E.D.Tenn.: It is not defendant’s burden in a warrantless search to anticipate in the motion to suppress all the justifications the police may have for it

It is not defendant’s burden in a warrantless search to anticipate in the motion to suppress all the justifications the police may have for the search. It’s the government’s burden to plead and prove an exception. Here, they showed probable cause for a stop and search of the defendant based on the car and his description, including shoulder length dreads. United States v. Jackson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97143 (E.D.Tenn. June 12, 2015):

The above authorities demonstrate it is not the defendant’s burden in his motion to suppress to anticipate and discuss why every possible exception which might have been available to police does not apply to justify a warrantless seizure. It is the government’s burden to justify a warrantless seizure — an appropriate burden since it is the government that represents the police who made the search and seizure, and the defendant cannot read the minds of the police. Thus, in this instance, the undersigned concluded it was appropriate to have the government brief in its entirety the alleged constitutional basis for seizure of the tennis shoes, not just the validity of the vehicle stop, though the defendant had focused in his initial motion to suppress on the constitutional basis for stopping the car. As will be discussed, even if the car was stopped legally on the basis of reasonable suspicion, that alone will not justify the warrantless seizure of the shoes. Simply put, it is not the defendant’s burden to guess and then discredit the warrant exception(s) police might have relied upon to seize the shoes without a warrant after the car was stopped.