CAUSE NO._________

STATE OF TEXAS				§	IN THE___________ COURT OF
						§
V.						§	_____________COUNTY, TEXAS	§
						§
[DEFENDANT]				§	______TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

MOTION TO SUPPRESS ILLEGALLY SEIZED EVIDENCE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

	COMES NOW __________________, Defendant in the above-styled and numbered cause, and files this motion to suppress certain evidence that was obtained illegally and for cause would show the court the following:
I.
	The Defendant moves the Court to suppress the following evidence:

	A.	All tangible evidence seized on or about [date], from the Defendant at, [the residence at ____________________________ or the business establishment located at ____________________ or the motor vehicle] owned or occupied by the Defendant, including, but not limited to_______________________ [list each item sought to be suppressed].

	B.	All statements made, whether oral or written, and such other actions of the Defendant, if any, at the time of and subsequent to the [stop, arrest and search of the Defendant and/or search of the residence occupied by the Defendant].

	C.	The Defendants refusal to submit a specimen of his breath or blood for analysis OR The result of the analysis of a specimen of the Defendant’s breath or blood.

	D.	Testimony of law enforcement officers, or their agents and all other persons working in connection with such officers and agents, and all persons present at or near the location of the arrest and search of the Defendant and the search of the residence occupied by the Defendant in regard to any of the statements or evidence acquired or objects seized as set forth in paragraphs A, B and C above.

II.
	As grounds for this Motion the Defendant would show the Court the following:

	A.	The stop and/or detention of the Defendant [and the Defendant's automobile] was without probable cause or reasonable suspicion in violation of the 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article 1, §§ 9, 10 & 19 of the Texas Constitution.  Woods v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Viveros v. State, 828 S.W.2d 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Amores v. State, 816 S.W.2d 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

	B.	The arrest and search of the Defendant and the search of the [vehicle the Defendant is alleged to have driven,] [residence of the Defendant,] was without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, and Article 1, §§ 9, 10, and 19 of the Constitution of the State of Texas.

	C.	All statements made by the Defendant and items seized at the time of and subsequent to the arrest and search of the Defendant and the search of [the vehicle where the Defendant was arrested] [residence of the Defendant] were products of the illegal arrest and search of the Defendant and the search of the vehicle where the Defendant was arrested.  Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963); 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, Art. I, § 10 of the Texas State Constitution; Tex Code Crim. Proc. arts. 38.21, 38.22, and 38.23.

	D.	The stop, arrest and search of the Defendant and the search of [the vehicle which the Defendant is alleged to have driven,] [residence of the Defendant] was without a warrant and without any authority whatsoever.  No person witnessed the Defendant commit an offense.  The Defendant was not found in a suspicious place under suspicious circumstances which would reasonably show that he had been guilty of a felony offense or a breach of the peace or was about to commit some offense against the law.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 14.01, et seq., Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 15.01, et seq.; Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975); Article 1, § 9 of the Texas State Constitution.

	E.	Any statement made by the Defendant was not made freely nor voluntarily but was given as a result of compulsion and/or persuasion.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.23; 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution; Article I, § 10 of the Texas State Constitution; Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964); Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

	F.	Any oral statements made by the Defendant were not made and preserved in compliance with the requirements of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22.

	G.	That the peace officer who requested that the Defendant submit a specimen of his breath 
or blood for analysis did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the Defendant had been driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while he was intoxicated. Tex. Trans. Code §§ 524.035 and 724.042.

	H.	The methodology employed by the State’s witness as to the administration and interpretation of field sobriety tests is not reliable and the scientific theory underlying the veracity of such field sobriety tests is not reliable and therefore the testimony is not relevant to the issue before the court. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999); Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Hartman v. State, 946 S.W.2d 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998). 

	I.	Evidence seized in violation of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas or the United States is not admissible against the accused.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.23; Article 1, § 9 of the Texas Constitution; 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

	J.	The Defendant's motor vehicle was stopped at a roadblock operated by the __________ Department that had multiple purposes, including checking the driver's licenses and the sobriety of the drivers.  The roadblock violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 9 of the Texas Constitution.  See Webb v. State, 739 S.W.2d 802, 811-12 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Meeks v. State, 692 S.W.2d 504, 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). [STATE BRIEFLY WHAT VIOLATIONS OCCURRED / SPECIFY HOW THE 4TH AMENDMENT AND MEEKS/WEBB WERE VIOLATED].

	K.	And for such other and further reasons as may appear or be urged upon hearing in this cause.

	WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Defendant prays that upon hearing, that his Motion be in all things granted.

						Respectfully Submitted,

						____________________________________
						Attorney Name
						State Bar Number
						Address
						City, State, Zip
						Phone 
						Fax

						ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

	This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress Illegally Seized Evidence was served upon the attorney for the State on ________________, 
200___.

							__________________________________
							Attorney for Defendant

CAUSE NO._________

STATE OF TEXAS				§	IN THE___________ COURT OF
						§
V.						§	_____________COUNTY, TEXAS	§
						§
[DEFENDANT]				§	______TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS - ILLEGALITY OF SEIZED EVIDENCE

	On this the _____ day of ____________________, 200___, came on to be heard the 
Defendant's Motion To Suppress Illegally Seized Evidence and after considering the evidence and argument of counsel, the motion is hereby:

			GRANTED as to paragraphs ________________________________.

			DENIED as to paragraphs ____________________________.

	SIGNED and ENTERED this _____ day of ____________________, 200___.

					____________________________________
					JUDGE PRESIDING