What is a Motion to Suppress?
In Illinois, a motion to suppress evidence is a legal request made by a defendant to exclude certain evidence from being presented at trial. The purpose of this motion is to challenge the admissibility of evidence that was obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights, such as the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
When filing a motion to suppress evidence, the defendant or their attorney argues that the evidence in question was obtained through an illegal search or seizure, and therefore, it should be excluded from the trial. If the court grants the motion, the prosecution will be prohibited from presenting the suppressed evidence during the trial, which can significantly weaken the prosecution's case.
Richard Waller is an experienced attorney who knows what issues to look for when filing a motion to suppress evidence through a combination of legal knowledge, experience, and a thorough understanding of the facts and circumstances of the case. Some common issues that may lead to a successful motion to suppress evidence in Illinois include:
Lack of Probable Cause: The defense may argue that the law enforcement officer lacked sufficient probable cause to conduct a search or seizure. If the officer did not have a reasonable belief that a crime had been committed or was being committed, the evidence obtained as a result of that search or seizure could be suppressed.
Violation of Search Warrant Requirements: If the evidence was obtained through a search warrant, the defense may argue that the warrant was improperly issued or executed. This can include issues such as the lack of a valid warrant, an overly broad search, or a failure to comply with the specific requirements outlined in the warrant.
Consent: The defense may argue that the defendant's consent to the search was not freely and voluntarily given or that the scope of the search exceeded the scope of the consent.
Miranda Rights Violation: If the defendant's statements or confessions were obtained in violation of their Miranda rights (the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney), the defense may argue that these statements should be suppressed as evidence.
Violation of the Exclusionary Rule: If the evidence was obtained through an illegal search or seizure, the defense may argue that it should be suppressed as a remedy to deter future constitutional violations by law enforcement.
It's important to note that the specific issues to look for in a motion to suppress evidence can vary depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Richard Waller would carefully review the evidence, police reports, and other relevant documentation to identify potential constitutional violations and build a strong argument for the motion to suppress.
