CA5: Failure to plead facts in motion to suppress that would justify relief doesn’t require a hearing

The district court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress without a hearing for failure to plead “facts that would justify relief.” United States v. Smith, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 32024 (5th Cir. Oct. 8, 2020):

But Smith’s motion was devoid of facts that would justify relief. Cf. Harrelson, 705 F.2d at 738. The motion quoted the Fourth Amendment and explained that “[e]vidence obtained as a result of an illegal search must be excluded.” But it failed to allege a sufficient factual basis for believing that any of the Government’s evidence was connected to any constitutional violation. Smith cited an expert report from his first trial showing activity on his phone. But his motion provided absolutely no factual link between that activity and any evidence introduced at trial. He complained that various “e-mail addresses and photographs” were seized in a pre-warrant search. But he provided no basis whatsoever for that contention. The motion simply replicated the same conclusory contentions that the district court heard and rejected in Smith I. The district court therefore did not err (much less abuse its discretion) in refusing to hold a hearing to explore Smith’s “mere speculation” and repetitive arguments.

Smith also claims the district court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing violated his right to counsel. Smith’s premise is sound, but his conclusion is not. Smith is quite right that the mandate of Smith I guaranteed him a right to a lawyer for his second trial. 895 F.3d at 422. But it does not follow that Smith had a concomitant right to a lawyered suppression hearing.