In a wide-ranging motion, Taylor's lawyer is seeking to at least suppress any statements Taylor made when he was arrested and to rule out any evidence taken from him.
Taylor, 51, was expected in court Tuesday, when state Supreme Court Justice William Kelly could discuss and rule on the motion.
The former NFL MVP is accused of having sex with a 16-year-old prostitute in a suburban New York hotel room in May. He allegedly paid the Bronx runaway $300. He has pleaded not guilty to third-degree rape, patronizing a prostitute, sexual abuse and endangering a child.
Defense attorney Arthur Aidala's motion alleges that Taylor's arrest violated his rights. It says he was "alone, sleeping in his hotel room" when police entered without a warrant and without his permission.
Rockland County prosecutors were expected to address the motion Tuesday. The district attorney's response motion was due last week but the office said Monday it was not available.
Aidala's motion asks the judge to dismiss the indictment, suppress all evidence, suppress any Taylor statements, prohibit the identification of Taylor at trial and prohibit any cross-examination of Taylor about any "past crimes or bad acts."
It also asks the judge to examine the grand jury minutes because Taylor believes that will show "the illegality and insufficency of the evidence."
Court papers in a related case say Taylor admitted to sex acts with the girl but was told she was 19.
Such a sweeping motion, known as an "omnibus" motion, is often used early in a case by a defense team to learn as much about the prosecution's evidence as possible.
Taylor, who led the New York Giants to Super Bowl titles in 1987 and 1991, was arrested May 6 after the girl's uncle contacted New York City police. Officers from Ramapo woke him at a Holiday Inn in Montebello.
The motion says police "did not have a warrant based on probable cause to either arrest Mr. Taylor or conduct a search and seizure" and that the circumstances did not allow entry without a warrant.
"No lives were in danger, nor was the defendant's escape imminent," it says.
Aidala claims that makes any seizure of property improper and anything Taylor said to a public official inadmissible, even if he was read his rights.
After the previous court session in October, Aidala said the case would probably go to trial but he would likely listen to any plea agreement offered by the prosecution.