State Criminal Motion to Suppress - Wyoming

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [COUNTY] COUNTY, STATE OF WYOMING

[Judicial District Number] Judicial District

Case No. [######]

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME] ("Defendant"), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution, and Rule 12(b)(3) of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure, for an Order suppressing all physical evidence, statements, identifications, and any and all derivative fruits obtained as a result of the unlawful search, seizure, and custodial interrogation described below, and in support thereof states as follows:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Preliminary Statement …………………………………………………………… 2
2. Statement of Relevant Facts ……………………………………………………… 3

3. Applicable Legal Standards ……………………………………………………… 4
   3.1 Constitutional and State Grounds ……………………………………… 4
   3.2 Wyoming Suppression Framework …………………………………… 5
   3.3 Good-Faith Exception Parameters …………………………………… 5

4. Argument ………………………………………………………………………… 6
   4.1 Warrantless Entry & Search Without Probable Cause ………………… 6
   4.2 Invalid Search Warrant Lacking Particularity/Probable Cause ……… 7
   4.3 Unlawful Custodial Statements (Miranda) …………………………… 8
   4.4 Fruits of the Poisonous Tree …………………………………………… 9
   4.5 Inapplicability of the Good-Faith Exception ………………………… 10

5. Request for Evidentiary Hearing ……………………………………………… 11

6. Reservation of Rights …………………………………………………………… 11
7. Prayer for Relief ………………………………………………………………… 12
8. Certificate of Service …………………………………………………………… 13
9. Proposed Order ………………………………………………………………… 14

1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1.1 This Motion is timely filed under the scheduling order entered on [DATE] and Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) and (d), which require a suppression motion before trial by the court's motion deadline when one is set. Rule 12(g) permits relief from waiver for cause shown.
1.2 Suppression is constitutionally mandated because law-enforcement officers obtained the evidence at issue through methods that violated Defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights, as further detailed herein.

2. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

2.1 On [DATE] at approximately [TIME], officers with the [LAW-ENFORCEMENT AGENCY] entered [LOCATION] without a warrant.
2.2 Officers allegedly relied on [BASIS ASSERTED FOR ENTRY—e.g., “consent,” “exigent circumstances,” or “anonymous tip”].
2.3 While inside, officers conducted a search and seized [DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS] (collectively, the “Subject Evidence”).
2.4 Defendant was placed in custody and interrogated without being advised of constitutional rights until [TIME], after inculpatory statements were elicited.
2.5 A search warrant was later sought and issued based, in substantial part, on information derived from the initial unlawful entry and the unwarned statements.
2.6 The State intends to introduce the Subject Evidence and Defendant’s statements at trial.

3. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

3.1 Constitutional and State Grounds

• U.S. Const. amend. IV safeguards individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures.
• U.S. Const. amend. XIV makes those protections applicable to the States.
• Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 4 provides co-extensive—and in some instances broader—protections.

3.2 Wyoming Suppression Framework

Wyo. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3) allows a pretrial motion to suppress evidence. The challenged search or seizure occurred ☐ without a warrant ☐ under a warrant. The applicable burden and the facts supporting the selected ground are [CURRENT WYOMING AUTHORITY, PINPOINT, AND CASE-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS].

3.3 Good-Faith Exception Parameters

The United States Supreme Court has recognized a good-faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule for evidence obtained through an officer's objectively reasonable reliance on a search warrant later found to be invalid. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). The Wyoming Supreme Court, however, has emphasized that Article 1, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution provides protections independent of, and in some respects broader than, the Fourth Amendment—including a heightened affidavit requirement and a "reasonable under all the circumstances" standard that permits inquiry into an officer's actual intent. See O'Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83, 117 P.3d 401 (Wyo. 2005); Pierce v. State, 2007 WY 182, 171 P.3d 525 (Wyo. 2007). Counsel should confirm, at the time of filing, whether the Wyoming Supreme Court has since squarely adopted, limited, or declined to adopt a good-faith exception to the exclusionary remedy under the state constitution, and should not assume the federal Leon framework applies without independent verification of current Wyoming law.

