D.Minn.: Boilerplate suppression motion denied

Boilerplate suppression motion should be denied for that reason alone. United States v. Torres, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81117 (D. Minn. July 7, 2011):

In the current motion, Defendant Torres does not present any additional evidence—aside from boilerplate allegations—in support of suppression. “It is well established that the burdens of production and persuasion generally rest upon the movant in a suppression hearing.” United States v. Starks, 193 F.R.D. 624, 629 (D. Minn. 2000) (quoting United States v. de la Fuente, 548 F.2d 528, 533 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 932, 97 S. Ct. 2640, 53 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1977)); see also United States v. Phillips, 540 F.2d 319, 325 (8th Cir. 1976) (stating that the ultimate burden of proof is on the defendant who seeks to suppress evidence). “At a minimum, it is defendant’s burden to come forth with some evidence and argument to support his position that evidence … should be suppressed.” United States v. Rosetter, Crim. No. 10-83 (JNE/JSM), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132393, 2010 WL 5184991, at *23 (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2010) (citing Starks, 193 F.R.D. at 629) (“[E]ven in those circumstances where the Government has the ultimate burden of persuasion, Defendant has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing of illegality.”). And “[f]ailure to provide the Court with any support for the motion is a sufficient basis for denial of the motion.” Rosetter, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132393, 2010 WL 5184991, at *23. Defendant Torres has not met his burden.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.