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):<\/p>\n
In the current motion, Defendant Torres does not present any additional evidence\u2014aside from boilerplate allegations\u2014in support of suppression. \u201cIt is well established that the burdens of production and persuasion generally rest upon the movant in a suppression hearing.\u201d United States v. Starks, 193 F.R.D. 624, 629 (D. Minn. 2000) (quoting United States v. de la Fuente<\/a>, 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<\/a>, 540 F.2d 319, 325 (8th Cir. 1976) (stating that the ultimate burden of proof is on the defendant who seeks to suppress evidence). \u201cAt a minimum, it is defendant\u2019s burden to come forth with some evidence and argument to support his position that evidence … should be suppressed.\u201d 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) (\u201c[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.\u201d). And \u201c[f]ailure to provide the Court with any support for the motion is a sufficient basis for denial of the motion.\u201d Rosetter, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132393, 2010 WL 5184991, at *23. Defendant Torres has not met his burden.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading