W.D.Wash.: No evidentiary hearing on motion to suppress without a prima facie showing of some illegality

The defense does not get an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress without at least a preliminary showing that some illegality occurred in the search and seizure at issue. Here, defendant can’t show that except by speculation or that the challenged illegality even mattered, and the motion is denied. United States v. Bonds, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136469 (W.D. Wash. September 26, 2014)*:

Defendants wishing to suppress evidence have the initial burden, first of proving with “specific evidence” that an unlawful search occurred, and second, that the evidence they wish to suppress under the exclusionary rule or fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is the product of the unlawful search or seizure. As part of this second showing, the defendant must at least “establish[] a factual nexus between the illegality and the challenged evidence.” United States v. Kandik, 633 F.2d 1334, 1335 (9th Cir. 1980). After this point, the burden “shifts to the government to show that it acquired its evidence from an independent source.” Cella, 568 F.2d at 1284-85. See also United States v. Polizzi, 500 F.2d 856, 910 (9th Cir. 1974).