August 8, 2025 • 11 mins
In this motion to suppress, Bryan Kohberger’s defense team argues that law enforcement violated his constitutional rights during his December 2022 arrest by relying on a legally insufficient arrest warrant. The defense claims the Idaho arrest warrant had no legal authority in Pennsylvania, where Kohberger was apprehended, and that Pennsylvania authorities were required to obtain their own warrant to lawfully enter the home. Citing both Idaho and Pennsylvania law, the defense argues that the forced entry into the home without a Pennsylvania-issued warrant rendered the arrest unconstitutional. The motion also criticizes the heavily armed SWAT raid, despite federal surveillance showing Kohberger to be unarmed and nonviolent, and seeks suppression of any statements or evidence gathered during and after the arrest on Fourth Amendment grounds.
Furthermore, the defense alleges that the affidavit used to support the Idaho arrest warrant was flawed, asserting that it included information gathered through unconstitutional means — including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and invalid cellphone data — and that it omitted material facts necessary for a fair probable cause determination. They have requested a Franks hearing, which challenges the integrity of the affidavit by asserting that law enforcement either recklessly or intentionally excluded key information. They argue that once tainted or improperly gathered information is removed, the warrant lacks sufficient probable cause, and therefore all resulting evidence and statements must be excluded from trial. The motion frames the arrest as a product of procedural shortcuts and overreach, violating both state and federal constitutional protections.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Furthermore, the defense alleges that the affidavit used to support the Idaho arrest warrant was flawed, asserting that it included information gathered through unconstitutional means — including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and invalid cellphone data — and that it omitted material facts necessary for a fair probable cause determination. They have requested a Franks hearing, which challenges the integrity of the affidavit by asserting that law enforcement either recklessly or intentionally excluded key information. They argue that once tainted or improperly gathered information is removed, the warrant lacks sufficient probable cause, and therefore all resulting evidence and statements must be excluded from trial. The motion frames the arrest as a product of procedural shortcuts and overreach, violating both state and federal constitutional protections.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
this episode, we're going to get right back to the
court documents up in Moscow, and this time we're going
to take a look at Brian Colberger's motion to suppress
and memorandum and support of the arrest warrant. Case number
one twenty four DASH three one sixty sixty five, State
of Idaho, Plaintiff versus Brian C. Coberger. The defendant comes
(00:25):
now Brian C. Coburger, buying through his attorneys of record,
and hereby submits the following memorandum in support of his
contemporaneously filed motion for an order suppressing all evidence gathered
by law enforcement as a result of his arrest. Issues one,
This Court should apply Idaho's exclusionary rule and law to
this search. To affidavits submitted in support of the application
(00:48):
for the issued search warrant recklessly or intentionally omitted material information,
mister Colberger has filed a motion for a Frank's hearing,
and without repeating, incorporates that challenge to the search warrant. Three.
The affidavid submitted in support for the application for the
issued search warrant included information that must be excized. A
All information in the Affidavid was gathered because of law
(01:11):
enforcements on constitutional use of investigative genetic genealogy, and thus
nothing in the warrant should remain b Information about the
client's location taken from his phone must also be excised
due to being gathered from an invalid warrant. Facts due
to the haphazard way in which law enforcement, including the
Prosecutor's office, has kept in disclosed records in this matter,
(01:34):
the following is a rough statement of facts as best
the defense can tell. On December twenty eighth, twenty twenty two,
Trooper Larry of Pennsylvania State Police became aware of the
objective of arresting mister Coberger via Moscow Police Corporal Pain.
On December twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, at four forty
(01:54):
four pm Eastern Standard time, a magistrate in Pennsylvania issued
a search warrant for one nineteen Lamsden Drive, Chestnut Hill Township,
Monroe County, the home of mister Colberger's parents. On December
twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, at two twenty two pm,
the magistrate in this matter signed an arrest warrant for
mister Colberger in Leta County. The affid David for the
(02:17):
warrant was signed by Moscow Police Department Corporal Pain. The
basic facts Corporal Pain used to support the arrest or
discussed in detail in a separately filed motion pursuing to
Franks versus Delaware They're incorporated without repeating At two forty
three pm Pacific Standard time on December twenty ninth, twenty
twenty two, a criminal complaint and probable cause order were
(02:38):
filed in this matter. At ten pm Eastern Standard time,
Pennsylvania SWAT began preparations to arrest mister Coburger. Despite days
of constant FBI surveillance, Pennsylvania law enforcement did their own
surveillance starting at eleven fifteen pm, and despite the fact
that days of constant FBI surveillance showed mister Colberger was
(02:58):
unarmed and did to go for runs around his parents' neighborhood,
police decided that force free entering mister Colberger's parents' home
was the best option. On December thirtieth, twenty twenty two,
at one fourteen am, Pennsylvania SWAT rated mister Colberger's parents' home.
