Suppression Motions

By: Darren Kavinoky | Posted: 08th June 2006

Suppression Motions



Suppression motions are a valuable tool in a DUI case because when evidence can be excluded, the prosecutor's case is weakened. Suppression follows the rule of law that evidence secured by illegal means and in bad faith cannot be introduced in a criminal trial. The technical term is that it is "excluded" upon a motion to suppress made by the lawyer for the accused. It is based on the constitutional requirement that "…no [person] can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, applied to the states by the 14th Amendment). Additionally, even other evidence may be excluded based on the doctrine of "fruit of the poisonous tree." In criminal law, this doctrine states that evidence discovered due to information found through illegal search or other unconstitutional means (such as an illegal roadblock) may not be introduced by a prosecutor. The theory is that the tree (original illegal evidence) is poisoned and thus taints what grows from it. For example, if a person is arrested for a DUI at an illegal roadblock, the evidence of that person's DUI, namely the field sobriety tests and chemical tests, may be excluded. Since evidence of the roadblock may not be introduced at trial, neither can the field sobriety tests or chemical tests



In a DUI / DWI case, a suppression motion will generally address probable cause for the stop, the results of the chemical tests administered to determine blood alcohol content (BAC), results of the field sobriety tests, statements made by the defendant, or all the above. In addition, the procedures of the chemical test may give rise to a suppression motion, such as where the proper procedures were not followed. If this occurs, evidence gained as a result of the suppressed test would also be suppressed, such as observations that occurred during the administration of the test. The evidence to be suppressed may include the symptoms of intoxication observed by the arresting officer, including slurring of speech and stumbling or leaning on the vehicle for support.



A motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment focuses on illegal search and seizure. To assert a Fourth Amendment claim, the defendant must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched or the items seized, that was violated by police. Observations that result from a Fourth amendment violation are subject to suppression under Penal Code Section 1538.5. Statements or testimony obtained as the result of an unlawful detention, arrest, or search are also subject to suppression. A motion is a formal legal document asking the court to take a particular action. A motion to suppress can be brought on several different grounds and in several different situations. A motion to suppress is a motion in limine. A motion in limine is a motion made at the start of a trial requesting that the judge rule that certain evidence may not be introduced in trial. This is most common in criminal trials where evidence is subject to constitutional limitations. Motions to suppress evidence must be in writing and heard before the commencement of trial.



In misdemeanor cases, which most DUI cases are, defense counsel will set a date for a hearing to suppress evidence at the arraignment, commonly known as a 1538.5 motion, before trial. The motion must be in writing and accompanied by points and authorities and proof of service, with at least ten court days before the proposed hearing.



In felony cases, a motion to suppress may be made at the preliminary hearing only if defense counsel has personally served the prosecution with a written motion, accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities, at least five court days before the hearing, if the case is initially heard in a misdemeanor court and ten days if the hearing will be in a felony court. A memorandum of points and authorities is a written argument citing precedents and statutes.



Generally, in order for police to search a person or their vehicle, there must be a warrant supported by probable cause. Probable cause can also be defined as "reasonable cause," meaning that the officer has a strong suspicion that the person they are stopping has committed a crime. In DUI cases, a warrant is not required for the officer to make an initial stop, because the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that if there is probable cause, such as a traffic violation, then a brief investigatory stop is allowed in order to advise and/or issue a citation. Probable cause for a traffic stop can be established by any California Vehicle Code violation. Therefore, it is unlawful for a law enforcement officer to stop a car in order to determine whether the driver can produce a valid license and registration. It is also unlawful to stop a vehicle in the anticipation of discovering a Vehicle Code violation or other contraband, such as drugs, when no actual probable cause has presented itself to the officer before the stop. However, the violation of the Vehicle Code must have occurred in the officer's presence, which is the requirement for all misdemeanors, with the exception of an anonymous or called in tip reporting a drunk driver on the road.



Several exceptions exist in a driving under the influence case. A police officer may make an arrest for a DUI violation when the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the suspect has been driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage and/or drugs, if: the driver is involved in a traffic accident; the driver's vehicle is obstructing the roadway; and if the driver may cause injury unless he is immediately put into custody. In another common situation, a police officer may make an arrest for DUI based on the information provided by a reliable third party, such as when the officer receives a call that a person appears to be driving while intoxicated. However, the tip must be reliable and credible and supported at trial, or else the judge will find the tip to be unreliable and exclude it. However, it often takes a defense lawyer's motion to suppress in order for this to happen.
About the Author
{if $articleAuthor->occupation}
Occupation: {$articleAuthor->occupation}
{/if}
{$articleAuthor->biography}
{if $articleAuthor->website}
{$articleAuthor->website}
{/if}
This article is free for republishing
Printed From: http://www.goinglegal.com/suppression-motions-61317.html

Back to the original article

Tags: bad faith, valuable tool, intoxication, field sobriety tests, roadblock, blood alcohol content, dui case