Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Fourth Amendment

Criminal Law

: Fourth Amendment

D.Minn.: Boilerplate motion to suppress should be denied for that reason alone

By John Wesley Hall, Jr.

Boilerplate motion to suppress should be denied for failing to specify what was illegally seized and how. This search was by search warrant and it was presumptively valid. United States v. Jones, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112286 (D. Minn. October 30, 2009): Moreover, the Defendant has not identified the evidence, that was secured by the Search Warrant, should be suppressed, nor has he offered any factual or legal grounds for suppression. Having so failed to satisfy his burden of production, we recommend denying his Motion to Suppress on that basis alone. See, e.g., United States v. Mims, 812 F.2d 1068, 1074 (8th Cir. 1987) (On a Motion to Suppress telephonic interceptions, the defendant's failure to "assert what may have been wrong with the interceptions, or in fact, even what interceptions that he [was] concerned with," justified the District Court's decision to deny the Motion without the conduct of an Evidentiary Hearing); see also, United States v...continue to full post

Full post as published by Fourth Amendment on December 06, 2009 (boomark / email).