Motions to Suppress: Insights for Attorneys

What is a Motion to Suppress?

A motion to suppress is a request that the court exclude certain evidence from trial because such evidence was obtained in a manner that violated the defendant’s constitutional rights. A suppression motion is a critical part of any criminal defense attorney’s toolkit, and when done correctly, it can have hugely favorable outcomes for a defendant. A motion to suppress can prevent damaging evidence from being admitted at trial, which can, in turn, lead to an acquittal.

The Purpose of a Suppression Motion

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and is the legal basis of many suppression motions. If a defendant feels they have been subject to an illegal search or seizure, they may file a motion seeking to suppress such evidence. The typical remedy to a Fourth Amendment violation would be to exclude such evidence from trial, a doctrine referred to as the Exclusionary Rule. 

Tangible items are not the only types of evidence that may be the subject of a suppression motion. A defendant’s statements can be suppressed if obtained unlawfully, such as through a coerced confession, and in violation of the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination.

Grounds for Filing a Motion to Suppress

Unlawful searches and seizures

Searches and seizures conducted without a warrant are presumed to be unreasonable. A warrant presented to a magistrate judge must indicate that the police have probable cause to conduct the search. The term “probable cause” basically means the officers have trustworthy evidence that would make a reasonable person think it is more likely than not that the proposed search is justified.

However, in many circumstances, a prior warrant is unnecessary to justify a search and seizure so long as probable cause existed for the warrantless search. For probable cause to search, evidence must show:

• That the specific items to be searched for are connected with criminal activity
• These items will be found in the place to be searched

Stop and Frisks

There are situations in which police recognize that they do not have probable cause to act, but want to stop a suspicious person for preliminary questioning to determine whether a crime is about to occur. From a police perspective, if officers have to wait for probable cause to develop before conducting these preliminary investigations, they would be severely hampered in their efforts to prevent crime. Stop and frisks are considered a species of searches and seizures but are considered minimally intrusive thus establishing the existence of probable cause is not necessary to stop and frisk.

In Terry v. Ohio, the Court created the reasonable suspicion standard to justify these stop and frisks. Because the exigent circumstances justified dispensing with the warrant requirement, the Court concluded that probable cause is not constitutionally required. Instead, the only constitutional test was whether the stop and frisk was reasonable. A search in this context is performed to protect the officer, so is limited to pat-downs and searches of areas within the suspect’s reach.

Miranda Warnings

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Court established extremely specific procedural safeguards which must be followed during custodial police interrogations in order to avoid violation of the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination privilege. Referred to as a Miranda warning, a defendant must be warned that

• They have a right to remain silent
• Any statement may be used as evidence against them
• They have a right to an attorney
• If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided

If Miranda warnings are not given, a defendant may seek to suppress certain statements made to law enforcement.

Chain of Custody Issues

When evidence is seized, law enforcement is responsible for documenting and accounting for that evidence throughout the entirety of the case. If the chain of custody is “broken,” in that the evidence may have been tampered with, a defendant may request suppression of the evidence due to possibility of contamination.

The Process of Filing a Motion to Suppress

Most suppression motions are made before trial. Failure to make a pre-trial motion could in some jurisdictions result in the loss of the claim absent a good reason for the failure. A motion may also need an affidavit from a witness to the underlying facts of the allegations. A motion to exclude evidence that is based on rules of evidence, in advance of the trial, is more commonly called a motion in limine.

Impact on Legal Strategy

If a motion to suppress is granted, the government may dismiss or reduce the charges, depending upon the significance of the evidence. Although a successful suppression motion will not necessarily result in a dismissal of the criminal charges all the time, it can lead to other favorable outcomes. If the government’s case is damaged, they may be amenable to extending a more favorable plea offer. If a defendant proceeds to trial, they are in a better position then they would have been had the evidence been admissible against them.