Violation of Due Process | Exclusionary Rule

Additional State Protections

When drafting a motion to suppress do not forget that states are typically permitted to enact laws that grant a defendant more protection than is afforded in the United States Constitution. In Michigan Department of State Police vs. Sitz, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari jurisdiction and ruled that sobriety checkpoints were valid under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. On remand to the Michigan Supreme Court, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Michigan’s Constitution provided additional protections and that sobriety checkpoints were unconstitutional under the state constitution. A similar situation occurred in Florida after the United States Supreme Court ruled on the Moran vs. Burbine case. So even if there is a federal case on point, make sure that your state does not provide additional protections.

Moran vs. Burbaine

In 1986, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Burbaine knowingly and voluntarily waived his Fifth Amendment right to have a lawyer present during questioning. The facts of the case were as follows:

Mr. Burbaine was taken into custody by the police concerning a murder. Mr. Burbine’s sister contacted an attorney to represent her brother. The attorney contacted the police department who stated that Mr. Burbine would not be questioned until the following day. It is no surprise to find out that the police began questioning Mr. Burbaine regarding the murder less than 1 hour after they informed the attorney that the questioning would not take place until the next day. Mr. Burbaine was never informed by the police that his sister had retained an attorney for him and Mr. Burbaine waived his 5th Amendment rights. During the interrogation, Mr. Burbaine signed 3 separate statements confessing to the murder. His attorney’s moved to suppress the statements as illegally obtained in violation of Mr. Burbaine’s Fifth Amendment Rights guaranteed under the United State’s Constitution.

United States Supreme Court Holding: Neither the police conduct nor Mr. Burbaine’s ignorance of the fact that an attorney was hired to represent him and had been attempting to contact him rendered the statement’s given in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Mr. Burbaine’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not yet attached. Additionally, the court did not find a 14th Amendment Violation, although leaving room for a potential violation under more egregious facts.

The United States Supreme Court specifically stated that the various states may adopt different standards which have the effect of providing additional protections under state law.

Haliburton vs. State

The facts in Haliburton vs. State are substantially similar to the facts in Moran vs. Burbine. In Haliburton, the Florida Supreme Court held that Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution required that the evidence in Haliburton be suppressed. The Florida Supreme Court focused on the dissenting opinion in the Burbine matter written by Justice Stevens. The main point in Justice Stevens dissent and the Haliburton opinion is “Police interference in the attorney-client relationship is the type of governmental misconduct on a matter of central importance to the administration of justice that the Due Process Clause prohibits………Just as the government cannot conceal from a suspect material and exculpatory evidence, so too the government cannot conceal from a suspect the material fact of his attorney’s communication.”

Public Link Provided By: Fastcase, Haliburton vs. State, 514 So.2d 1088(Fla. 1987)

Haliburton in a DUI Context

Appellate ruling coming soon.

Omnibus Motion to Suppress DUI| Form Motion to Suppress DUI

Omnibus Motion to Suppress

This is simply a checkbox motion to suppress which attorneys were using in District Court DUI cases in North Carolina. A defendant doesn’t have a right to discovery in District Court cases. However, the legislature passed a law mandating that all motions to suppress be filed pretrial. As a result, it was not uncommon to end up trying a case that had substantial problems that would have been the basis for a motion to suppress. However, all of your grounds for a motion to suppress were waived due to your failure to file a pretrial motion. I don’t know who came up with the idea, but this form started circulating wherein you simply checked every box that might apply to the case. When you filed the motion, you would get a hearing on your motion and you could use that as a means to flush out the facts. North Carolina has a right of appeal for a jury trial de novo if an individual is convicted in District Court.

Use in Other Jurisdictions:

This type of motion would not be acceptable in Florida under normal circumstances. I can think of certain scenarios when there might be an exception. However, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(g)(2) requires that a motion to suppress contain a legally sufficient factual basis for filing the motion to suppress. If the motion is not legally sufficient on its face, the judge should deny the motion without a hearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(g)(3). Accordingly, the use of this motion or a “check box” type of motion is going to depend on the rules of procedure in the jurisdiction where you practice. However, you would need to tailor the motion to the specific case law in your own jurisdiction. For example, items 3, 4 & 5 in the motion reference case law from North Carolina. If I were filing the motion in Florida, I could change “Knoll” in item 3 to “Halliburton” and move to suppress based on a due process argument.

I wouldn’t expect much in the way of good results from this type of motion. If you can write a more specific motion, it would probably be in your best interest to do so. However, filing a “& the kitchen sink” motion might be good for the record if the State is playing games with you regarding discovery and attempting to get you to waive your speedy trial in order to get discovery.

