M.D.Pa.: Motion to suppress denied without prejudice for failure to plead any facts or law or brief the issue with cases

Motion to suppress denied without prejudice for failing to cite facts or authority or provide a cogent argument. United States v. Guerrier, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14405 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2017):

m. 1. I must note at the outset the poor quality of Defendant’s brief and motions. Not only does the brief fail to include “a procedural history of the case, a statement of facts, [and] a statement of questions involved,” as required by Local Rule 7.8, it also fails to include “a certification by counsel for the movant that he or she has sought concurrence in the motion from each party,” as required by Local Rule 7.1. The motions also fail to include a “a form of order which, if entered by the court, would grant the relief sought in the motion,” as required by the same Local Rule. Moreover, even though “allegations of fact are relied upon in support of [Defendant’s] motion[s],” counsel fails to file “all pertinent affidavits, transcripts, and other documents” with the motion, as required by Local Rule 7.3. Further, even though Local Rule 7.8 states that “[a] brief may address only one motion,” Defendant’s brief addresses nine. Finally, and most importantly, Defendant’s brief does not “contain complete citations of all authorities relied upon,” as required by Local Rule 7.8. Not only does counsel for Defendant fail to properly cite to sections of the cases he relies on by using pincites, he habitually fails to refer to any legal authority at all. Counsel for Defendant would be well advised to familiarize himself with, and follow, our Local Rules and applicable legal writing standards before filing any other documents in this Court.

________

V. Motions to “Suppress Illegally Obtained Statement/Confession” and to “Suppress Evidence Intentionally Seized Pursuant to a Search Warrant Based Upon an Affidavit Which on Its Face Failed to Establish Probable Cause”

Defendant asserts that “he was arrested without probable cause” and “any alleged statements of the Defendant are the product of an illegal detention following an illegal warrantless arrest.” (Doc. 38, at 9). He also argues that the “physical evidence in this case was seized by the investigating police officers … pursuant to the execution of an arrest warrant” which “fails to establish probable cause.” (Id. at 14).

In light of the fact that Defendant fails to specify which statements he is seeking to suppress and the insufficiency of Defendant’s explanation for why the arrest warrant lacks probable cause, I am unable to properly consider these motions. Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is complicated and voluminous, and Defendant’s counsel, by, yet again, not citing to a single case, fails to properly put forward legally supported arguments. The issue of whether suppression of evidence is appropriate, or whether any statements were elicited in violation of applicable constitutional laws is a complex one, and Defendant’s conclusory arguments and incomplete analysis of this complex problem is inadequate.

Thus, in order to preserve Defendant’s constitutional rights, I will dismiss the motions and permit Defendant to refile them to properly, and exhaustively, put forward his arguments, paying attention to Local Rules, precedent, citation standards, proper legal analysis, and avoidance of conclusory averments.