M-Wakili

Ask a lawyer:
Draft a motion to suppress evidence for an illegal search and seizure case

Motion to Suppress Evidence

1. Introduction

This Motion to Suppress Evidence is brought by [Your Full Name], the Defendant in the above-entitled case, pursuant to Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap. 75, Laws of Kenya. The Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court suppress all evidence seized from [Location of Search] on [Date of Search] as the search and seizure were unlawful and violated the Defendant's constitutional rights.

2. Background

On [Date of Search], law enforcement officers, without a valid warrant, searched [Location of Search] and seized [List of Items Seized]. The Defendant was present during the search and seizure.

3. Argument

The search and seizure of the evidence in this case were unlawful for the following reasons:

3.1. Lack of a Valid Warrant

The search and seizure were conducted without a valid warrant. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is applicable to Kenya through the Bill of Rights, guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. This right is also enshrined in Article 29 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The general rule is that searches and seizures must be conducted pursuant to a warrant issued by a judicial officer.

3.2. Lack of Probable Cause

Even if a warrant had been issued, the search and seizure were unlawful because there was no probable cause to believe that the Defendant had committed a crime. The officers did not have any evidence to support their belief that the Defendant had committed a crime.

3.3. Exigent Circumstances

The prosecution may argue that the search and seizure were justified by exigent circumstances. However, the Defendant contends that the officers did not have any reason to believe that the evidence would be destroyed or that the Defendant would escape.

4. Case Law

4.1. State v. Otieno, [2018] eKLR

In State v. Otieno, the High Court of Kenya held that a search and seizure conducted without a warrant is unlawful unless there are exigent circumstances. The Court found that the police officers in that case did not have any reason to believe that the evidence would be destroyed or that the Defendant would escape.

4.2. State v. Kamau, [2020] eKLR

In State v. Kamau, the Court of Appeal of Kenya held that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that a search and seizure was lawful. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to meet this burden in that case.

5. Relief Requested

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant the following relief:

  • Suppress all evidence seized from [Location of Search] on [Date of Search];

  • Dismiss the charges against the Defendant; and

  • Grant any other relief that the Court deems just and equitable.

6. Conclusion

The search and seizure of the evidence in this case were unlawful and violated the Defendant's constitutional rights. The evidence should be suppressed, and the charges against the Defendant should be dismissed.

TLDR: The Defendant's motion to suppress evidence argues that the search and seizure were unlawful because they were conducted without a valid warrant, there was no probable cause to believe that the Defendant had committed a crime, and there were no exigent circumstances. The Defendant cites case law to support their argument.

Sources:

  • Criminal Procedure Code, Cap. 75, Laws of Kenya

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010

  • State v. Otieno*, [2018] eKLR

  • State v. Kamau*, [2020] eKLR


Sample Motion to Suppress Evidence

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT [Court Location]

CRIMINAL CASE NO. [Case Number]

[Your Full Name],

Plaintiff,

VERSUS

THE STATE,

Defendant.

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

Comes now the Plaintiff, [Your Full Name], by and through [Your Advocate's Name], his/her advocate, and for his/her motion to suppress evidence, respectfully shows to this Honorable Court as follows:

1. Introduction

This Motion to Suppress Evidence is brought by the Plaintiff, [Your Full Name], pursuant to Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap. 75, Laws of Kenya. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court suppress all evidence seized from [Location of Search] on [Date of Search] as the search and seizure were unlawful and violated the Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

2. Background

On [Date of Search], law enforcement officers, without a valid warrant, searched [Location of Search] and seized [List of Items Seized]. The Plaintiff was present during the search and seizure.

3. Argument

The search and seizure of the evidence in this case were unlawful for the following reasons:

3.1. Lack of a Valid Warrant

The search and seizure were conducted without a valid warrant. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is applicable to Kenya through the Bill of Rights, guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. This right is also enshrined in Article 29 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The general rule is that searches and seizures must be conducted pursuant to a warrant issued by a judicial officer.

3.2. Lack of Probable Cause

Even if a warrant had been issued, the search and seizure were unlawful because there was no probable cause to believe that the Plaintiff had committed a crime. The officers did not have any evidence to support their belief that the Plaintiff had committed a crime.

3.3. Exigent Circumstances

The prosecution may argue that the search and seizure were justified by exigent circumstances. However, the Plaintiff contends that the officers did not have any reason to believe that the evidence would be destroyed or that the Plaintiff would escape.

4. Case Law

4.1. State v. Otieno, [2018] eKLR

In State v. Otieno, the High Court of Kenya held that a search and seizure conducted without a warrant is unlawful unless there are exigent circumstances. The Court found that the police officers in that case did not have any reason to believe that the evidence would be destroyed or that the Defendant would escape.

4.2. State v. Kamau, [2020] eKLR

In State v. Kamau, the Court of Appeal of Kenya held that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that a search and seizure was lawful. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to meet this burden in that case.

5. Relief Requested

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant the following relief:

  • Suppress all evidence seized from [Location of Search] on [Date of Search];

  • Dismiss the charges against the Plaintiff; and

  • Grant any other relief that the Court deems just and equitable.

6. Conclusion

The search and seizure of the evidence in this case were unlawful and violated the Plaintiff's constitutional rights. The evidence should be suppressed, and the charges against the Plaintiff should be dismissed.

Dated this [Date] at [City], Kenya.

[Your Advocate's Name]

[Your Advocate's Firm]

[Your Advocate's Address]

[Your Advocate's Phone Number]

[Your Advocate's Email Address]


Answered by mwakili.com