Now comes the Defendant, «defendant», by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Ohio Crim.R.12(C)(3), for an oral hearing and an order suppressing any and all evidence which the state may seek to introduce at trial in the above captioned matter on the grounds that said evidence is the fruit of an unconstitutional search and seizure in violation of the rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution. A memorandum in support is attached.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment states:
the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the person or thing to be seized.
Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution grants citizens identical protections.
The warrantless investigatory stop is a narrowly drawn exception to the probable-cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985). A police officer may perform an investigatory detention without running afoul of the Fourth Amendment only when the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968). Mere hunches by the police will not give rise to reasonable suspicion. Id.
The exclusionary rule, a judicially created doctrine, prevents the police who have acquired evidence as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation from submitting this tainted and illegally seized evidence in a court of law. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S. Ct. 1684; 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961). The main purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter government officials from benefiting from the violation of an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. Id. at 655-56.
The effect of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is to exclude not only evidence seized pursuant to a Fourth Amendment violation, but also to exclude all derivative evidence obtained as a result of that particular Fourth Amendment violation. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S. Ct. 407; 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1962). Evidence is also inadmissible under the exclusionary rule if the evidence is derived from information acquired in an illegal search and seizure. Id. at 487-88.
Here, the police lacked a reasonable articulable suspicion to make an investigatory stop of «lastname». «lastname» was detained solely for the purpose of determining «pronoun» identity. Because the police lacked probable cause and reasonable suspicion, any subsequent determination that an open warrant existed, and search of «pronoun» person incident to arrest on the open warrant were fruits of the unconstitutional detention. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests the Court to suppress the evidence in the above captioned case that he possessed __________ at the time of his detention.