State Criminal Motion to Suppress - West Virginia

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

(with Incorporated Memorandum of Law)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Preliminary Statement
2. Statement of Relevant Facts
3. Legal Standards
4. Grounds for Suppression
5. Request for Hearing
6. Prayer for Relief
7. Proposed Order
8. Certificate of Service

1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

COMES NOW the Defendant, [DEFENDANT'S NAME] ("Defendant"), by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to W. Va. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3) and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article III, § 6 of the West Virginia Constitution, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court for an order suppressing the evidence obtained on or about [DATE], together with all fruits thereof, on the grounds set forth below.

2. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

1. On [DATE] at approximately [TIME], officers of the [AGENCY] approached Defendant's [vehicle/residence/person] at [LOCATION].
2. [Describe initial encounter, detention, or stop.]
3. [Detail search/seizure, warrant issuance (if any), consent issues, statements made, etc.]
4. The challenged evidence consists of:
   a. [List physical items];
   b. [Any statements]; and
   c. [Derivative evidence (e.g., test results, additional contraband)].

3. LEGAL STANDARDS

3.1 Fourth Amendment & Article III, § 6 Protections

• The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV.
• Article III, § 6 of the West Virginia Constitution provides: "The rights of the citizens to be secure in their houses, persons, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. No warrant shall issue except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized." The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has held that the ultimate reasonableness of a search or seizure under both the Fourth Amendment and Article III, § 6 is a question of law reviewed de novo, while a circuit court's underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error. See State v. Lacy, 196 W. Va. 104, 468 S.E.2d 719 (1996).

3.2 Rule-Based Authority
a. W. Va. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3) – A motion to suppress evidence must be raised prior to trial unless the grounds for the motion were not known to the defendant prior to trial.
b. W. Va. R. Crim. P. 12(i) – Rule 26.2 (production of witness statements) applies at a suppression hearing, and a law enforcement officer is deemed a State witness for that purpose.
c. W. Va. R. Evid. 402 – Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible, and evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution or these rules is likewise subject to exclusion.
d. W. Va. R. Evid. 403 – Even relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or other enumerated concerns.

3.3 Burden of Proof
The prosecution bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the legality of a warrantless search or seizure once its validity is challenged; where a warrant was obtained, the defendant challenging it must generally show the warrant or its execution was invalid, subject to the framework above.

3.4 Good-Faith Exception — Unsettled Under West Virginia Law

To the extent a good-faith argument is raised, it would require the State to show that officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant or binding precedent; even under the federal formulation, that reliance is not "reasonable" where the supporting affidavit is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable, or where the warrant is facially deficient in particularizing the place to be searched or the things to be seized.

4. GROUNDS FOR SUPPRESSION

4.1 Lack of Probable Cause for Search Warrant
a. The affidavit supporting Warrant No. [___] failed to establish a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in the place to be searched.
b. The issuing magistrate or circuit judge therefore lacked a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed, rendering the warrant invalid. See W. Va. R. Crim. P. 41(c); State v. Adkins, 176 W. Va. 613, 346 S.E.2d 762 (1986) (a conclusory affidavit relying on an unnamed informant's bare assertion, without more, is insufficient to establish probable cause).
c. Because the warrant was facially deficient and lacking particularity, no good-faith exception should salvage the search. (See Section 3.4, above.)

4.2 Warrantless Search—No Exigent Circumstances
a. Officers conducted a search of Defendant's [vehicle/residence/person] without a warrant.
b. No exigent circumstances—such as imminent destruction of evidence, hot pursuit, or officer safety concerns—were present.
c. Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by a judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Article III, § 6 of the West Virginia Constitution, subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.

4.3 Invalid Consent
a. Any purported consent given by Defendant was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
b. Defendant was in custody, [was/were] not advised of the right to refuse consent, and [describe coercive circumstances].
c. The burden rests on the State to demonstrate voluntariness under the totality of the circumstances, which it cannot meet.

4.4 Miranda & Fifth Amendment Violations
a. Defendant's custodial statements were obtained without a valid waiver of Miranda rights.
b. Consequently, those statements—and any derivative evidence—must be suppressed.

