08 115 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE FROM A WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE (EXAMPLE)

• Jurisdiction: Arkansas
• Library: Arkansas Form Book - Complete (2023 Ed.)

08-115 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE FROM A WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE (EXAMPLE)

[CAPTION] DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

Defendant moves to suppress the search of [her/her] vehicle under the Fourth Amendment [and Fed. R. Crim. P. 41], and states:

I. The Burden of Proof is on the Government

1. This is a warrantless search, and warrantless searches of effects are presumptively unreasonable and invalid. See, e.g., Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 733 (1878); McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 456 (1948); United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249, 251 (1970); United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825 (1982); United States v. Jacobson, 466 U.S. 109, 114 n.7 (1984). See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000) (government carries the burden on reasonable suspicion). Vehicles are "effects" under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 10 (1977); United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 404 (2012).

2. Defendant has the burden of going forward. United States v. Marasco, 487 F.3d 543, 547 (8th Cir. 2007) ("When the issue is whether challenged evidence is the fruit of a Fourth Amendment violation, the defendant bears the initial burden of establishing the factual nexus between the constitutional violation and the challenged evidence").

3. When the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate why evidence obtained illegally should not be excluded. United States v. Hastings, 685 F.3d 724, 728 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Riesselman, 646 F.3d 1072, 1078 (8th Cir. 2011)) (noting that if defendant "comes forward with specific evidence demonstrating taint, the ultimate burden of persuasion to show the evidence is untainted lies with the government."). This motion to suppress satisfies that, and the burden of showing reasonableness of the search now shifts to the government.

4. Thus, "[t]he government bears the burden of establishing that an exception to the warrant requirement applies." United States v. Hill, 386 F.3d 855, 858 (8th Cir. 2004). Accord: Carter v. United States, 729 F.2d 935, 940 (8th Cir. 1984); United States v. Kennedy, 427 F.3d 1136, 1144 (8th Cir. 2005):

As with any warrantless search, the Government bears the burden of demonstrating the need for an exemption from the warrant requirement and that its conduct fell within the bounds of the exception. Marshall, 986 F.2d at 1173 (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390, 98 S. Ct. 2408, 57 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1978)).

II. Standing

5. Defendant was in a rental car she rented for an interstate journey. Thus, she has standing. She also had luggage in the trunk. See, e.g., Byrd v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1518, 1527 (2018) (renters have standing; issue there was driver...