{"id":10339,"date":"2014-02-07T09:21:25","date_gmt":"2014-02-07T09:17:57","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2014-05-02T06:00:48","modified_gmt":"2014-05-02T11:00:48","slug":"en-us-43","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=10339","title":{"rendered":"FL4: A general motion to suppress a search raises nothing"},"content":{"rendered":"

A general motion to suppress a search doesn\u2019t raise anything and didn\u2019t put state on notice. State v. Christmas<\/a>, 133 So. 3d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014):
\n<\/p>\n

A defendant seeking to suppress evidence must clearly state the reasons why suppression is proper. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(g)(2) provides that “[e]very motion to suppress evidence shall state clearly the particular evidence sought to be suppressed, the reasons for suppression, and a general statement of the facts on which the motion is based.”<\/p>\n

In this case, the defendant’s written motion to suppress failed to provide the state notice that Christmas sought to make the reliability of the dog an issue to be argued before the trial court. Christmas’s motion raised issues relating to the legality of the initial traffic stop, the detention of Christmas before the dog sniff occurred, and issues relating to police questioning of Christmas. While the motion mentioned the dog, it made no allegations relating to the dog’s training or reliability. The portions of the motion relied on by the trial court, paragraphs fourteen and eighteen, merely stated the search was performed “illegally” and “improperly and unlawfully.”<\/p>\n

Much too frequently, we observe that in motions to suppress brought pursuant to 3.190, practitioners imprudently utilize the catch-all phrase: “Other grounds to be argued ore tenus.” The use of these words in the context of a 3.190 motion to suppress is meaningless because it is the antithesis of the specificity required by the rule and serves no useful purpose. Without more, the movant is prohibited from relying upon the phrase as one of the “clear” reasons for seeking suppression. Certainly the trial court and the state are not required to engage in a game of “20 questions” to decipher its intended meaning. The phrase has no legitimate place in 3.190 jurisprudence and is a legal misnomer.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10339","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10339"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10339\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11382,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10339\/revisions\/11382"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}