Federal and state CDs handling drug or firearms prosecutions that open with a traffic stop.

Motion to Suppress, Pretextual Traffic Stop (Selective Enforcement / Equal Protection)

Fourth Amendment + equal-protection motion to suppress evidence from a traffic stop used as a pretext for a narcotics investigation. Whren v. United States + race-selective enforcement doctrine.

Challenge the stop not on Whren's Fourth Amendment ground (which the government wins) but on the equal-protection / selective-enforcement theory, or frame the Whren concession to preserve for circuit challenge.

“the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred”
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996) (Scalia, J.)(opens in new tab)

Order, $97 →

PDF delivered to your inbox.

What this template gives you that a cold WESTLAW search does not.

01.
Not boilerplate: the Whren v. United States and equal-protection authority is source-linked to the opinion so you verify the controlling law before you file; Whren's Fourth Amendment concession is real, and the motion frames the preserved equal-protection + selective-enforcement argument around it.
02.
Discovery demands target the officer's stop pattern data, body-cam policy, and pre-stop radio traffic.
03.
Cross-exam targets the articulated traffic violation: officer's vantage point, lighting, dashcam timeline.

Authorities inside · source-checkable

The controlling authority this template is built on.

Before you buy, see the spine of the deliverable. Verbatim quotes are reproduced word for word from the opinion they cite; any attributed summary is labelled as a summary, never dressed up as a quote. Each entry links to its source so you can confirm it yourself. Nothing is paraphrased into a citation it does not support.

2Controlling authorities cited

2Verbatim opinion quotes

2Checkable source URLs

1Independent source host

Lead controlling authorityVerbatim quote
“the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred”
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996) (Scalia, J.) · 517 U.S. at 810Verify the source
Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures”
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 350 (2015) · 575 U.S. at 350Verify the source

Provenance: every citation above carries a source URL that was fetched and confirmed reachable when the template was authored. A citation without a working source URL does not ship. Counsel of record adapts the motion language to circuit-specific precedent and the facts of the case before filing.

Order intake.

Pretextual Stop Motion, Case details

Delivery email *

Motion template PDF delivered here. Stripe checkout uses this address.

Case identifier *

Do not enter the actual client name. Use any internal identifier, BenchRecon never needs the real name.

Jurisdiction *

Court the matter is pending in. Stamps the brief cover and informs which circuit-level Fourth Amendment doctrine to flag in the motion language.

Firm name (optional)

Billing entity, rendered on the brief cover and included on the invoice when provided.

Privilege handling

Intake data is stored under attorney work-product principles. BenchRecon does not access the intake payload outside of brief generation. Do not enter privileged client communications, defense strategy, or identifying details, submit only the case parameters this form requests.

Charged after you submit. 7-day full refund.

Frequently asked questions.

What does the template contain?

Eight sections: cover (your case identifier + jurisdiction stamped on), scope of motion (constitutional / statutory ground and the doctrine the court must apply), lead controlling authority (verbatim finding + source URL), 2-4 supporting authorities with source URLs, pre-drafted motion language (~250 words editable), reply-brief framework (anticipates the government's expected response), 8-12 cross-examination questions for the testifying officer, and the methods + source URLs bibliography.

Is this legal advice?

No. The template is a research artifact modeled on controlling Fourth Amendment doctrine for this motion type. Counsel of record adapts the motion language to the circuit's specific precedent and the facts of the case before filing.

How fast is delivery?

Stripe checkout completes in seconds; the PDF is emailed to the address you provide. Templates are pre-built, there is no per-case data pipeline running.

Do you cite anything I cannot independently verify?

No. Every citation in every template carries a source URL. Lead authorities are United States Supreme Court opinions. Supporting authorities are binding circuit precedent, all linked to CourtListener or official government sources. A citation without a working source URL does not ship.

Refund policy?

7-day full refund, no questions asked.