4.5 Tainted Fruit—"Fruit of the Poisonous Tree"
All evidence discovered subsequent to, or derived from, the unlawful search/seizure is inadmissible under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).

4.6 Good-Faith Exception Inapplicable
a. The warrant affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that reliance upon it was unreasonable.
b. Alternatively, officers acted with reckless disregard for the truth by omitting material facts.
c. Accordingly, the exclusionary rule should apply in full. (See Section 3.4, above, regarding the unsettled status of any good-faith exception under West Virginia law.)

5. REQUEST FOR HEARING

Pursuant to W. Va. R. Crim. P. 12(e) and 12(g), Defendant respectfully requests an evidentiary hearing at which the State bears the burden of demonstrating the legality of the challenged search, seizure, and statements, and requests that the Court state its essential findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record as required where factual issues are involved in deciding a pretrial motion.

6. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant [DEFENDANT'S NAME] respectfully prays that this Court:

A. Grant this Motion in its entirety;
B. Suppress all physical evidence, statements, and derivative evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful conduct described herein;
C. Order the State to refrain from referencing or introducing the suppressed evidence at any stage of the proceedings, including trial;
D. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this ___ day of __________, 20__.

7. PROPOSED ORDER

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

On this _______ day of ______________, 20__, came the State of West Virginia by [Prosecutor's Name], and the Defendant by counsel, [Defense Counsel's Name], upon Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence. The Court, having considered the motion, the evidence and arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, finds that the motion is well-taken and should be GRANTED.

It is therefore ORDERED that:

1. The physical evidence described as [describe items] is hereby SUPPRESSED.
2. Any and all statements made by Defendant on [date/time] are hereby SUPPRESSED.
3. The State shall not reference or introduce the suppressed evidence at any stage of these proceedings.

The Clerk shall transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record.

ENTER: ___________________________

__________________________________
[Judge's Name]
[Judge's Title]

8. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, [Defense Counsel's Name], hereby certify that on this ___ day of __________, 20__, a true and correct copy of the foregoing "Motion to Suppress Evidence" was served upon the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney for [County] County via [hand-delivery/E-Service/mailing], pursuant to W. Va. R. Crim. P. 49(b)–(c).

__________________________________
[Defense Counsel's Signature]
[Defense Counsel's Name] (WVSB #______)
[Law Firm]
[Address]
[Telephone]
[Email]

ADDITIONAL PRACTICE NOTES

1. Timing. W. Va. R. Crim. P. 12(c) does not impose a fixed statewide deadline (such as "10 days before trial") for suppression motions; instead, "[u]nless otherwise provided by local rule, the court may, at the time of the arraignment or as soon thereafter as practicable, set a time for the making of pretrial motions." Counsel must check the applicable scheduling order and any local rule of the circuit in which the case is pending, and file within the deadline actually set. Under Rule 12(b)(3), a motion to suppress must be raised prior to trial unless the grounds were not known to the defendant before trial; failure to timely raise the motion may constitute a waiver under Rule 12(f), subject to relief for good cause shown.
2. Affidavits & Exhibits. Attach sworn affidavits or transcripts where factual disputes exist; this positions the defense for a Franks-type challenge if misstatements in the warrant affidavit are alleged. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
3. Reciprocal Discovery. Ensure compliance with discovery obligations under W. Va. R. Crim. P. 16.
4. Hearing Preparation. Subpoena the affiant-officer(s) and any other necessary witnesses well in advance. Under Rule 12(i), Rule 26.2 (production of witness statements) applies at the suppression hearing, and a law enforcement officer is deemed a State witness for that purpose.
5. Preservation for Appeal. Clearly articulate each constitutional provision and rule relied upon to preserve issues for appellate review, and request that the court state its essential findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record as required by Rule 12(e) when factual issues are involved.
6. Good-Faith Exception. Do not assume West Virginia has adopted United States v. Leon as settled law; see Section 3.4, above, and brief the issue on its own terms if the State raises it.

END OF TEMPLATE