4. ARGUMENT

4.1 Warrantless Entry & Search Without Probable Cause

4.1.1 Warrantless searches inside a residence are presumptively unreasonable absent a specifically established exception.
4.1.2 The officers’ claimed [EXCEPTION] is unsupported by articulable facts demonstrating probable cause and exigency.
4.1.3 All evidence observed or seized during the unlawful intrusion, including officers’ subsequent observations forming probable cause for the warrant, must be suppressed.

4.2 Invalid Search Warrant Lacking Particularity/Probable Cause

4.2.1 The subsequently issued warrant was predicated on tainted information, rendering the warrant and resultant search invalid.
4.2.2 Even if independent information existed, the warrant failed to describe the place to be searched and items to be seized with requisite particularity.
4.2.3 Suppression is required because no meaningful attenuation or independent source can purge the taint.

4.3 Unlawful Custodial Statements (Miranda)

4.3.1 Defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation without being advised of rights.
4.3.2 Defendant seeks suppression of unwarned custodial statements from the prosecution's case in chief. Physical evidence derived from a voluntary but unwarned statement is not suppressed solely for a Miranda warning failure. United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004). Defendant separately challenges any evidence derived from an involuntary statement or an unlawful search or seizure on the facts alleged below.

4.4 Fruits of the Poisonous Tree

4.4.1 Evidence derived from the alleged unlawful search or seizure, or from an involuntary statement, should be suppressed unless an applicable exception such as attenuation, independent source, or inevitable discovery is established. A Miranda warning failure alone does not require exclusion of physical evidence derived from a voluntary statement.

4.5 Inapplicability of Any Good-Faith Exception

4.5.1 Even assuming a good-faith exception applies under Wyoming law, officers could not have reasonably relied on a warrant grounded in unlawfully obtained information.
4.5.2 Any suggestion that officers acted in “objectively reasonable” reliance is rebutted by their prior unconstitutional conduct and facial deficiencies in the warrant.
4.5.3 Because Article 1, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution may afford broader protection than the Fourth Amendment, Defendant further contends that no good-faith exception should excuse the constitutional violations described herein.

5. REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing on this Rule 12(b)(3) suppression motion to determine admissibility and present testimonial, photographic, and documentary evidence regarding the search, seizure, and interrogation. Rule 12(j) governs production of witness statements at a suppression hearing.

6. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Defendant expressly reserves the right to supplement, amend, or renew this Motion should additional facts become known or legal authority evolve before trial.

7. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Conduct an evidentiary hearing at the earliest practicable date;
B. Suppress the Subject Evidence, all statements obtained from Defendant, and any derivative evidence;
C. Preclude the State from using evidence outside the scope of the Court’s suppression ruling, and require a separate ruling before any proposed impeachment use if Defendant testifies; and
D. Grant such other and further relief as justice may require.

Respectfully submitted this ___ day of __________, 20__.

8. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress Evidence was delivered to the Office of the [COUNTY] County and Prosecuting Attorney, on this ___ day of __________, 20__, via [e-mail/hand delivery/e-filing], pursuant to Rule 49 of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rule 5 of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure (governing service in criminal proceedings).

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

9. PROPOSED ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [COUNTY] COUNTY, STATE OF WYOMING
Case No. [######]

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence, the State’s response, and having heard argument of counsel and evidence presented, FINDS that the search, seizure, and custodial interrogation at issue violated Defendant’s rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution, and that the good-faith exception does not apply.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. All physical evidence seized on [DATE] from [LOCATION], including but not limited to [LIST ITEMS], is SUPPRESSED;
2. All statements, admissions, and confessions made by Defendant on [DATE] are SUPPRESSED;
3. The State may not refer to the suppressed evidence before the jury unless the Court first authorizes a particular use. A voluntary statement excluded for a Miranda violation may be considered for impeachment of inconsistent testimony if Defendant testifies; an involuntary statement may not. Mills v. State, 2022 WY 156, ¶ 79.

DATED this ___ day of __________, 20__.

__________________________________
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE