IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF PEINE DE MORT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
No. _______

============================================

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Plaintiff
v.
JOHN CLIENT, Defendant

============================================

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

COMES NOW Mr. CLIENT, by counsel, and respectfully moves this Court pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, Sections 2, 3, 5, 13, 14, 16 & 17 of the Louisiana Constitution, and La. Code Crim. Pro. art. 703, to suppress the evidence illegally seized from him. As grounds for his motion Mr. CLIENT states:
1. [Note to Counsel: Describe circumstances of search; relationship of defendant to premises (the defendant may object to the search even if it is not his property that was searched and/or seized, La. Const. Art. 1, Sect. 5), and the nature of the items seized.]
2. Warrantless Searches: The search and seizure of the premises were conducted without either probable cause or exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless intrusion even if there had been probable cause. The Supreme Court of the United States has said that the "most basic" rule of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is that "searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment -- subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967). It is well established that no amount of probable cause can justify a warrantless search or seizure absent exigent circumstances. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 468, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971); see also, Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 17, 105 S. Ct. 409, 83 L. Ed. 2d 246 (1984) (no "murder scene" exception to the warrant requirement); Mincey v. Arizona, 434 U.S. 1343, 98 S. Ct. 23, 54 L. Ed. 2d 56 (1977) (evidence recovered in processing homicide scene suppressed because there was no warrant); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 98 S. Ct. 1942, 56 L. Ed. 2d 486 (1978) (evidence suppressed where there were repeated searches without warrants days after fire in search of evidence of arson); State v. Taplette, 545 So. 2d 985 (La. 1989) (warrantless search after defendant allegedly shot at police officer not supported by exigent circumstances). The search here does not fit into one of the "jealously and carefully drawn" exceptions to the warrant requirement. United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51 (1951). The state cannot meet its burden of proving that the evidence is admissible. La. Code Crim. Pro. art. 703 (D).
3. Searches with a Warrant: The warrant secured for the search was not issued by a neutral and detached magistrate. Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319, 326-27, 99 S. Ct. 2319, 60 L. Ed. 2d 920 (1979); McCommon v. State, 467 So. 2d 940, 942 (Miss. 1985).
4. The warrant was not executed within ten days of issuance. La. Code Crim. Pro. art 163.
5. The warrant did not expressly permit the police to search at night. La. Code Crim. Pro. art. 163.
6. The facts alleged in support of the warrant fail to establish probable cause. State v. Lewis, 385 So. 2d 226 (La. 1980)
7. The facts alleged in support of the warrant contain material misstatements and omissions. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 164, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed. 2d 667 (1978).
8. The warrant fails to state with particularity what objects were to be seized, and the executing officers exceeded its scope. Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 480, 96 S. Ct. 2737, 49 L. Ed. 2d 627 (1976); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971); La. Code Crim. Pro. art. 162; State v. Hughes, 433 So. 2d 88 (La. 1983).
9. Because the search was unreasonable and violative of the defendant's privacy rights protected by the Fourth Amendment, all the evidence seized must be suppressed. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652 (1914); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961).
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing and other such reasons as may appear upon a full hearing of this matter, Mr. CLIENT prays that his motion be granted.
??