Constitutional Rights Litigation

During one trial, a judge had a Freudian slip and referred to Mr. Merchant as "Mr. Motions"—a comment earned by his reputation for the sheer number of constitutional challenges he raised in rapid succession. The nickname stuck because it reflects the core of his practice: rigorous, relentless litigation of constitutional rights at every stage of a criminal case. When the government oversteps, whether through an unlawful search, coercive interrogation, due-process violation, or improper evidentiary shortcut, Mr. Merchant challenges it—fully, strategically, and without hesitation.

Constitutional rights define the limits of state power. Mr. Merchant's litigation focuses on enforcing those limits through motions to suppress, motions to dismiss, evidentiary challenges, and trial-based constitutional objections that often determine the outcome of the case long before the jury deliberates.

Challenging Unlawful Searches and Seizures

Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 7 litigation is a substantial part of Mr. Merchant's practice. He routinely challenges government conduct that infringes on Washington's broad constitutional right to privacy, including:

Unconstitutional Search Warrants

Mr. Merchant scrutinizes the foundation of every search warrant—probable cause, informant credibility, nexus to the place searched, and whether officers exceeded the warrant's scope. He has litigated suppression motions where warrants were invalid, overly broad, or supported by misleading or incomplete affidavits. Washington's constitution often provides greater privacy protection than the federal standard, and Mr. Merchant leverages that distinction to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence.

Stops and Seizures Without Reasonable Suspicion

Officers cannot detain citizens based on hunches or generalized suspicion. Mr. Merchant challenges stops rooted in vague observations, racial profiling, or pretextual policing, forcing the State to justify every element of the stop under objective constitutional standards.

Arrests Without Probable Cause

When officers arrest first and justify later, Mr. Merchant aggressively seeks dismissal or suppression. He challenges arrests unsupported by concrete evidence or based solely on uncorroborated accusations, ensuring the Fourth Amendment's probable-cause requirement remains meaningful.

Cell Phone Searches and Digital Privacy

Mr. Merchant is particularly experienced in litigating unlawful digital searches. He has challenged warrantless device searches, overbroad warrants that violate Washington's heightened privacy protections, and investigative techniques that fail to respect the constitutional sanctity of personal electronic data. In the modern era, digital privacy is a constitutional battleground—and Mr. Merchant treats it as such.

Miranda Violations and the Right Against Self-Incrimination

The right against self-incrimination is not theoretical—it is a shield that protects individuals during police interrogation. Mr. Merchant litigates Miranda violations under both the federal Constitution and Washington's more protective state constitution.

His work includes motions addressing:

• Failure to provide qualified interpreters during interrogation, rendering statements involuntary
• Use of jail calls without advising inmates their words would be recorded and weaponized at trial
• Heightened protections for juveniles, including whether youthfulness requires additional warnings or safeguards under Washington law
• Coercive interrogation tactics, including promises of leniency, threats, and prolonged questioning

Washington courts often interpret the state constitution to provide broader protection than the federal Fifth Amendment. Mr. Merchant's litigation is built on that principle, resulting in suppression of statements that would otherwise have been used unfairly against the accused.

Confrontation Clause Litigation: Ensuring the Right to Face Accusers

The right to confrontation is central to the integrity of the adversarial system. Mr. Merchant has extensively litigated confrontation clause challenges under both the Sixth Amendment and Article I, Section 22.

His work includes:

Preventing the State From Replacing Live Testimony With 911 Calls

Prosecutors often attempt to admit 911 recordings instead of presenting the alleged victim in court. Mr. Merchant has repeatedly prevented this—forcing the State to bring witnesses to court, swear under oath, face cross-examination, and submit to credibility assessment by the jury.

Blocking Testimony From Forensic Nurse Examiners When Victims Do Not Testify

Washington's constitution provides stronger confrontation rights than the federal Constitution. Mr. Merchant has litigated cases where forensic nurses attempted to relay the alleged victim's statements despite the victim being unavailable for cross-examination. Through constitutional challenges, he has excluded such testimony, safeguarding the right to face one's accuser.

Due Process Litigation

Due process is violated when the government imposes criminal punishment without fair procedures, adequate notice, or constitutionally sound legal standards. Mr. Merchant has litigated numerous due-process challenges, including:

• Whether strict liability in unlawful possession of firearm cases violates due process, given the uniquely harsh penalties and lack of mens rea
• Speedy trial violations, where government delay undermines fairness and prejudice to the defense
• Challenges to arbitrary charging decisions, prosecutorial overreach, and unfair trial procedures

Jury Instruction Litigation and Structural Constitutional Issues

Mr. Merchant also litigates constitutional questions that arise through jury instructions and sentencing.

Jury Nullification

He has raised the issue of whether juries in Washington possess a constitutional right to nullification—the power to acquit even when the State proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While controversial, this question concerns core constitutional principles: the jury's independence and the limits of state power.

Sentencing Below the Standard Range

Mr. Merchant has challenged whether Washington's constitution permits judges to impose lenient sentences below the legislatively mandated standard range when justice so requires. His advocacy emphasizes that constitutional principles must constrain legislative overreach, even in sentencing.