During the raid, law enforcement broke the door of the home,
held the entire family at gunpoint, and seized mister Coburger.
(03:21):
Mister Colberger made statements to his arresting officers. He was
transported to a police station in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, and made
statements during transport. At the station, mister Colberger was processed,
during which police collected information about his person. Finally, during
interrogation before requesting an attorney, mister Coburger made statements to
interrogators from the Idaho State Police and Moscow Police Department.
(03:45):
At four am Eastern Standard time on December thirtieth, twenty
twenty three, Pennsylvania State Police filed a criminal complaint against
mister Colberger. The argument one, this court should apply Idaho's
exclusionary rule and law to this search. The first question
this court must determine is whether there is a conflict
of laws in this matter, i e. Whether Idaho law
(04:07):
or Pennsylvania law controls the validity of the arrest warrant
for mister Coberger. Pennsylvania courts require a warrant for a
particular residence to go after a person police are aware
has an arrest warrant. Commonwealth versus Romero, twenty eighteen The
need for a warrant for a fugitive from another state
is codified in forty two Pennsylvania Code section nine one
(04:29):
two eight and nine one two nine. Without a governor's warrant,
an officer can get a judicial warrant to permit entry
into a home. Without either type of warrant, an officer
lacks this authority see forty two Pennsylvania Code, section nine
one three five. This understanding also comports with Payton versus
New York, nineteen eighty. State warrants have no extra territorial
(04:52):
effect state versus Bradley, one oh six, Idaho, nineteen eighty three.
The use of an out of state warrant is ipso facto,
a warrant less entry. Thus, law enforcement in Pennsylvania cannot
rely on the existence of the Idaho arrests warrant to
enter the home. Finally, it must be said that there
is very little daylight between the Idaho constitution and the
(05:12):
Pennsylvania constitution. Both apply exclusion to a failure to knock
and announce see State vers Roush ninety nine, Idaho, nineteen
seventy eight. If anything, Pennsylvania appears to have stricter warrant
requirements for particularity commonwealth. For as Grossman Pennsylvania, nineteen eighty
nine two, the affidavit submitted in support of the application
(05:34):
for the issue search warrant recklessly or intentionally omitted material information.
The Fourth Amendment states on ambiguously that no warrant shall
issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath of affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized Grow versus Ramirez, five forty,
(05:54):
two thousand and four, quoting US Constitution Amendment four. Probable
cause exists given all the circumstances set forth in the
affid David, there is a fair probability that contraband or
evidence of a crime will be found in a particular
place Illinois versus Gates, nineteen eighty three. Because the right
of a man to retreat into his own home and
there to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion stands at
(06:18):
the very core of the Fourth Amendment. Kilo versus Us
five thirty five, two thousand and one, quoting Silverman, United States,
three sixty five, nineteen sixty one. Courts have firmly established
the basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and
seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
(06:39):
For a search warrant to be valid, the judge issuing
the warrant must rely on an affid David or afid
David's sworn to before the judge, or by testimony under
oath and recorded that established the grounds for issuing the warrant.