This motion is in Word format so it can be downloaded and modified to suit your individual needs.

Download ( Omnibus-Motion-to-Suppress.docx, DOCX, 16KB)

Motion to Suppress – Intoxilyzer Malfunction

Motion to Suppress Breath Test Results
Jurisdiction: County Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County Florida
Location of Stop: North Miami Beach
Issues: Did the officer’s failure to follow the rules for breath testing set forth in the Florida Administrative Code require the suppression or exclusion of the result?
Notes: This was filed as a motion to suppress when it should have probably been filed as a motion in limine or motion to exclude. This was filed in 2007. I would caption the motion “Motion to Suppress or Motion to Exclude” if I had to write the motion again.

Download ( Motion-to-Suppress-Admin-Code.pdf, PDF, 195KB)

No Reasonable Suspicion for DUI Investigation

Motion to Suppress No Reasonable Suspicion

Phase II DUI Investigation

Motion to Suppress Refusal, Observations, Video and all Other Evidence
Jurisdiction: County Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida
Location of Stop: Broward County, Florida
Issues:
1) Did the officer have a reasonable suspicion that defendant was impaired sufficient to extend the length of a traffic stop into an investigatory detention?
2) Was defendant properly advised of Florida’s implied consent laws?
Major Case(s):
State:
1) Brye v. State of Florida, 927 So.2d 78, 81(Fla. 1st DCA 2006);
2) Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185, 186(Fla. 1993);
3) Dees v. State, 564 So.2d 1166(Fla. 1st DCA 1990);
4) Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Guthrie, 662 So.2d 404(Fla. 1st DCA 1995);
5) Jones v State, 459 So.2d 1068, 1080(Fla. 2nd DCA 1984);
6) State v. Bertoni, Appellate Case No. 05-23AC10A(17th Cir. 2006);
7) State v. Medina-Moya, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 396 (Fla. 17th Circuit Ct., March 19, 2001);
8) State v. Anderson, 479 So.2d 816, 818(Fla. 4th DCA 1985);
9) Cresswell v. State, 564 So.2d 480 (Fla. 1990);
10) Taylor v. State, 625 So.2d 911, 912(Fla. 2nd DCA 1993);
11) State v. Taylor, 648 So.2d 701, 703-05(Fla. 1995).
Federal:
1) United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544(1980);
2) Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1(1968).
Result: State reduced the charge to reckless driving with adjudication withheld. Provided by: Fort Lauderdale Criminal Attorney Daniel Rosenberg
Motion to Suppress:

Download ( Suppress-Phase-II.pdf, PDF, 315KB)

Sleeping in Legally Parked Car | Motion to Suppress

Motion to Suppress for Violation of 4th Amendment Rights
Jurisdiction: County Court in and for Broward County
Issues: Was the Sheriff’s Deputy permitted to physically open the door to defendant’s vehicle when he located defendant sleeping inside his vehicle in a townhouse parking lot?
Major Case(s):
Federal: 1) United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544(1980); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1(1968);
2) Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1(1968);
3) Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (1988);
State: 1) Brye v. State of Florida, 927 So.2d 78, 81(Fla. 1st DCA 2006);
2) Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185, 186(Fla. 1993);
3) Horton v. State, 660 So.2d 755, 756 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1995);
4) State v. Ecker, 550 So.2d 545 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1989);
5. Danielewicz v. State, 730 So.2d 363, 364 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1999);
Result: Trial court denied Motion to Suppress ruling that the officer was acting within his role as a community caretaker and checking on the welfare of a citizen. It should be noted that the Deputy testified that the incident took place in a “high crime” area. In reality, the neighborhood where this incident took place was my neighborhood which was located in a country club community on a golf course. Life is rough in the hood. You never know when public people will creep onto your private golf course.

Download ( Motion-to-Suppress.pdf, PDF, 204KB)

 

Language Barrier | 1964 Civil Rights Act

Motion to Suppress Roadsides, Statements, Observations and Physical Evidence
Jurisdiction: District Court, Wake County, North Carolina
Location of Stop: Wake Forrest North Carolina
Issues: Did the officer violate the defendant’s civil rights by not providing an interpreter for any stage of the DUI arrest process when the defendant spoke no English and the officer spoke, essentially, no Spanish.
Major Case(s):
State: 1) Wisconsin v. Begicevic, 2004 WI App 57(persuasive only)
Legislation: Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
Result: Motion to suppress denied.(Update:  Recent Case Law out of Florida Granting Essentially the Same Motion)
Motion to Suppress:

Download ( No-Comprende.pdf, PDF, 7.43MB)