Suppression Motion Issue Spotter
After initial discovery review and before the motion deadline, when you need a structured inventory of every possible suppression issue in a stop, search, seizure or interrogation.
Suppression is often the most consequential motion in a criminal case, and the best issue is not always the obvious one. An encounter that looks like a single traffic stop can contain a separate detention question, a consent that exceeded its scope, a phone search, and a statement taken after an ambiguous invocation. Missing one stage can mean missing the motion, and court rules or scheduling orders often set suppression deadlines well before trial.
The prompt forces a stage-by-stage walk through the encounter, from first contact to derivative evidence, and asks for the facts for and against suppression at each step, with quotes from the source. It deliberately leaves the legal standard as a [CONTROLLING CASE LAW] placeholder so the analysis stays on the facts and the attorney supplies the law from verified research. A facts-still-needed column turns the output into an investigation plan as well as an issue list.
Claude does not know your jurisdiction's current case law, and the prompt tells it not to cite any. Suppression doctrine varies between federal and state courts and changes with new appellate decisions, so the attorney must research every standard and confirm every authority before it goes in a motion. The ranking reflects only the facts provided and is a draft for professional judgment, not an assessment of the likely ruling.
The Prompt
I represent the defendant in [CASE NAME / CHARGES] in [JURISDICTION, STATE OR FEDERAL]. I want to identify every potential suppression issue before deciding which motions to file. The facts come from the sources below. <facts> [PASTE POLICE REPORT, BODY-CAM TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS, WARRANT AND AFFIDAVIT IF ANY, CLIENT ACCOUNT, AND ANY CONFLICT TABLE ALREADY PREPARED] </facts> Walk the encounter stage by stage in this order: (1) initial contact, (2) detention or seizure, (3) frisk or search of person, (4) search of vehicle, home, phone or other property and its scope, (5) consent, (6) warrant and supporting affidavit, (7) arrest, (8) statements and interrogation, including custody, warnings and invocation, (9) identification procedures, (10) derivative evidence. For each stage, output: - What happened, with quotes from the source and its label - Potential issue (Fourth or Fifth Amendment, or [STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION] if it may give broader protection) - Facts supporting suppression - Facts against suppression - Facts still needed, and where to get them - Governing standard: [CONTROLLING CASE LAW], left as a placeholder for me to research Then rank the issues from strongest to weakest with one sentence of reasoning each, and flag standing questions (whose car, phone or home it was). Rules: Do not cite any case, statute or rule by name. Do not decide disputed facts; when sources conflict, show both versions. If a stage did not occur, say so in one line. This is a draft for my review, and I will research and verify all authority myself.
Example Output
A stage-by-stage issue list with quoted facts for and against suppression, facts still needed, placeholder authority slots, and a ranked shortlist of the strongest issues.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
SUPPRESSION ISSUE INVENTORY State v. Dana Whitlock (fictional) | Possession with intent | [JURISDICTION] STAGE 2: DETENTION What happened: Report p. 2: "I advised the driver to wait while I called for a K-9 unit." Body-cam 00:14:30: citation already printed. Potential issue: Fourth Amendment, prolonged detention beyond the traffic mission. For suppression: Citation complete at 00:14:30; K-9 arrives at 00:31:10 (Report p. 3). Against: Report cites "nervous behavior and conflicting travel plans" before the citation printed. Facts needed: Exact time the citation was completed (citation record metadata); K-9 request time (CAD). Standard: [CONTROLLING CASE LAW] STAGE 5: CONSENT What happened: Report: "Driver consented to a search of the vehicle." Body-cam: no audible consent; officer says "you don't mind if I look, right?" at 00:15:02. Potential issue: Voluntariness and whether a question was answered at all. For: No audible response; client says she said nothing (client account). Against: Officer may claim nonverbal consent; passenger view not yet obtained. Facts needed: Second camera angle; passenger interview. Standard: [CONTROLLING CASE LAW] STAGE 8: STATEMENTS What happened: Body-cam 00:33:40, client in rear of patrol car: "Is that mine? I don't want to talk about that." Officer continues questioning. Potential issue: Fifth Amendment, custody and possible invocation. For: Client in the patrol car; statement reads as a refusal to talk; questioning continues. Against: Prosecution may call the statement ambiguous; custody facts not yet developed. Facts needed: Whether warnings were given (none appear in the transcript); whether client was handcuffed or told she could leave. Standard: [CONTROLLING CASE LAW] (Stages 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 omitted from this excerpt.) RANKING 1. Prolonged detention: strong timing record from the citation and CAD. 2. Statements after possible invocation: depends on custody facts. 3. Consent: turns on footage review. STANDING: Vehicle registered to client's sister; confirm client's use and permission. Draft for attorney review. No authority supplied; research and verify before filing.
Tips
- •Paste the conflict table from the inconsistency finder into the facts block; contradictions about timing and consent often drive the strongest issues.
- •Include the warrant and affidavit verbatim if there is one, so Claude can compare what the affidavit asserted against what discovery shows.
- •Keep the [CONTROLLING CASE LAW] placeholders and fill them from your own research; do not ask Claude to supply citations in this pass.
- •Ask a follow-up for the client interview questions that would fill the 'facts still needed' column, especially on standing.
- •Treat the ranking as a starting point for strategy discussion, not a prediction of how the court will rule.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does the prompt tell Claude not to cite any cases?
Suppression law is jurisdiction-specific and evolves quickly, and AI models can produce citations that look real but are wrong or nonexistent. Keeping authority as a placeholder separates the factual analysis, which Claude does well, from the legal research, which must come from a verified source. Fill the placeholders from your own research and cite-check everything before filing.
Does this work for state constitutional claims?
Yes, if you name the state provision in the placeholder. Some state constitutions have been read to give broader protection than the federal constitution in certain areas, so the prompt asks Claude to flag where that may matter. Whether your state does so on a given issue is a research question for you, not something Claude should assert.
What should I put in the facts block?
Everything that describes the encounter: the report and supplements, transcripts of all available footage, any warrant and affidavit, CAD or dispatch records, and your client's account. Label each source. If you have already run the inconsistency finder, paste its table too, because conflicts between sources often define the best suppression issues.
Can I use the output directly as my motion?
No. It is an issue inventory to help you decide which motions to file and what to investigate. Use it to build an outline with the motion brief outliner, then write the motion yourself with researched, verified authority. Check local rules for suppression deadlines and any required evidentiary hearing request.
Related Prompts
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.