE];
3. Derivative Evidence: Any and all investigatory leads, lab results, or witness identifications that flowed from the unlawful police conduct.

4. Legal Authority & Argument

4.1 Unlawful Search and/or Seizure

A warrantless search is per se unreasonable unless it falls within a narrowly drawn exception. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Wash. Const. art. I, § 7. The State bears the burden of proving a valid exception. CrR 3.6.

Article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution is not merely a state-law analogue of the Fourth Amendment; it independently protects against government intrusion into a person's "private affairs" without "authority of law," and Washington courts apply it according to its own text, history, and precedent rather than automatically importing federal Fourth Amendment doctrine. State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808 (1986).

Explain why no recognized exception-consent, exigency, search incident to arrest, automobile, inventory, etc.-is satisfied.

4.2 Lack of Probable Cause / Particularity

If a warrant issued, CrR 2.3(c) requires that a search warrant may be issued only upon a judicial determination of probable cause, supported by affidavit, a statement under GR 13, or sworn testimony, and that the warrant identify with particularity the person, place, or thing to be searched. The subject warrant lacked:
(a) a nexus between the alleged criminal activity and the place searched; and/or
(b) sufficient particularity as to items to be seized.

4.3 Miranda / Fifth Amendment Violations (if applicable)

Custodial interrogation without a valid waiver warrants suppression of statements and any fruits thereof. CrR 3.5 governs the State's burden at the hearing to determine the admissibility of a defendant's statement.

4.4 Fruits of the Poisonous Tree

Evidence derived from primary illegality must also be excluded. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (verbal and physical evidence derived from an unlawful arrest or search must be excluded as "fruit of the poisonous tree" unless the taint has been sufficiently attenuated). ER 402-403 require exclusion of evidence obtained, directly or indirectly, in violation of constitutional protections.

4.5 Good-Faith Exception Does Not Apply

Unlike federal Fourth Amendment doctrine, which recognizes a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule for police reliance on a facially valid but later-invalidated warrant, see United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), the Washington Supreme Court has held that no such exception exists under Article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. State v. Afana, 169 Wn.2d 169, 233 P.3d 879 (2010) (holding that the federal good-faith exception is incompatible with Article I, section 7's "nearly categorical" exclusionary rule, and that an officer's good-faith belief in the validity of a warrant is irrelevant to suppression under the state constitution). The State therefore cannot rely on any purported "good-faith" defense to avoid suppression of evidence obtained in violation of Article I, section 7.

5. Burden of Proof & Required Findings

Under CrR 3.6, once Defendant establishes a warrantless search or challenges warrant validity, the State bears the burden of proving the search was lawful by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court must enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law whether the motion is granted or denied.

6. Request for Relief

Defendant respectfully requests that the Court:

A. Conduct an evidentiary hearing pursuant to CrR 3.6;
B. Suppress the Subject Evidence identified in Section 3;
C. Preclude the State from referencing or introducing any derivative evidence at trial; and
D. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

7. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant requests that this Motion be GRANTED in its entirety and that all Subject Evidence be suppressed.

Respectfully submitted this ___ day of [MONTH], 20[YY].

[ATTORNEY NAME], WSBA No. [#####]
Attorney for Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME]
[Law Firm Name]
[Address] | [City, State ZIP]
Phone: [###-###-####] | Email: [[email protected]]

8. Certification of Counsel (CrR 3.6)

I, [ATTORNEY NAME], certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing motion is made in good faith and that the accompanying facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Dated: ___ day of [MONTH], 20[YY], at [CITY], Washington.

[ATTORNEY NAME]

9. Certificate of Service

I certify that on the ___ day of [MONTH], 20[YY], I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion, supporting declarations, and proposed order to be served on the prosecuting attorney by:

☐ E-Service via [Odyssey/LINX/etc.] ☐ Email ☐ Hand Delivery ☐ U.S. Mail

[NAME], Legal Assistant

10. Proposed Order

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
In and For the County of [COUNTY]

THIS MATTER came before the Court on ___, 20[YY], on Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence under CrR 3.6. The Court, having considered the pleadings, evidence, and argument of counsel, and being fully advised, now ORDERS:

☐ The Motion is GRANTED. The evidence described as ________________________________________________________________, together with any derivative evidence, is hereby SUPPRESSED.

☐ The Motion is DENIED. Findings and Conclusions are entered separately.

☐ Other: ____________________________________________________________.

DATED this ___ day of __________, 20[YY].

_____________________________________
[JUDGE NAME]
Judge of the Superior Court