As in this case, when a defendant moves to suppress evidence alleging that the State has exceeded its authority pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, the burden of articulating facts sufficient to demonstrate the possible illegality of the search or seizure rests with the defendant. State v. Desjardins, 401 A.2d 165, 169 (Me.1979) (“[T]he suppression movant must articulate in his motion with sufficient particularity the specific reason on which he bases his claim that the seizure without warrant was illegal .... ”). [¶ 7] Once a defendant satisfies the burden of going forward, the responsibility for the burden of persuasion depends upon the specific nature of the challenge to the search or seizure. See, e.g., Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978) (<HOLDING>); State v. Rand, 430 A.2d 808, 817 (Me.1981)
holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that the validity of the arrest does not depend on whether the suspect actually committed a crime the mere fact that the subject is later acquitted of the offense for which he is arrested is irrelevant to the validity of the arrest holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding that a defendant may challenge the validity of prior convictions during a sentencing hearing and that the burden to establish invalidity is on the challenging party