[Attorney Name], SBN [ ] Firm Name Firm Address City, State Zip Tel: Email: Attorney for Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF [COUNTY] THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, vs. [DEFENDANT’S NAME] Defendant CASE NO. [CASE NUMBER] MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE Trial Readiness: Current Trial Date: Case Filed: In Custody Since: Dept.: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on [DATE] at [TIME] or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, and in the above-designated department, [NAME OF DEFENDANT] (“Defendant”) will move this court for an order to exclude evidence based upon improper search and seizure. Dated: [DATE] __________________________ [Attorney Name], Attorney for Defendant POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF BAIL REDUCTION I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Introduction Defendant is charged with: • Count 1: [INSERT CHARGES] [INSERT FACTUIAL INFORMAITON] II. THE WARRANT WAS INSUFFICENT ON ITS FACE. Pen C § 1538.5. (a) (1) A defendant may move for the return of property or to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of a search or seizure on either of the following grounds: (A) The search or seizure without a warrant was unreasonable or (B) The search or seizure with a warrant was unreasonable because any of the following apply: (i) The warrant is insufficient on its face. In the present matter, the warrant was insufficient on its face as it lacked a proper signature. III. THE PROSECUTION BEARS THE BURDEN OF JUSTIFYING THE WARRANTLESS ACTIONS OF THE POLICE OFFICERS. When a person questions the lawfulness of a search or seizure, a prima facie case is established when it is shown that the search was undertaken without a warrant, and the burden then shifts to the prosecution to show justification for the search. Badillo v. Superior Court, (1956) 46 Cal.2d 269, 272. Once a person produces evidence to show the seizure was without a warrant, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the justification for the warrantless seizure. Wimberly v. Superior Court,(1976) 16 Cal.3d 557, 563, fn. 2; People v. Sedillo, (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 616, 623; Wilder v. Superior court, (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 90, 96. People v. Harvey, 156 Cal. App. 2d 516 (1958) and People v. Madden, 2 Cal. 3d 1017 (1970) require the Prosecution to bring forth witnesses when necessary to establish the basis for the conduct. Here the prosecution would necessarily have to justify the conduct by the Redwood City Police Department on September 9, 2019, as there were no other valid grounds for entry into the garage. IV. ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED AS FRUITS OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND/OR SEIZURE MUST BE SUPPRESSED. If the challenged police conduct is shown to be violative of the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule requires that all evidence obtained as a result of such conduct be suppressed. Such evidence includes not only what was seized in the course of the unlawful conduct itself – the so-called ‘primary’ evidence but also what was subsequently obtained through the information gained by the police in the course of such conduct – the so-called ‘derivative’ or ‘secondary’ evidence. Once the challenged police conduct is shown to be unlawful, the primary evidence is automatically subject to suppression. Secondary evidence, by contrast, is excluded only if it is ‘tainted’ by the unlawful conduct. (People v. Williams, 45 Cal.3d 1268 (1988)). In the case at hand, there were warrantless detentions and searches, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, outside any recognized exception. V. CONCLUSION The Defendant respectfully asks the Court to grant the Motion for Suppress pursuant to Penal Code Section 1538.5. Dated: [DATE] __________________________ [Attorney Name], Attorney for Defendant DECLARATION OF [ATTORNEY’S NAME] I, [ATTORNEY’S NAME] declare: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am a Certified Criminal Law Specialist. I am the attorney for the defendant in this matter. This matter is set for trial on April 13, 2020. 2. I represent [NAME OF DEFENDANT] (“Defendant”) who is accused of I declare the above under penalty of perjury except as to those matters based upon information and belief and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. Executed in Pleasant Hill, CA on March 24, 2022. [ATTORNEY’S NAME], SBN

English English Spanish Spanish