Motion to Suppress

Motion to Suppress: A Critical Tool in Legal Defense

A motion to suppress is a formal request made to a court, typically in a criminal case, seeking to exclude certain evidence from being introduced at trial. The basis for this motion is that the evidence in question was obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Fifth Amendment, which safeguards the right against self-incrimination, can also be used in a motion to suppress. When successful, a motion to suppress can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case and, in some instances, result in the dismissal of charges altogether.

Legal Grounds for a Motion to Suppress

The primary legal grounds for a motion to suppress often arise from constitutional violations during the investigation or arrest process. Common grounds include:

Fourth Amendment Violations

The most frequent basis for a motion to suppress is a claim that evidence was obtained through an unlawful search or seizure. Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officers must obtain a warrant before conducting a search or seizure. However, several exceptions exist, such as searches incident to arrest, plain view doctrine, consent searches, and exigent circumstances. If the search does not fall under one of these exceptions and was conducted without a valid warrant, the evidence gathered may be suppressed.

Fifth Amendment Violations

Statements or confessions made during police interrogations may be excluded if they were obtained in violation of the defendant’s Miranda rights. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right against self-incrimination, and police must inform individuals of their rights (the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney) before conducting a custodial interrogation. If these warnings were not given, or if the defendant did not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive these rights, any resulting statements may be suppressed.

Sixth Amendment Violations

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel. If law enforcement continues to interrogate a suspect after they have invoked their right to an attorney, any statements obtained thereafter may be subject to suppression. If you are at this stage of the legal process in California, then you need to access the services of experienced federal criminal defense lawyer Nate Crowley.

The Exclusionary Rule and Fruits of the Poisonous Tree

The exclusionary rule is the legal principle underlying the motion to suppress. It provides that evidence obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights is inadmissible at trial. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct by removing the incentive to violate constitutional rights.

Closely related to this is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, which mandates that not only must illegally obtained evidence be excluded, but also any additional evidence derived from that initial illegality. For example, if an unlawful search leads to the discovery of incriminating documents, those documents—as well as any evidence obtained as a result of analyzing those documents—are typically inadmissible unless an exception applies.

Procedure for Filing a Motion to Suppress

A motion to suppress is typically filed by the defense before the trial begins. The motion must be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, which outlines the legal arguments and cites relevant case law. The defense must also include an affidavit or declaration setting forth the facts that support the motion, such as a description of how the search was conducted or how the statements were obtained.

Once the motion is filed, the court usually holds a suppression hearing. During the hearing, both sides present evidence and argue their positions. The burden is initially on the defense to make a prima facie showing that the search or seizure was illegal, after which the burden shifts to the prosecution to justify the legality of the search. Witnesses, including law enforcement officers, may be called to testify, and physical evidence may be introduced.

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

While the exclusionary rule is a powerful tool for the defense, there are exceptions that may allow the evidence to be admitted despite a constitutional violation. These include:

• Good Faith Exception: If law enforcement officers acted in good faith reliance even while using a defective search warrant, the evidence may still be admissible.
• Inevitable Discovery Doctrine: If the prosecution can demonstrate that the evidence would have been discovered by lawful means, even without the illegal search or seizure, it may still be admitted.
• Independent Source Doctrine: If evidence was obtained from a source independent of the illegal search, it may not be subject to suppression.

A motion to suppress is a critical mechanism in criminal defense, serving as a check on law enforcement’s adherence to constitutional protections, which means that your federal criminal defense lawyer must be completely familiar with all aspects of your case, and the law. By challenging the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence, federal criminal defense attorney Nate Crowley can safeguard their clients’ rights and ensure that only lawfully gathered evidence is used at trial.

Filing A Motion for a Criminal Court Case? Contact Defense Lawyer Nate Crowley.

Fill out our contact form on the Home Page https://www.natecrowleylaw.com/
Phone (619) 202-8188 OR email admin@crowleycrowleylaw.com