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. Supporting Affidavit or Document (CrR 3.6(a))
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. Sum, No. 99730-6 (Wash. June 9, 2022) (applying article I, section 7 without repeating a full Gunwall analysis);
• Washington Criminal Rules ("CrR"), including but not limited to CrR 2.3 and CrR 3.1; and

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. Oral Evidence: [IDENTIFY ORAL EVIDENCE CLAIMED TO RESULT FROM THE CHALLENGED SEARCH OR SEIZURE]. If the State offers a defendant's statement, request a separate CrR 3.5 admissibility hearing as appropriate.
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. State v. Morgan, No. 96017-8 (Wash. May 16, 2019). CrR 3.6 governs the suppression-motion procedure.

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)

If the State intends to offer Defendant's statement, request the separate admissibility hearing required by CrR 3.5(a). CrR 3.5 sets the hearing procedure; it does not itself assign a burden of proof. This CrR 3.6 motion addresses evidence claimed to result from the challenged search or seizure and does not replace a CrR 3.5 motion concerning a statement.

4.4 Fruits of the Poisonous Tree

Evidence derived from primary illegality may also be excluded under the Fourth Amendment and Washington Constitution article I, section 7. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (derivative evidence may be excluded unless the taint is sufficiently attenuated). Identify how the challenged evidence was obtained from the unlawful search or seizure.

4.5 Good-Faith Exception Does Not Apply

Unlike federal Fourth Amendment doctrine, which recognizes a good-faith exception in some circumstances, see United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), Washington rejects a good-faith exception to its state exclusionary rule. State v. Afana, 169 Wn.2d 169, 179–84, 233 P.3d 879 (2010); State v. McGee, No. 102134-8, slip op. at 12 (Wash. Oct. 24, 2024). Defendant asks the Court to apply the state exclusionary rule to the proven Article I, section 7 violation.

5. Burden of Proof & Required Findings

For a warrantless search or seizure, the State must establish an exception to the warrant requirement by clear and convincing evidence. State v. Morgan, No. 96017-8 (Wash. May 16, 2019). When challenging a search conducted under a warrant, Defendant bears the burden of showing that the warrant or search was unlawful. State v. German, No. 44870-0-II (Wash. Ct. App.) (unpublished, citing State v. Hopkins, 113 Wn. App. 954, 958 (2002)). CrR 3.6(b) requires written findings of fact and conclusions of law if an evidentiary hearing is conducted. If the Court decides no hearing is required, CrR 3.6(a) instead requires a written order stating its reasons.

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 introducing identified derivative evidence shown to remain tainted by the unlawful conduct; 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. Supporting Affidavit or Document (CrR 3.6(a))

Attach an affidavit or document setting out the facts the moving party anticipates will be elicited at a hearing, as CrR 3.6(a) requires. Identify it here and cite its paragraphs in Section 2.

Supporting affidavit or document: [TITLE, AUTHOR, DATE, EXHIBIT NUMBER]
Relevant paragraphs or pages: [________________________________]

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 following evidence is suppressed: [IDENTIFY ITEMS AND ANY DERIVATIVE EVIDENCE SHOWN TO REMAIN TAINTED].

☐ The Motion is DENIED.

CrR 3.6 findings and reasons (complete for either disposition):

☐ An evidentiary hearing was conducted. The Court enters written findings of fact and conclusions of law ☐ below ☐ in a separate accompanying order.

☐ No evidentiary hearing was required. The Court states its reasons in this written order: [________________________________].

☐ Other: ____________________________________________________________.

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

_____________________________________
[JUDGE NAME]
Judge of the Superior Court