Any discrepancy between the items for which there was probable
cause and their description in the search warrant requires suppression
(07:00):
criminal procedure and rights of accused Section eight eighty seven,
twenty twenty two. It's clear that the issuing magistrate himself,
if he is to fulfill the constitutionally mandated function of
interposing an independent intelligence between the law enforcement officer and
the citizen, must actually and in fact draw the inferences
from the evidence presented to him. It is for this
(07:23):
reason that the courts have insisted that the full facts
from which inferences might be drawn and information necessary to
determine the reliability be placed before the issuing magistrate. Finally,
a criminal defendant may challenge the veracity of an affidavit
used to obtain such a warrant upon a preliminary showing
of a warrants deficiency, The defendant must prove by a
(07:45):
preponderance of evidence that intentional or reckless falsehoods were included
in the warrant Affidavid and were material to the magistrate's
finding of probable cause, or that material exculpatory information was
deliberately or recklessly omitted. An omission of exculpatory facts is
material only if there is a substantial probability that the
(08:06):
omitted information been presented it would have altered the magistrate's
determination of probable cause. Whether an omission was intentional or
reckless might be inferred in part for the relative importance
of the information and its exculpatory power Idaho at forty eight,
nine eighty one at eleven fifty eight. The challenge pursuant
(08:27):
to this section of the motion is separately laid out
in mister Koberger's motion for hearing under Franks. The motion
and profit are incorporated but not repeated Herein three, the
affid David submitted in support of the application for the
issued search warrant included information that must be excised. Where
information in a warrant was obtained via a violation of
(08:48):
the Constitution. Idaho courts excised that information see State vers. Johnson,
nineteen eighty six, State Verse Bunting, two thousand and six,
State verse. Butterball, two thousand and two. A. All information
in the Affidavid was gathered because of law enforcements on
constitutional use of investigative genetic genealogy, and thus nothing in
(09:10):
the warrant should remain. Mister Kolberger has argued in a
separate motion that the genetic genealogy investigation in this matter
was done in violation of the Constitution. Additionally, he has
argued that there would be no investigation into him without
that original constitutional violation. It is not that the results
of the IgG sped up the investigation. Instead, they focused
(09:33):
the investigation on mister Colberger, a person whose only connection
to the case was his motor transportation and the shape
of his eyebrows, two identifications of little to no value,
as previously argued, as the Idaho Supreme Court has explained,
while the initial burden in showing a factual nexus between
(09:54):
illegality and the evidence, the state must show it would
have been discovered anyway. State versus Mawson, seventy one, twenty two,
the State cannot make this showing. Without IgG, there is
no case, no request for his phone record, surveillance of
his parents' home, no DNA taken from his garbage out front.
Because the IgG analysis is the origin of this matter,
(10:16):
everything in the affid David should be excised. B information
about the client's locations taken from his phone must also
be excised due to being gathered from an invalid warrant. Separately,
the information gathered via the warrant from mister Colberger's AT
and T account and the pen trap and trace device
warrant should be excised for the reasons set out in
(10:36):
the warrants conclusion. Mister Colberger requests this Court suppress all
evidence obtained by police be able to warrant that permitted
them to arrest mister Colberger. As explained above, law enforcement
failed to knock and announce before rating the home, and
the warrant lack probable cause is written given its heavy
reliance on conclusions reached by law enforcement without the details
(10:59):
necessary for the map registrate to draw its own conclusions,
and because the warrant omitted exculpatory information and information that
put into question the reliability of the facts upon which
it relies and finally, because the affid David relied on
evidence gained and violation of the Constitution, all in violation
of the Fourth Amendment and Article one, Section seventeen. This
(11:20):
document was dated November thirteenth, twenty twenty four, and it
was signed by Ann Taylor. All of the information that
goes with this episode, including my contact information, can be
found in the description box.
What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
this episode, we're going to get right back to the
court documents up in Moscow, and this time we're going
to take a look at Brian Colberger's motion to suppress
and memorandum and support of the arrest warrant. Case number
one twenty four DASH three one sixty sixty five, State
of Idaho, Plaintiff versus Brian C. Coberger. The defendant comes
(00:25):
now Brian C. Coburger, buying through his attorneys of record,
and hereby submits the following memorandum in support of his
contemporaneously filed motion for an order suppressing all evidence gathered
by law enforcement as a result of his arrest. Issues one,
This Court should apply Idaho's exclusionary rule and law to
this search. To affidavits submitted in support of the application
(00:48):
for the issued search warrant recklessly or intentionally omitted material information,
mister Colberger has filed a motion for a Frank's hearing,
and without repeating, incorporates that challenge to the search warrant. Three.
