Reasons a Court May Suppress Evidence

Your attorney should know how to suppress evidence against you if your
constitutional rights have been violated. Here are some common reasons a court
may suppress evidence:

Unlawful Search and Seizure: The Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful
search and seizure applies to many situations involving police officers, including
routine traffic stops and visits to your home. With some important exceptions, police
must have a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant, or probable cause that a
crime has been committed in order to search for and gather evidence.
Failure to Read Miranda Rights: The law requires that officers read Miranda rights
to a suspect in custody prior to their questioning or interrogation. These rights
inform the suspect that she has the right to remain silent, that anything she says
may be used against her in court, and that she has the right to an attorney. If the
suspect has not been read his rights, confessions or statements made after the
arrest may not be admissible. See Miranda Rights and the Fifth Amendment for
specific details on how this right works.
Chain of Custody Errors: The chain of custody refers to the documentation and
proper care of evidence, from its seizure by police to its presentation at trial. If the
chain of custody is broken, the evidence may lack credibility and could be deemed
inadmissible. For example, a woman involved in a car crash has her blood drawn
(with a warrant) to see if she was intoxicated while driving. But the police mislabel
or mix up the blood evidence with others at the lab. This evidence may be
suppressed because the chain of custody was improper.
Exceptions to the Rule

There are certain instances where evidence may still be admissible even when
police overstep the boundaries or fail to follow protocol, including the following
exceptions:

Inevitable Discovery: If the judge rules that an illegally seized piece of evidence
eventually would have been discovered through legal means, it may be admitted.
For instance, an officer illegally enters a suspects home and finds a cocaine lab.
The occupant already was a suspect and police were about to request a search
warrant for his home. If a judge concludes that a normal police investigation would

have likely uncovered that same evidence without the illegal entry, the evidence
may be admissible.
Good Faith: If an officer has every reason to believe he is acting within the limits of
the law, then some procedural errors may be overlooked. For example, police
search a suspect's home based on what they honestly and reasonably believed to
be a valid search warrant. Unfortunately, the warrant suffered from a technical legal
defect that police were unaware of. Since the police acted in good faith, the
evidence derived from the search warrant may not necessarily be excluded in court.
If police had known about the defect (or should have known), then the evidence
may still be excluded.b
Independent Source: If a source (other than the officer who illegally seized
evidence) would have provided that same evidence, a court may rule it admissible.
This is similar to the inevitable discovery exception. For example, police illegally
search a suspects home and find documents showing that she is the mastermind of
a large-scale Internet scam. But later that day, an informant sends the same
documents to the police. The evidence may be admissible, since an independent
source provided the same evidence.