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 SEIZED AFTER ILLEGAL ARREST

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 after his illegal arrest. As grounds for his motion Mr. CLIENT states:
1. [Note to Counsel: Describe crimes, arrest of defendant, any manner in which evidence seized, including statements taken, if any]
2. The officers did not possess an arrest warrant for the defendant and did not have probable cause to arrest him. Therefore, the arrest was illegal. State v. Marks, 337 So. 2d 1177 (La. 1976) (search incident to arrest is not valid unless arrest was lawful). Detention of suspects for "investigatory" purposes on less than probable cause violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S. Ct. 2248, 60 L. Ed. 2d 824 (1979). No formal declaration by the police of intent to arrest is necessary. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 726-27, 89 S. Ct. 1394, 22 L. Ed. 2d 676 (1969).
3. Even assuming arguendo that no arrest took place, at the time the defendant was detained and searched by the officers, the officers did not possess specific and articulable facts upon which to justify a belief that the defendant was armed and dangerous. Therefore, the officers were not authorized to conduct a limited frisk for weapons pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20-21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968); see also, Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 99 S. Ct. 2637, 61 L. Ed. 2d 357 (1979). Therefore, any search of the defendant, even if only a frisk, was illegal and any evidence received as a result must be suppressed. Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 64, 88 S. Ct. 1889, 20 L. Ed. 2d 917 (1968). Moreover, the search of the defendant was not limited to a frisk for weapons and, therefore, exceeded the scope permitted by the Fourth Amendment and Terry. See, e.g., State v. Williams, 613 So. 2d 259, 263 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1992) (presence in high crime area combined with attempted flight did not giver officers cause to search beyond brief pat down for weapons).
4. Moreover, the search went beyond the area within the immediate control of the defendant. Therefore, even were the arrest to be held to be valid, the search went beyond the scope of a permissible search incident to an arrest and, therefore, the evidence seized must be suppressed. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 23 L. Ed. 2d 685 (1969); State v. Blanchard, 374 So. 2d 1248 (La. 1979).
5. The forcible entry into the defendant's home to apprehend him, without a warrant and without exigent circumstances, violated the Fourth Amendment. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 63 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1980).
6. The statement taken from the defendant was the fruit of an illegal arrest, and must therefore be suppressed. See Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 102 S. Ct. 2664, 73 L. Ed. 2d 314 (1982); Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S. Ct. 2248, 60 L. Ed. 2d 824 (1979); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S. Ct. 2254, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416 (1975). Defendant's arrest having been accomplished illegally, all the fruits of that illegal arrest must be suppressed. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963); Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652 (1914).
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing and such other reasons as may appear upon a full hearing on this matter, Mr. CLIENT prays that this motion be granted.
??