One of the most powerful tools in criminal defense is the suppression motion—a legal mechanism to exclude evidence obtained in violation of your constitutional rights. Understanding how suppression works, when it applies, and how to use it effectively can mean the difference between conviction and dismissal of charges.
This page explains the exclusionary rule, what evidence can be suppressed, the grounds for suppression motions, and how suppression motions work in New York courts.
The exclusionary rule is a constitutional principle that prohibits prosecutors from using evidence obtained in violation of your rights. If police obtain evidence illegally—through an unlawful search, illegal arrest, or Miranda violation—that evidence cannot be used against you at trial. The exclusionary rule is enforced through a suppression motion, where your attorney asks the court to exclude the illegally obtained evidence.
The exclusionary rule is based on several constitutional protections:
Case References: Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule applies to states); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda rights)
The most common ground for suppression is an unlawful search. Police need either a warrant or a valid exception to the warrant requirement to search your person, property, vehicle, or home.
Police conducted a search of your home, apartment, vehicle, purse, backpack, phone, or body. Searches of your home require a warrant in virtually all cases. Searches of vehicles have more exceptions but still generally require either a warrant or valid exception.
Even if police had a warrant, the warrant may be invalid if it was issued without probable cause, was overly broad, was executed improperly, or was issued without proper judicial authorization.
Police may argue they didn’t need a warrant because of an exception. Common exceptions include consent, incident to arrest, emergency/exigent circumstances, plain view, and the vehicle exception. These exceptions are strictly interpreted by courts, and prosecutors must prove the exception applies. If they cannot, the search is unlawful and evidence is suppressible.
For an arrest to be lawful, police must have probable cause to believe you committed a crime. If police arrested you without probable cause, the arrest is unlawful, and any evidence obtained as a result is suppressible (the “fruit of the poisonous tree”).
Police must inform you of your Miranda rights before any custodial interrogation. If they fail to do so, any statements you make are suppressible. You have the right to remain silent, know that anything you say can be used against you in court, have an attorney present during questioning, and have a court-appointed attorney if you cannot afford one.
CPL Reference: CPL § 60.45 (Admissibility of statements); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Once you request an attorney, police must stop all questioning and honor your request. If they continue questioning after you’ve asked for a lawyer, any statements you make are suppressible.
This doctrine means that evidence derived from an initial illegal search or seizure is also suppressible. For example, if police illegally search your home and find a key to a safe, both the initial discovery of the key and the drugs in the safe are suppressible because they all stem from the illegal search.
Your attorney files a written motion with the court (CPL § 710.20) requesting that specific evidence be suppressed. The motion must identify the specific evidence to be suppressed, explain the legal grounds for suppression (e.g., illegal search, Miranda violation), cite applicable law (Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, CPL sections), and provide factual basis for the suppression claim.
A suppression hearing is held where the judge decides whether the evidence was obtained lawfully. Here’s how it works: the prosecution must prove that the evidence was obtained lawfully, usually through police officer testimony about how they obtained the evidence. Your attorney cross-examines police to expose problems with their testimony. Your attorney may call witnesses or present evidence supporting the suppression claim. The judge then decides whether the evidence is admissible or suppressible.
If the judge grants the suppression motion, the evidence is excluded and cannot be used against you at trial. Often, suppression of key evidence leads to dismissal of charges, significant weakening of the prosecution’s case, or favorable plea negotiations.
If the judge denies the suppression motion, the evidence is admissible and can be used at trial. However, you can appeal the denial after conviction, still challenge the evidence at trial through cross-examination, and continue to argue the evidence is unreliable or insufficient.
Suppression motions must be filed before trial in most cases. Pre-trial suppression motions are typically filed within 30 days of arraignment. The hearing is held and motion decided before trial begins. Experienced defense attorneys file suppression motions as early as possible to give the court time to consider the legal arguments and hold a hearing.
Even if a suppression motion is denied, the cross-examination of police during the suppression hearing can damage their credibility and expose weaknesses in their testimony for trial. A strong suppression motion can convince the prosecutor that their case is weaker than they thought, leading to favorable plea negotiations or even dismissal. Filing a suppression motion and creating a record of the hearing preserves issues for appeal if you’re convicted. The suppression hearing requires police to testify under oath about how evidence was obtained, which gives your attorney a chance to lock in police testimony and identify inconsistencies that can be used at trial.
Yes. A warrant doesn’t shield police from suppression if the warrant was obtained improperly (based on false statements, lacking probable cause, overly broad) or if it was executed improperly (searched beyond its scope, wrong location, etc.).
Consent is a valid exception to the warrant requirement, but only if it was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. If police coerced you, threatened you, or you didn’t actually understand what you were consenting to, the consent is invalid and the search is suppressible. Never consent to a search. Always say “I do not consent to any search.”
Yes, if the traffic stop itself was unlawful. Police can only pull you over if they have reasonable suspicion that you committed a traffic violation or crime. If there was no lawful basis for the stop, any evidence discovered during or after the stop (drugs, weapons, etc.) may be suppressible as fruit of the poisonous tree.
If police had a valid reason to search one area but expanded the search to areas not justified by the warrant or exception, the expanded search is unlawful. Evidence found in the unlawfully expanded area is suppressible.
Suppression motions are complex and require detailed legal knowledge and courtroom experience. An experienced attorney will spot weaknesses in how police obtained evidence that a defendant might miss. Your attorney will conduct aggressive cross-examination of police to expose contradictions and problems. Your attorney will cite recent case law and constitutional precedent to support the suppression motion. Your attorney will know when to file the motion and how to use it strategically. Your attorney will create a clear record for appeal if the motion is denied.
If you’ve been arrested and believe evidence was obtained illegally, contact Parker MacKay immediately. Early identification of suppression issues can result in dismissal of charges or significant weakening of the prosecution’s case. With experience in felony cases, complex Fourth Amendment issues, and appellate work, Parker MacKay will aggressively challenge unlawful searches and seizures.
Bilingual representation available (English & Spanish)
Learn more about your criminal defense rights:
This page is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult with a qualified criminal defense attorney licensed in New York for legal advice on your specific situation.
Whether you are facing criminal charges, a complex business dispute, or need to protect a hard-won result on appeal, we bring the trial-tested experience your case demands.