State Criminal Motion to Suppress - Wisconsin

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

(Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 971.31, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction
2. Procedural Posture
3. Statement of Facts

4. Applicable Law

   • 4.1 Constitutional Framework
   • 4.2 Wisconsin Statutory Framework
   • 4.3 Suppression Standard & Burdens
   • 4.4 Good-Faith Exception

5. Argument

   • 5.1 Defective Warrant / Warrantless Search
   • 5.2 No Applicable Exception to the Warrant Requirement
   • 5.3 Evidence Must Be Suppressed

6. Request for Evidentiary Hearing

7. Relief Requested
8. Conclusion
9. Certification of Compliance
10. Proposed Order (attached)
11. Certificate of Service

1. Introduction

Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME] (“Defendant”) respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 971.31, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, § 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution, to suppress all physical evidence, statements, observations, and fruits thereof obtained as a result of the unlawful [search/seizure] conducted on [DATE] at [LOCATION].

2. Procedural Posture

1. On [DATE], the State filed a Criminal Complaint charging Defendant with [LIST CHARGES] arising from the incident of [DATE].
2. Defendant was arraigned on [DATE] and entered pleas of not guilty.
3. Discovery produced on [DATE] reveals that the evidence at issue was obtained through [briefly describe search/seizure].
4. This Motion is timely under Wis. Stat. § 971.31(5)(a) and the Court’s [DATE] scheduling order.

3. Statement of Facts

[Provide a concise, chronologically-ordered narrative of all facts relevant to the challenged search or seizure. Identify:

• law-enforcement agency and officers involved;
• time, date, and location;
• whether a warrant was issued (include warrant number, issuing court, and time signed);
• manner in which warrant was executed or search conducted;
• items seized;
• Defendant’s contemporaneous statements or conduct;
• any subsequent searches dependent on the first search.]

4. Applicable Law

4.1 Constitutional Framework

1. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV.
2. Article I, § 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution also governs this motion. Wisconsin's Supreme Court has required additional state constitutional safeguards for the warrant good-faith exception. State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98.

4.2 Wisconsin Statutory Framework

1. Warrants, execution of warrants, and related procedures are governed by Wis. Stat. §§ 968.10–968.22.
2. Motions to suppress evidence must be raised before trial under Wis. Stat. § 971.31(2), within the time limits set by § 971.31(5)(a)–(b), or the objection is deemed waived (subject to the court's discretion to entertain the motion at trial with waiver of jeopardy).
3. A statutory warrant defect does not automatically require suppression: Wis. Stat. § 968.22 bars suppression for technical irregularities in a search warrant that do not affect the defendant's substantial rights. Any constitutional ground and requested remedy should be analyzed separately.
4. An order denying a motion to suppress may be reviewed on appeal from a final judgment or order, even where the judgment was entered on a plea of guilty or no contest. Wis. Stat. § 971.31(10).

4.3 Suppression Standard & Burdens

1. Defendant must establish that the challenged search violated Defendant's own Fourth Amendment rights. State v. Bruski, 2007 WI 25.
2. When the State relies on consent to justify a warrantless search, it must prove that consent was freely and voluntarily given by clear and convincing evidence. State v. Blackman, 2017 WI 77, ¶54. For another asserted justification, address the burden that applies to that ground.

4.4 Good-Faith Exception

1. Wisconsin recognizes a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, but it is narrower than the federal rule under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). In State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, 245 Wis. 2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution requires the State to satisfy the federal Leon test and to make an additional showing before the exception applies: that the process used in obtaining the search warrant included (a) a significant investigation, and (b) a review by either a police officer trained and knowledgeable in the requirements of probable cause and reasonable suspicion, or a knowledgeable government attorney.
2. The State bears the burden of establishing applicability of the exception. Under Leon, the exception does not apply where (a) the warrant is based on knowingly or recklessly false information, (b) the issuing court wholly abandons its neutral role, (c) the affidavit is so lacking in probable cause that belief in its existence is objectively unreasonable, or (d) the warrant is so facially deficient that officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.
3. Even where the Leon factors do not independently defeat good faith, Wisconsin's additional Eason requirements are independently fatal to the State's showing where the record does not reflect a significant investigation or a qualified pre-application legal review. See State v. Marquardt, 2005 WI 157, 286 Wis. 2d 204, 705 N.W.2d 878 (a "significant investigation" is not established merely by the number of officers or hours devoted to the case).

5. Argument

5.1 Defective Warrant / Warrantless Search

[Analyze why no valid warrant existed or why the warrant was deficient—probable cause, particularity, staleness, jurisdictional defect, absence of oath, etc.]

5.2 No Applicable Exception to the Warrant Requirement

[Address and negate each potential exception raised by the State: consent, exigent circumstances, search-incident-to-arrest, automobile exception, plain view, protective sweep, inventory search, community-caretaker, etc.]

5.3 Evidence Must Be Suppressed

1. Defendant seeks suppression of evidence obtained through the challenged violation. The Court should decide whether each derivative item was obtained by exploitation of that violation or through a sufficiently distinguishable lawful route. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-88 (1963).

2. The challenged direct and derivative evidence is:
   a. [ITEM 1];
   b. [ITEM 2];
   c. [STATEMENTS];
   d. [IDENTIFY ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND HOW THE CHALLENGED CONDUCT LED TO IT].

3. Defendant disputes any claimed independent source, inevitable discovery, or attenuation for these items because [STATE THE RELEVANT FACTS]. See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443-44 (1984).

6. Request for Evidentiary Hearing

Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 971.31(3)–(4), Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing to (a) permit cross-examination of officers, (b) test the sufficiency and veracity of the affidavit — including, if a substantial preliminary showing of a knowing or reckless false statement is made, a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) — and (c) develop the factual record required for adjudication of this Motion.

7. Relief Requested

Defendant respectfully asks that the Court:

1. Conduct an evidentiary hearing;
2. Suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the unconstitutional [search/seizure] described herein;
3. Suppress the derivative evidence identified in Section 5.3 if the Court finds it was obtained by exploitation of the violation and is not admissible under an applicable exception; and
4. Grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

8. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should suppress the challenged evidence in its entirety.

9. Certification of Compliance

I certify that this Motion:

1. Complies with Wis. Stat. § 971.31 and any local rules;
2. Is not interposed for improper purpose; and
3. Is supported by existing law or a good-faith argument for extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.

DATED: [DATE]

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
State Bar No. [XXXXXXX]
[LAW FIRM]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE] | [EMAIL]
Counsel for Defendant

10. Proposed Order

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

The Court, having considered Defendant’s Motion, the evidence adduced, and the arguments of counsel, finds that the [search/seizure] of [DATE] violated Defendant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I, § 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and Wis. Stat. §§ 968.10–968.22.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Motion is GRANTED.
2. The following evidence is SUPPRESSED, after consideration of any independent source, inevitable discovery, attenuation, or other applicable limit: [IDENTIFY EACH ITEM].
3. [Optional] The State shall, within [##] days, file a statement indicating how it intends to proceed.

Dated: ___________ , 20__.

_________________________________
Circuit Court Judge
[COUNTY] County, Wisconsin

11. Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on [DATE] a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress Evidence and Proposed Order was served upon the [DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE] by [method of service, e.g., electronic filing system, hand delivery, or mail] in accordance with Wis. Stat. § 971.31(5)(a) and any applicable court order or local rule.

_________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]