The affidavid submitted in support for the application for the
issued search warrant included information that must be excized. A
All information in the Affidavid was gathered because of law
(01:11):
enforcements on constitutional use of investigative genetic genealogy, and thus
nothing in the warrant should remain b Information about the
client's location taken from his phone must also be excised
due to being gathered from an invalid warrant. Facts due
to the haphazard way in which law enforcement, including the
Prosecutor's office, has kept in disclosed records in this matter,
(01:34):
the following is a rough statement of facts as best
the defense can tell. On December twenty eighth, twenty twenty two,
Trooper Larry of Pennsylvania State Police became aware of the
objective of arresting mister Coberger via Moscow Police Corporal Pain.
On December twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, at four forty
(01:54):
four pm Eastern Standard time, a magistrate in Pennsylvania issued
a search warrant for one nineteen Lamsden Drive, Chestnut Hill Township,
Monroe County, the home of mister Colberger's parents. On December
twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, at two twenty two pm,
the magistrate in this matter signed an arrest warrant for
mister Colberger in Leta County. The affid David for the
(02:17):
warrant was signed by Moscow Police Department Corporal Pain. The
basic facts Corporal Pain used to support the arrest or
discussed in detail in a separately filed motion pursuing to
Franks versus Delaware They're incorporated without repeating At two forty
three pm Pacific Standard time on December twenty ninth, twenty
twenty two, a criminal complaint and probable cause order were
(02:38):
filed in this matter. At ten pm Eastern Standard time,
Pennsylvania SWAT began preparations to arrest mister Coburger. Despite days
of constant FBI surveillance, Pennsylvania law enforcement did their own
surveillance starting at eleven fifteen pm, and despite the fact
that days of constant FBI surveillance showed mister Colberger was
(02:58):
unarmed and did to go for runs around his parents' neighborhood,
police decided that force free entering mister Colberger's parents' home
was the best option. On December thirtieth, twenty twenty two,
at one fourteen am, Pennsylvania SWAT rated mister Colberger's parents' home.
During the raid, law enforcement broke the door of the home,
held the entire family at gunpoint, and seized mister Coburger.
(03:21):
Mister Colberger made statements to his arresting officers. He was
transported to a police station in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, and made
statements during transport. At the station, mister Colberger was processed,
during which police collected information about his person. Finally, during
interrogation before requesting an attorney, mister Coburger made statements to
interrogators from the Idaho State Police and Moscow Police Department.
(03:45):
At four am Eastern Standard time on December thirtieth, twenty
twenty three, Pennsylvania State Police filed a criminal complaint against
mister Colberger. The argument one, this court should apply Idaho's
exclusionary rule and law to this search. The first question
this court must determine is whether there is a conflict
of laws in this matter, i e. Whether Idaho law
(04:07):
or Pennsylvania law controls the validity of the arrest warrant
for mister Coberger. Pennsylvania courts require a warrant for a
particular residence to go after a person police are aware
has an arrest warrant. Commonwealth versus Romero, twenty eighteen The
need for a warrant for a fugitive from another state
is codified in forty two Pennsylvania Code section nine one
(04:29):
two eight and nine one two nine. Without a governor's warrant,
an officer can get a judicial warrant to permit entry
into a home. Without either type of warrant, an officer
lacks this authority see forty two Pennsylvania Code, section nine
one three five. This understanding also comports with Payton versus
New York, nineteen eighty. State warrants have no extra territorial
(04:52):
effect state versus Bradley, one oh six, Idaho, nineteen eighty three.
The use of an out of state warrant is ipso facto,
a warrant less entry. Thus, law enforcement in Pennsylvania cannot
rely on the existence of the Idaho arrests warrant to
enter the home. Finally, it must be said that there
is very little daylight between the Idaho constitution and the
(05:12):
Pennsylvania constitution. Both apply exclusion to a failure to knock
and announce see State vers Roush ninety nine, Idaho, nineteen
seventy eight. If anything, Pennsylvania appears to have stricter warrant
requirements for particularity commonwealth. For as Grossman Pennsylvania, nineteen eighty
nine two, the affidavit submitted in support of the application
(05:34):
for the issue search warrant recklessly or intentionally omitted material information.
