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

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. Quiroz, 57 F. Supp.2d 805, 822-23 (D. Minn. 1999) (“boilerplate motion” to suppress statements denied due to failure to satisfy specificity requirement). Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution, we proceed with addressing the merits of the Defendant’s Motion by considering the probable cause detailed in the Warrant’s supporting papers, and by examining for any other fatal deficiencies in the Warrant. See, United States v. Edwards, supra at 995. As we detail below, no basis to suppress the evidence obtained by the warranted search and seizure has been established, and therefore, we recommend that Jones’ Motion to Suppress be denied.

Defendant failed to show that the SW was issued without probable cause. The reference in the motion to timeliness was apparently boilerplate, and it was rejected as well. United States v. Brooks, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98921 (E.D. Tenn. November 29, 2007).*

SW for a particular room in a motel was constitutionally sufficient. [Why argue this?] United States v. Patterson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98923 (N.D. Ga. June 27, 2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.