Suppression
This sample motion argues for special discovery and dismissal and/or suppression based on a claim of selective prosecution in a jaywalking case. Highlighting local police data on racial disparities in jaywalking-related stops, this motion argues that police conduct had a discriminatory effect on Black youth in Cincinnati, in violation of their state and federal equal…
The Delaware Family Court granted a youth’s suppression motion, finding that age and race must be considered when determining whether a seizure has occurred under the Fourth Amendment. The court states in relevant part: “Children are not adults. In J.D.B. v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court decided that children should not be treated like adults for the purposes of…
The Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed a defendant’s motion to suppress involving an anonymous tip saying they saw a person who had waved a gun. The court stated in relevant part: “Here, the motion judge found that the anonymous witness’s basis of knowledge was adequately established because the witness saw the person with the firearm…
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey heard two Motions to Dismiss filed by the Plainfield Public School District, Board of Education, and others, stemming out of a lawsuit filed by fifteen-year-old I.A.’s parents after the detention, search, arrest and prosecution of I.A., by Plainfield school officials and Plainfield Police Officers. In…
The New Jersey Supreme Court held the Family Part did not abuse its discretion when it decided to hear the State’s request for waiver motion before E.S.’s suppression motion. The court declined to adopt a bright line rule for the order in which a Family Part should hear waiver and suppression motions but instead provided…
The Washington Supreme Court ruled the trial court was required to consider an accused person’s race and ethnicity in the totality of the circumstances when determining whether a person was “seized” in Washington state constitution’s prohibition against unlawful seizure. The court offered the following language in support: As noted above, the article I, section 7…
The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division reversed the guilty plea and conviction of Mr. Thorne after the court denied his motion to suppress, finding that the arresting officers lacked requisite reasonable suspicion to stop him. The Court, citing several inconsistencies in the radio description of the assailant compared to Mr. Thorne, offered the following language in support: “The officers did not have reasonable…
The D.C. Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Miles’s convictions after concluding the police lacked reasonable suspicion to subject him to a Terry stop. Distinguishing the case from Wardlow v. Illinois, the Court found the anonymous tip and the circumstances around Mr. Miles’ flight from the police were not indicative of criminal activity and offered the following language in support: “While Wardlow is not directly controlling here, the case…
The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division reversed the judgement and conviction, vacated the plea, and granted the motion to suppress all evidence after finding the police lacked an objective, credible reason to justify an initial approach and request for information. The court, citing a lack of evidence to support the police encounter, offered the following language in support: “In evaluating police conduct, a court “must determine whether the action taken was justified…
In New Mexico v. Antonio T., the Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled any statements elicited by a school official in the presence of a law enforcement officer may not be used against the child in a delinquency proceeding unless the child made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his statutory right to remain…
A practice guide for youth defenders in delinquency cases when litigating suppression issues. This guide covers all aspects of litigating a suppression motion: from drafting the motion, securing witnesses, evidentiary considerations, appellate preservation, and procedural aspects of the suppression hearing that may arise at the suppression hearing, during trial. and on appeal.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it found a 16-year old youth’s consent to a warrantless blood draw was involuntary and granted his motion to suppress. The court offered the following language in support: “We hold now that, independent of § 28-1321, the Fourth Amendment requires an…
This amicus brief by the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, Vanderbilt Professor of Law and Medicine Terry A. Maroney, The Gault Center, and others. Amici argue a 16-year-old youth’s waiver of his Miranda rights was involuntary and his confession must be suppressed pursuant to the 5th and 14th Amendments, where he was threatened during…
This amicus brief by Juvenile Law Center and others argues young people are different for purposes of the Miranda custody analysis and the Supreme Court should afford young people Constitutional protections in light of Supreme Court jurisprudence on interrogations and recently under the 8th Amendment as well as social science research about the particular vulnerability…
The U.S. Supreme Court held the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to searches by school officials and is not limited to searches carried out by law enforcement officers. The Court reasoned that children in school have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that searches must be reasonably justified at inception and in its scope so as not to be excessively intrusive given a child’s age,…