The Fourth Amendment states on ambiguously that no warrant shall
issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath of affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized Grow versus Ramirez, five forty,
(05:54):
two thousand and four, quoting US Constitution Amendment four. Probable
cause exists given all the circumstances set forth in the
affid David, there is a fair probability that contraband or
evidence of a crime will be found in a particular
place Illinois versus Gates, nineteen eighty three. Because the right
of a man to retreat into his own home and
there to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion stands at
(06:18):
the very core of the Fourth Amendment. Kilo versus Us
five thirty five, two thousand and one, quoting Silverman, United States,
three sixty five, nineteen sixty one. Courts have firmly established
the basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and
seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
(06:39):
For a search warrant to be valid, the judge issuing
the warrant must rely on an affid David or afid
David's sworn to before the judge, or by testimony under
oath and recorded that established the grounds for issuing the warrant.
Any discrepancy between the items for which there was probable
cause and their description in the search warrant requires suppression
(07:00):
criminal procedure and rights of accused Section eight eighty seven,
twenty twenty two. It's clear that the issuing magistrate himself,
if he is to fulfill the constitutionally mandated function of
interposing an independent intelligence between the law enforcement officer and
the citizen, must actually and in fact draw the inferences
from the evidence presented to him. It is for this
(07:23):
reason that the courts have insisted that the full facts
from which inferences might be drawn and information necessary to
determine the reliability be placed before the issuing magistrate. Finally,
a criminal defendant may challenge the veracity of an affidavit
used to obtain such a warrant upon a preliminary showing
of a warrants deficiency, The defendant must prove by a
(07:45):
preponderance of evidence that intentional or reckless falsehoods were included
in the warrant Affidavid and were material to the magistrate's
finding of probable cause, or that material exculpatory information was
deliberately or recklessly omitted. An omission of exculpatory facts is
material only if there is a substantial probability that the
(08:06):
omitted information been presented it would have altered the magistrate's
determination of probable cause. Whether an omission was intentional or
reckless might be inferred in part for the relative importance
of the information and its exculpatory power Idaho at forty eight,
nine eighty one at eleven fifty eight. The challenge pursuant
(08:27):
to this section of the motion is separately laid out
in mister Koberger's motion for hearing under Franks. The motion
and profit are incorporated but not repeated Herein three, the
affid David submitted in support of the application for the
issued search warrant included information that must be excised. Where
information in a warrant was obtained via a violation of
(08:48):
the Constitution. Idaho courts excised that information see State vers. Johnson,
nineteen eighty six, State Verse Bunting, two thousand and six,
State verse. Butterball, two thousand and two. A. All information
in the Affidavid was gathered because of law enforcements on
constitutional use of investigative genetic genealogy, and thus nothing in
(09:10):
the warrant should remain. Mister Kolberger has argued in a
separate motion that the genetic genealogy investigation in this matter
was done in violation of the Constitution. Additionally, he has
argued that there would be no investigation into him without
that original constitutional violation. It is not that the results
of the IgG sped up the investigation. Instead, they focused
(09:33):
the investigation on mister Colberger, a person whose only connection
to the case was his motor transportation and the shape
of his eyebrows, two identifications of little to no value,
as previously argued, as the Idaho Supreme Court has explained,
while the initial burden in showing a factual nexus between
(09:54):
illegality and the evidence, the state must show it would
have been discovered anyway. State versus Mawson, seventy one, twenty two,
the State cannot make this showing. Without IgG, there is
no case, no request for his phone record, surveillance of
his parents' home, no DNA taken from his garbage out front.
Because the IgG analysis is the origin of this matter,
(10:16):
everything in the affid David should be excised. B information
about the client's locations taken from his phone must also
be excised due to being gathered from an invalid warrant. Separately,
the information gathered via the warrant from mister Colberger's AT
and T account and the pen trap and trace device
warrant should be excised for the reasons set out in
(10:36):
the warrants conclusion. Mister Colberger requests this Court suppress all
evidence obtained by police be able to warrant that permitted
them to arrest mister Colberger. As explained above, law enforcement
failed to knock and announce before rating the home, and
the warrant lack probable cause is written given its heavy
reliance on conclusions reached by law enforcement without the details
(10:59):
necessary for the map registrate to draw its own conclusions,
and because the warrant omitted exculpatory information and information that
put into question the reliability of the facts upon which
it relies and finally, because the affid David relied on
evidence gained and violation of the Constitution, all in violation
of the Fourth Amendment and Article one, Section seventeen. This
(11:20):
document was dated November thirteenth, twenty twenty four, and it
was signed by Ann Taylor. All of the information that
goes with this episode, including my contact information, can be
found in the description box.
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.