I received a motion to suppress yesterday that is extremely vague. It does not cite any particular law violation citation (i.e. us constitution, tx constitution, or any other tx law), nor does the motion refer to any particular issue/fact/evidence that should be suppressed.

I want to file a motion to quash this motion. I've found very limited case law on this topic. Does anyone have any case law or any other authority that could aid me in convincing the court that the defendant's motion is too vague?

Also, if you have a sample motion, I would love to look at it - joe.nash@co.cameron.tx.us

You do not file a motion to quash, you file special exceptions just like you'd do in a civil case. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 90 & 91. Use them for your guide.

You are right that the State has not appealed the granting of a motion to suppress on the basis of the specificity of the defendant's motion and thus there is no guidance. I think it is arguable that the court need not conduct any hearing on a deficient motion (effectively a quashal). After all, the motion is nothing other than an objection to the admissibility of evidence. Such objections are required to specifically direct the court to the applicable law (just as objections made at trial). See e.g., Porath, 148 S.W.3d at 413. If they don't, the objection may safely be summarily overruled. Good luck trying to get a hearing on your exceptions prior to the hearing on the motion itself.

Just recieved another overly broad motion to suppress. They are getting old and it would be nice to know what issues to research. The MTS simply alleges that the Constitutions of Texas and the US were violated. I have no idea how many seperate violations will be alleged during the hearing.

Has anyone had any luck in challenging these since the OP?

I took a case up on a State's appeal to the 10th on this issue. They basically punted and based on their ruling I cannot quite comprehend any circumstances under which they would say that a trial court abused its discretion in hearing a MTS. They did, however indicate that the remedy is to ask for a continuance at the time of the motion, claiming surprise and inability to prepare. Now, that doesn't help to actually resolve the problem, which is that you don't know HOW to prepare in the first place!

http://www.10thcoa.courts.stat....asp?OpinionId=11035

Welcome to the wonderful world of defense motions. You know depending on your case facts the defense is going to argue:
1. no pc for stop
2. detention to long for no permissble reason
3. no consent or pc to search that obtained evidence they want to hide from jury..
4. warrant pc no good or other warrant deficiency
5. defendant statements coerced
6. defendant's incriminating statements while in custody should be kept out because not recorded, no miranda, etc...

Look at your case and ask what would you argue if you were the defense. My experience is even if they are specific in their motion to suppress but decide to argue something else or additional at hearing they will be allowed. Anyway, that helps protect your conviction on appeal if you get one. Good luck.

I have filed a response or two to boilerplate, overbroad defense MTSs using language from Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677 and Swain v. State, 181 S.W.3d 359. Both are CCA opinions and make some good points.

I have also quoted Judge Holcomb's dissent in Torres v. State, 182 S.W.3d 899, which discusses this issue.

The remedy I've sought is to have the defense attorney state with more particularity what it is he's trying to suppress, and why - so that the State can more adequately prepare to respond to the MTS. Ultimately it depends on the demeanor of the judge and what he thinks of motions of that sort in the first place.