S.D.Ga.: General motion to suppress inadequate and denied

Defendant’s motion merely alleging he was subjected to a warrantless search is too general to mean a thing. United States v. Bostic, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115636 (S.D.Ga. Aug. 29, 2016):

The chief problem with Bostic’s motion is not that he fails to offer evidentiary support for his asserted facts, as the Local Rules require, but rather that he fails to allege any facts establishing a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. “‘A motion to suppress must in every critical respect be sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural to enable the Court to conclude that a substantial claim is presented. … A court need not act upon general or conclusory assertions ….'” United States v. Cooper, 203 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Richardson, 764 F.2d 1514, 1527 (11th Cir. 1985)) (emphasis added). A defendant is not entitled to a hearing on his suppression motion unless he “allege[s] facts that, if proved, would require the grant of relief.” Richardson, 764 F.2d at 1527 (emphasis added). It is not, sufficient, for defendants to “‘promise’ to prove at the evidentiary hearing what they did not specifically allege in their motion to suppress.” Cooper, 203 F.3d at 1285.

Bostic’s motion falls well short of this standard. The only facts asserted in his motion are that the police warrantlessly seized him and his vehicle, “removed” him from that vehicle, executed the warrantless search of the vehicle after he was handcuffed and placed in the back of the patrol car, and then seized the pistol that forms the basis of his prosecution. Doc. 23 at §§ 1, 7. Of course, the mere assertion that police conducted a warrantless seizure and search of Bostic and his vehicle does not show that his rights were in any way violated or that he is entitled to the suppression of evidence. Legions of cases have upheld warrantless searches and seizures as “reasonable” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Simply alleging that a search or seizure was “warrantless,” therefore, does not establish its constitutional invalidity.